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

I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#31

Post by patio11 »

tptacek wrote: post #30
bryanh wrote: post #24

kn0thing is a stellar spokesperson for the hacker community. I am curious though, how did this (you becoming a go to commentator for tech) end up happening?

As I understand it, and from very limited experience: it is extremely difficult to speak that naturally and coherently on television . It seems plausible that having spoken compellingly once on CNN (when Reddit was at the center of the SOPA debate), CNN has now locked onto him as a viable tech commentator. (I'm glad of that, in case that comment sounded dismissive.)

There's also a media "stamp of approval" effect going on: get cited as an authority once on X by a major publication (CNN, NYT, etc) and you go in everyone's Rolodex for it.

There is at least one reporter at a well-respected news organization who thinks that "Patrick appeared in the NYT and said 'Japan'" makes me an excellent source for coverage of Japanese politics. (Who is the prime minister right now?)

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#33

Post by djb_hackernews »

tptacek wrote: post #28
djb_hackernews wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm lumping in CISPA, SOPA, PIPA, etc as the governments march towards controlling the internet. I believe government isn't always perfect and this type of legislation and legislation that follows will result in experiences and situations FB users don't want.

So, just to be clear: SOPA and PIPA are wildly different bills from CISPA. There's really barely any relation at all. It's much, much easier to make a case for SOPA impacting Facebook's business.

Be clear on what? your opinion? I think they are very related, as they are both trying to control digital communication, one is in the name of security, the other in the name of piracy. I believe in the end CISPA can be (ab)used to provide the government the same tools as SOPA/PIPA.

At this point we are talking about personal opinions, which no one can really be right, but I am not alone[1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_...

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#34

Post by tptacek »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, just to be clear: SOPA and PIPA are wildly different bills from CISPA. There's really barely any relation at all. It's much, much easier to make a case for SOPA impacting Facebook's business.

Be clear on what? your opinion? I think they are very related, as they are both trying to control digital communication, one is in the name of security, the other in the name of piracy. I believe in the end CISPA can be (ab)used to provide the government the same tools as SOPA/PIPA. At this point we are talking about personal opinions, which no one can really be right, but I am not alone[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.o…

Have you read the amended CISPA bill that the House passed? Could you point to something in it that leads you to believe that it provides any of the tools of SOPA? I know these discussions get contentious, but, respectfully, I don't see any mechanisms in CISPA that would enable the government to "control" anything. The bill literally does nothing but provide a mechanism for potentially private information to be shared; it is explicitly opt-in, meaning Reddit can't be forced to share anything under the terms of CISPA. There is no sneaky clause in it anywhere that would enable the government to, say, shut off an Internet connection, or turn off a DNS name.

I bring this up because there has been a lot of very terrible reporting on CISPA alleging all of these things; from what I can see, that reporting squares up with no version of CISPA that has ever been submitted.

If your primary source of information about CISPA is, say, Cory Doctorow, then of course I can understand why you think it might negatively impact Facebook to support CISPA. But Doctorow appears to be flatly wrong about CISPA.

Finally, that Wikipedia section is a hodgepodge (tracking opinions on evolving current events is not something Wikipedia excels at). It would be easy to get the wrong idea from that list, because many of those sources are discussing multiple different bills and weren't written or intended as coherent oppositions to CISPA.

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#35

Post by djb_hackernews »

tptacek wrote: post #17

CISPA? What about the Facebook Terms of Service? They include the following words: We may also share information when we have a good faith belief it is necessary to: detect, prevent and address fraud and other illegal activity; to protect ourselves and you from violations of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities; and to prevent death or imminent bodily harm. This is a broader privacy exemption than CISPA offer…

I'll take the bait (not implying that you are trying to troll).

The difference now is CISPA gets the government involved. Up until now, yes, FB has had a relaxed attitude toward user data when it comes to the law. However, I and many others, believe the government and via proxy the MPAA and RIAAs of the world will now have access to this data and it will be misused and abused all in the name of CISPA and with authority.

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#36

Post by snowwrestler »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, just to be clear: SOPA and PIPA are wildly different bills from CISPA. There's really barely any relation at all. It's much, much easier to make a case for SOPA impacting Facebook's business.

Be clear on what? your opinion? I think they are very related, as they are both trying to control digital communication, one is in the name of security, the other in the name of piracy. I believe in the end CISPA can be (ab)used to provide the government the same tools as SOPA/PIPA. At this point we are talking about personal opinions, which no one can really be right, but I am not alone[1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.o…

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but you're not welcome to your own facts. If you can point to specific language in CISPA that would relate to or enable powers similar to SOPA (or any powers to control digital communication at all), I'd be really interested to see it.

