Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 77 posts

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#21

Post by rdl »

tptacek wrote: post #19
rdl wrote: post #8

This is the part where tptacek says CISPA doesn't do anything particularly bad vs. the state of law now, other people express fairly emotional vs. fact based arguments about what bad it could do, and no one (in industry or government or watchdog groups) really knows for sure what CISPA would, in practice, mean, right?

I don't understand why you think CISPA is hard to parse. The 2013 draft bill is public. The bill is extraordinarily short. And much of the objections --- which you rightly call out as emotional --- are contradicted by the text of the bill. I don't so much care whether CISPA passes. What I do care about is people trying to fundraise by convincing willfully ignorant nerds that CISPA is a backdoor SOPA bill; why, just l…

The reason it's hard to parse is that random amendments can be added late in the game which totally change the meaning of the law (of course, they could be added to any bill). And, I was trying to be charitable.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#22

Post by tptacek »

deepblueocean wrote: post #15
rdl wrote: post #8

This is the part where tptacek says CISPA doesn't do anything particularly bad vs. the state of law now, other people express fairly emotional vs. fact based arguments about what bad it could do, and no one (in industry or government or watchdog groups) really knows for sure what CISPA would, in practice, mean, right?

Nah. It's bad. Here's a simple argument that covers just one part of the bill. CISPA would give a safe harbor from other privacy rules to companies that share information with the government as long as that information is about "cyber threats". Now, let's say someone breaks into your database server and you're at a company with not-too-skilled IT people. The government shows up and says "hey, what can you tell us abo…

That is in fact more or less what the law allows firms to do: when their database is compromised, they are allowed to cooperate with other service providers and with law enforcement to track down what actually happened to their systems without spending $50,000 to ensure that they aren't violating, say, DPPA.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#23

Post by tptacek »

rdl wrote: post #21
tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why you think CISPA is hard to parse. The 2013 draft bill is public. The bill is extraordinarily short. And much of the objections --- which you rightly call out as emotional --- are contradicted by the text of the bill. I don't so much care whether CISPA passes. What I do care about is people trying to fundraise by convincing willfully ignorant nerds that CISPA is a backdoor SOPA bill; why, just l…

The reason it's hard to parse is that random amendments can be added late in the game which totally change the meaning of the law (of course, they could be added to any bill). And, I was trying to be charitable.

It's funny you should mention that. Random amendments were in fact added to CISPA 2012. They did things like, for instance, ensuring that terms of services violations wouldn't constitute cyberthreats, or making it clear that bill wasn't intended to stop piracy.

The amendments are public too. You can actually read them.

As you can see, I'm not very charitable about this. Nerds are to online regulation what the Michigan Militia is to gun control. I respect and defer to fact-based objections to CISPA, but I have no patience for the (large set of) people who simply make things up about it to try to win arguments.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#24

Post by tptacek »

rpedroso wrote: post #9
tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it "disgusting"?

Because CISPA's definition of a "cybersecurity" threat is too broad. One of the vague terms it employs is "unauthorized access" -- a term we have seen abused recently in the cases of Aaron Swartz and Weev. My fear is that, like the PATRIOT act, CISPA will grant overly-broad powers to intelligence agencies that will be employed for general surveillance. My view is that any law that curtails liberty should do so minima…

You just made an argument that is directly contradicted by the text of the bill.

    ‘(B) EXCLUSION.— Such term does not 
    23 include information pertaining to efforts to gain 
    24 unauthorized access to a system or network of 
    25 a government or private entity that solely in
    1 volve violations of consumer terms of service or 
    2 consumer licensing agreements and do not oth-
    3 erwise constitute unauthorized access.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#25

Post by tptacek »

msandford wrote: post #7
tptacek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it "disgusting"?

Like all new laws this one will be sold one way and used another -- likely very expansionary -- way. For example the Patriot Act was sold as a thing that would only be used to catch terrorists. It's total terrorist-catching prosecutions to date is trivial, zero to a few. But it's still getting used quite a bit. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/us/us-uses-terror-law-to-p... http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-573155.…

If the text of the bill doesn't matter, the text of every other privacy-related bill doesn't matter either, and we can skip all these pointless arguments and let them pass SOPA. After all, they're just going to use milk safety regulations to combat piracy.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#26

Post by rdl »

tptacek wrote: post #23
rdl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason it's hard to parse is that random amendments can be added late in the game which totally change the meaning of the law (of course, they could be added to any bill). And, I was trying to be charitable.

