Q: Who uses Facebook?
A: Millions of MySpacers
:)
I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
41–50 of 70 posts
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ev…
Your time would be better spent reading the CISPA bill itself, which goes to some length to define "sharing" and "security". I can summarize, but the firsthand sources are surprisingly readable:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523
As regards "opt-in": it's inherently opt-in, because it provides no mechanism for the government to demand information from any provider. Obviously, the government can already use court orders to get access to information. Beyond that, the bill explicitly prevents the government from making such demands; for instance: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Federal Government to... ‘(A) require a private-sector entity to share information with the Federal Government;".
As regards "security": the bill actually defines this term (a novel twist in "cyber security" legislation):
‘(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private
entity;
‘(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a
system or network of a government or private entity or any information
stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network;
‘(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a
system or network of a government or private entity; or
‘(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a
government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized
access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on,
processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or
private entity.Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 perc…
Thanks for taking the time to provide some excellent responses. I don't mean to insult your patience, but I don't think I could say it any better than chernevik did http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3939974.
He really got down to my issues with this bill.
* There doesn't seem to be a need for it. Was there a situation where justice was not served but would have been/ could be after CISPA?
* I just don't trust it, no matter how harmless it currently is. There is a term for this type of legislative process, not quite slippery slope, but it escapes me at the moment.
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 perc…
Thanks for taking the time to provide some excellent responses. I don't mean to insult your patience, but I don't think I could say it any better than chernevik did http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3939974 . He really got down to my issues with this bill. * There doesn't seem to be a need for it. Was there a situation where justice was not served but would have been/ could be after CISPA? * I just don't trust it,…
I agree with both of these issues. Not only do I not see a need for CISPA, but further, I don't think CISPA does anything; the sharing authority CISPA grants private companies, I believe those companies already had under ECPA.
I've been informed since I started reading and discussing CISPA that a primary purpose of this bill is actually the opposite of what people are worried about: that instead of getting private companies to share with the government, CISPA exists largely to provide a legal framework for the government to share information with private companies, so that when government systems are hit with new (say) Microsoft Office malware and "spear phishing" attacks, they can notify stakeholders in private industry.
So that's one reason for CISPA. Another might just be to encourage private companies to share more information about network attacks; the supporters of this bill are not wrong that private companies are loathe to do that now for a variety of reasons.
But again, ultimately, I agree with you. I don't support CISPA.
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#45kn0thing 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?
Thank you.
Well, before the SOPA/PIPA frenzy of MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, Fox, and Bloomberg... I became a 'regular' tech correspondent on Bloomberg after moving to NY and appearing on a panel moderated by Margaret Brennan. She invited me to appear and they kept inviting me back (they liked the combo of 'good on air' and 'actually did it').
http://search1.bloomberg.com/search/?content_type=video&...
To their credit, BloombergTV let me talk about SOPA there before any other broadcast TV news channel.
After Soledad had me on to talk SOPA/PIPA protests and she and her producers dug my style.
CNN even let me announce my joining the DonorsChoose.org advisory board meeting on air at SXSW.
http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/09/harnessing-ben...
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#46Very eloquent knOthing, keep keeping it real on the big media stage. Not sure if I will follow your stock tips though.
Thank you! Hehe. Admittedly, fb is probably going to keep crushing it - I just wish they weren't crushing our open internet, too.
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ev…
Your time would be better spent reading the CISPA bill itself, which goes to some length to define "sharing" and "security". I can summarize, but the firsthand sources are surprisingly readable: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523 As regards "opt-in": it's inherently opt-in, because it provides no mechanism for the government to demand information from any provider. Obviously, the government can already…
Probably right, if I had reason to take interest in fixing this corner of the law.
But like refactoring code, I don't see why I'd even discuss changing law without having some very good reason. And I still don't see why this is a good place to run the risks of unintended consequences and / or malign legislators.
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't miss much. Just one of the guests making fun of how geeks dress.
It also starts abruptly (get with the program, CNN video editors!) ... did we miss anything there?
Umm, I don't recall. Just some talk about how Warren Buffett isn't investing. And Soledad liked my choice of Jay-Z for the 'intro' music guest can select.
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?)
A difference, to me, is that they don't have as great a pool of people to choose from who are knowledgable about Japan, are connected (and speak English). I think is his case, they do have a good quality pool but feel comfortable with his subject matter knowledge and demeanor.
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#50What is Facebook?
psst... i was just being sarcastic... why down vote?