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#37

Post by tptacek »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #35
tptacek wrote: post #17

CISPA? What about the Facebook Terms of Service? They include the following words: We may also share information when we have a good faith belief it is necessary to: detect, prevent and address fraud and other illegal activity; to protect ourselves and you from violations of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities; and to prevent death or imminent bodily harm. This is a broader privacy exemption than CISPA offer…

I'll take the bait (not implying that you are trying to troll). The difference now is CISPA gets the government involved. Up until now, yes, FB has had a relaxed attitude toward user data when it comes to the law. However, I and many others, believe the government and via proxy the MPAA and RIAAs of the world will now have access to this data and it will be misused and abused all in the name of CISPA and with authori…

A couple of responses to that which might change your reasoning (let me know!):

* CISPA is opt-in, so if Facebook doesn't want to share information with the government, CISPA isn't going to change its obligations.

* If Facebook wants to share information with the MPAA and RIAA, its Terms of Service already enable it to do so, explicitly.

* CISPA itself has gone through multiple successive drafts to eliminate the perception that it was merely a tool of license enforcement; the version the House finally passed (a) defines "cyber threat" specifically in regards to the "Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability" triad familiar to netsec practitioners (it is the first piece of federal legislation to do so, I believe) and (b) specifically exempts "consumer licensing" from the events that engage CISPA information sharing.

* SOPA was intended to provide countermeasures to "criminal" copyright infringement and actually did provide some government control over network traffic. CISPA provides no countermeasures of any sort; it only governs information sharing.

What are your thoughts on that? Do you think I'm misreading the law on any of those four points? Or, having been made aware of them, is your reasoning on CISPA at all influenced?

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#38

Post by chernevik »

tptacek wrote: post #29
chernevik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I'm not a CISPA expert. I do see two concerns: 1. It seems to me that inviting government examination and regulation of network traffic, in the name of security, seems unlikely to make the 'net _more_ flexible, and potentially could lead real rigidity that would be bad for development of 'net businesses and degrading the experience possible over the 'nets. 2. Stuff like CISPA is generally validating of 'net…

CISPA doesn't add any regulation to network traffic. It doesn't impose government controls. It's an opt-in mechanism that purports to allow private companies to share information incident to security attacks on their services; what it does, essentially, is clarify the (already very weak) privacy controls of the ECPA to make it clear that companies who are being attacked can share traffic captures without being sued t…

I have now spent 5 minutes on the EFF site and am now qualified to hold forth at length.

More seriously, that depends on the terms of "opt-in" and "sharing" and "security", yes? Such details make nice real estate for the Devil. I'm by no means convinced that the people writing these laws understand the implications and possibilities -- I don't trust their values because I don't think they have the understanding to even have values. Or understand how those values are advanced or eroded. What opinions I have of their values are formed by the SOPA episode.

To _my_ mind, I would need to see the compelling argument for why we need legislation in the first place. At which time I'd have to go to school on this more than I have. And most of the security problems I've read about have more to do with corporations doing a terrible job configuring their own equipment than with some remarkable threat that can only be met through government-organized action.

So in general, I'm against any law without some compelling need. I don't see one here, and that might be ignorance, but that's my view at the moment.

How would I relate that to Facebook? If my view were valid, my first stab would be, "They are supporting over-broad legislation, without a stated need, that could easily go wrong. That bespeaks a centralized-solution attitude contrary to the values that have built the 'net we have today, and unlikely to found the trust needed to make the 'net work best going forward."

But even if that withstood scrutiny I'm not sure their business is going to live or die based on what is essentially a question of corporate culture. If they don't die of something else, they'll get opportunities to change their approach on this stuff.

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#39

Post by rdl »

jpdoctor wrote: post #4
tar wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a social network like MySpace and Friendster.

Pfft. After watching the death of those previous companies, no retail investor would be dumb enough to buy stock in another. I'm sure they've learned their lesson about investing in "hot" companies.

If you want to use directly comparable companies (recent social network IPOs), it's still inconclusive.

ZNGA: sends lots of traffic to facebook, gets users from facebook. Not a great investment for people who bought at the IPO ($10, $8.36 now), but not horrible.

LNKD: ($45 IPO, $114 now) -- social network, but professional vs. personal/social. Small percentage of the company was put on the market, so I'm not sure how valid the market cap really is.

Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)

#40

Post by mnicole »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #27
brainless wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think that is a good comparison? I am not an Apple user, but Apple nowhere in my mind competes with MP3 player makers. It is a vast tech company with massive investments in designing and manufacturing of MP3 players to Laptops, phones and developing a host of really large software. That is not Facebook, it sells nothing other than the network, much like MySpace used to. If yours friends drop off Facebook,…

> Apple users will continue using the products even if their friends do not. A lot of the value in Apple's products comes from the ecosystem: iTunes, the App Store, and so on. Don't discount the value of a platform on which a large number of developers are incentivized to build.

To be fair, you'd equate this to Facebook's own integrated ecosystem (groups, events, marketplace) -- not your friends. There's benefits to having my friends and I both on iOS (iMessage, etc.), but the deciding factor for a social network are the people, and if your friends aren't there, it doesn't matter how many party RSVPs I send out.
Post reply on HN