31–40 of 77 posts
The problem with CISPA is we don't need it. I'm not a libertarian (I want single payer universal health care, for example), but I am fully against the PATRIOT Act, FISA abuse and the numerous other things done in the name of security since 9/11.
The reason 9/11 happened was not a lack of security or intelligence; we had those. It was failure to act on the information we had.
We shouldn't be putting more power in the hands of intelligence agencies which have no public oversight. I understand the need for those agencies, but I think they should be as small as possible. Things like CISPA seem to be based on an opposite view; giving them as much power as possible.
EDIT:
Also the notion that you can learn everything you need to know about these bills by reading the bill itself is so myopic as to be comical.
And the erosion of privacy protection in the name of "security" continues unabated. The problem with CISPA is we don't need it. I'm not a libertarian (I want single payer universal health care, for example), but I am fully against the PATRIOT Act, FISA abuse and the numerous other things done in the name of security since 9/11. The reason 9/11 happened was not a lack of security or intelligence; we had those. It was…
If you think the real meaning of the bill has nothing to do with the text of the bill, that the text of the bill doesn't matter, just give up. CISPA is tiny compared to ECPA; if you think CISPA has holes a truck could drive through, give a close read to SCA. If you believe the government is going to use milk safety regulations to prosecute movie pirates, just let them pass whatever, and skip the arguments.
And the erosion of privacy protection in the name of "security" continues unabated. The problem with CISPA is we don't need it. I'm not a libertarian (I want single payer universal health care, for example), but I am fully against the PATRIOT Act, FISA abuse and the numerous other things done in the name of security since 9/11. The reason 9/11 happened was not a lack of security or intelligence; we had those. It was…
You could say exactly this set of things about any bill ever. Not one phrase in this comment binds in any way onto CISPA. You literally could have written it 8 years ago, saved it in a tfile in your home directory, and just copy/pasted it into this thread no matter what the bill said. If you think the real meaning of the bill has nothing to do with the text of the bill, that the text of the bill doesn't matter, just…
No, I couldn't. There are unfortunately a lot of bills I could have said that about (and I mentioned some of them), but not literally any bill ever.
In fact, most bills are not about granting more power to intelligence agencies at the cost of privacy protections.
But thanks for sticking to your role as mindless CISPA defender. You play it well.
EDIT:
> If you think the real meaning of the bill has nothing to do with the text of the bill, that the text of the bill doesn't matter, just give up.
I didn't say that and obviously didn't mean that.
I also couldn't give a shit about movie pirates. I buy my entertainment. That's the bonus of being a full grown adult with a career.
But I do care about the erosion of privacy law for no benefit whatsoever, and in fact, what I see as a detriment; continuing to grow the intelligence industry which has no public oversight. That's a Bad Idea(tm).
I wouldn't be surprised if this bill simply protected what they're already doing in secret. I'm sure all of these companies already have agreements with the NSA of one kind or another.
The entity handling this stuff seems to be DHS or FBI, not NSA, but they are all part of IC so the info should, in theory, be shared around.
My wild speculation is they are trying to gather logs to make a sort of national IDS to be more proactive in detecting APT.
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…
(I have complained, and they said the should be there the next day, but then I pointed out about 25 cases where it wasn't, and they kinda stopped talking :P)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That sounds like a security risk waiting to happen at your cell phone carrier and email service provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say exactly this set of things about any bill ever. Not one phrase in this comment binds in any way onto CISPA. You literally could have written it 8 years ago, saved it in a tfile in your home directory, and just copy/pasted it into this thread no matter what the bill said. If you think the real meaning of the bill has nothing to do with the text of the bill, that the text of the bill doesn't matter, just…
> You could say exactly this set of things about any bill ever. No, I couldn't. There are unfortunately a lot of bills I could have said that about (and I mentioned some of them), but not literally any bill ever. In fact, most bills are not about granting more power to intelligence agencies at the cost of privacy protections. But thanks for sticking to your role as mindless CISPA defender. You play it well. EDIT: > I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could say exactly this set of things about any bill ever. No, I couldn't. There are unfortunately a lot of bills I could have said that about (and I mentioned some of them), but not literally any bill ever. In fact, most bills are not about granting more power to intelligence agencies at the cost of privacy protections. But thanks for sticking to your role as mindless CISPA defender. You play it well. EDIT: > I…
You probably don't care if you can convince tptacek, but to random people following along (who you might be able to convince), calling tptacek mindless undermines your goal.
I called him "mindless CISPA defender" because based on his comments on the subject, that seems like an accurate description.
And in my specific case he seemed to pay no attention whatsoever to what I brought up and replied with a handful of boilerplate responses that didn't really apply to what I was saying. So, that seemed pretty much like a mindless automaton to me.