It's funny you should mention that. Random amendments were in fact added to CISPA 2012. They did things like, for instance, ensuring that terms of services violations wouldn't constitute cyberthreats, or making it clear that bill wasn't intended to stop piracy. The amendments are public too. You can actually read them. As you can see, I'm not very charitable about this. Nerds are to online regulation what the Michiga…

There's a legitimate reason for the Internet Hate Machine to try to preempt bad law -- it takes a long time to power it up, and sometimes bad law is forced through quickly. The forcing through bad laws with minimal public comment and debate (epitomized by PATRIOT) is the real problem, there, though. There is no possible argument that CISPA, SOPA, or PIPA issues are so pressing as to not allow a reasonable period for commentary and debate.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#27

Post by tptacek »

rdl wrote: post #26
tptacek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny you should mention that. Random amendments were in fact added to CISPA 2012. They did things like, for instance, ensuring that terms of services violations wouldn't constitute cyberthreats, or making it clear that bill wasn't intended to stop piracy. The amendments are public too. You can actually read them. As you can see, I'm not very charitable about this. Nerds are to online regulation what the Michiga…

There's a legitimate reason for the Internet Hate Machine to try to preempt bad law -- it takes a long time to power it up, and sometimes bad law is forced through quickly. The forcing through bad laws with minimal public comment and debate (epitomized by PATRIOT) is the real problem, there, though. There is no possible argument that CISPA, SOPA, or PIPA issues are so pressing as to not allow a reasonable period for…

I feel like I'm being charitable by discussing CISPA as if it was somehow similar to SOPA or PIPA, because CISPA has nothing whatsoever to do with SOPA or PIPA.

I do not have a problem with people who generally oppose Internet regulation of all sorts (I don't agree, but I don't make fun of them either).

I do have a problem with "Internet Hate Machines" of all sorts. You are not entitled to invoke principles to deploy bad facts.

Have you read the 2013 House CISPA amendments. I have. They're public. I'm guessing, no, right? Are you a gambling man? Would you like to bet me how agreeable they are relative to the text of the bill itself? The 2012 CISPA amendments tightened and restricted the act. What do you think the new 2013 amendments do?

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#28

Post by crisnoble »

tptacek wrote: post #19
rdl wrote: post #8

This is the part where tptacek says CISPA doesn't do anything particularly bad vs. the state of law now, other people express fairly emotional vs. fact based arguments about what bad it could do, and no one (in industry or government or watchdog groups) really knows for sure what CISPA would, in practice, mean, right?

I don't understand why you think CISPA is hard to parse. The 2013 draft bill is public. The bill is extraordinarily short. And much of the objections --- which you rightly call out as emotional --- are contradicted by the text of the bill. I don't so much care whether CISPA passes. What I do care about is people trying to fundraise by convincing willfully ignorant nerds that CISPA is a backdoor SOPA bill; why, just l…

Any willfully ignorant nerds should read the bill's text, which is available here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h624/text

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#29

Post by rdl »

tptacek wrote: post #27
rdl wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a legitimate reason for the Internet Hate Machine to try to preempt bad law -- it takes a long time to power it up, and sometimes bad law is forced through quickly. The forcing through bad laws with minimal public comment and debate (epitomized by PATRIOT) is the real problem, there, though. There is no possible argument that CISPA, SOPA, or PIPA issues are so pressing as to not allow a reasonable period for…

I feel like I'm being charitable by discussing CISPA as if it was somehow similar to SOPA or PIPA, because CISPA has nothing whatsoever to do with SOPA or PIPA. I do not have a problem with people who generally oppose Internet regulation of all sorts (I don't agree, but I don't make fun of them either). I do have a problem with "Internet Hate Machines" of all sorts. You are not entitled to invoke principles to deploy…

The connection between SOPA/PIPA and CISPA goes the other way; anti-SOPA/PIPA entities are using CISPA to fundraise and influenceraise, independent of the reality of CISPA.

The only amendments I've read about in 2013 are PII removal and removing the "national security" terms, both of which are civil liberties enhancements. (although I don't know where to find the actual text of the amendments). The 2012 amendments were improvements to baseline CISPA (especially the ToS vs. CTI clarification, which was my only real objection to CISPA originally). I do not think I'd take your bet; the probability of something bad being attached is low, but if something bad is attached, it's high severity, so moderate risk. You'd give odds based on probability and I'd want based on expected-harm.

Re: IHM. Reasonable people don't really win at politics. Look at how AARP/etc. essentially eviscerate anyone who thinks of touching Medicare or SS. Thus, horrible public policy (wealth transfers from the poor and young to the old and wealthy!) persists in the face of all logic. That it does shows how effective their lobbying/rabble-rousing strategy is.

Civil libertarians tend to err on the other side, for "what would be best for society", and end up with all kinds of bad stuff happening to them.

I'm ok with "ends justify means" in this case -- if "means" is "make everyone in Congress terrified of any cyber-laws which aren't explicitly and transparently improvements to individual privacy and freedom."

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#30

Post by anoncow »

crisnoble wrote: post #28
tptacek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why you think CISPA is hard to parse. The 2013 draft bill is public. The bill is extraordinarily short. And much of the objections --- which you rightly call out as emotional --- are contradicted by the text of the bill. I don't so much care whether CISPA passes. What I do care about is people trying to fundraise by convincing willfully ignorant nerds that CISPA is a backdoor SOPA bill; why, just l…

Any willfully ignorant nerds should read the bill's text, which is available here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/113-h624/text

Can you link me to a layman version?
Post reply on HN