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

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#71

Post by declan »

tptacek wrote: post #33
ebbv wrote: post #32

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…

I disagree: I think ebbv's analogy is fair, and talking about CISPA (designed to encourage .com->.gov/.mil data flows) as akin to the Patriot Act (designed to increase .com->.gov data flows) and FISA (designed to regulate .com->.gov data flows) is appropriate.

So is asking about unintended consequences of legislation that's touted as accomplishing one thing but will be far broader. CISPA's sponsors say it's necessary to respond to the real threat of Chinese military hackers, but of course the legislation isn't limited to that.

If there are a series of related and bad bills, offering the same general criticisms of them is reasonable. If you're pro-choice and are upset by state efforts to ban abortion, then you can use similar language ("fully against..." "we shouldn't be putting more power in the hands...") to talk about bills in Arkansas, Colorado, Mississippi, North Dakota, Kansas, etc.

Of course a more detailed discussion involves going into more depth and talking about the differences between each state's anti-abortion proposals.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#72

Post by declan »

ebbv wrote: post #32

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…

ebbv: You're right that you can't learn everything about legislation by reading it in isolation.

You generally need to read it side-by-side with the law it's amending. You need to read any amendments, and the rejected amendments. You need to read caselaw on point so you're aware of how courts have interpreted certain terms. You need to read existing laws in the same area. To the extent that courts will consider it, you need to read the legislative history, floor debate, and committee reports. Ideally you'd want to talk to a lawyer specializing in this area. Obviously the shorter the law, the less all this is necessary, but the text of the law tends to be merely a starting point.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#73

Post by snowwrestler »

declan wrote: post #70
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is probably true, but that fact is not an all-access pass to making inaccurate claims about the bill. But it gets used that way all the time.

This is a continuation of our disagreement above, I know, but if you have an entity that has advanced problematic proposals multiple times when it comes to regulating technology -- and at times demonstrated a near-complete lack of understanding of what they're trying to regulate -- it's not unreasonable to apply more scrutiny to future proposals. You're right that nobody should be making inaccurate claims about the b…

My objection to this line of reasoning is that there is only one entity producing U.S. legislation, so there is no real point of comparison. One cannot even compare Congress as a whole over time, since its membership changes (however slightly) every 2 years.

Also, is there any subject for which everyone can agree that Congress is good at proposing legislation? The whole point of the legislative process is to adjudicate between competing opinions; so whether any piece of legislation is "good" or "bad" will vary, to some extent, according to the observer.

Edit to add conclusion: Each bill should be judged on its merits, not on the fact that it comes out of Congress (since that is where they all come from).

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#74

Post by tptacek »

declan wrote: post #64
tptacek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote a lengthier comment that enumerated the failed CISPA amendments that I need to take some time to respond to, but in the meantime: Regarding PII in threat data, we're talking about orthogonal concerns. The amendment you're talking about would require all threat data to use (presumably commercially reasonable methods) to scrub PII. The concern there is accidental inclusion of PII; it's that disclosure of, say…

I upvoted this post as a way to say thank you for a polite debate.

You and I will never agree on this stuff but I'm always glad to see you participating. Thanks again.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#75

Post by trhtrsh »

declan wrote: post #71
tptacek wrote: post #33

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…

I disagree: I think ebbv's analogy is fair, and talking about CISPA (designed to encourage .com->.gov/.mil data flows) as akin to the Patriot Act (designed to increase .com->.gov data flows) and FISA (designed to regulate .com->.gov data flows) is appropriate. So is asking about unintended consequences of legislation that's touted as accomplishing one thing but will be far broader. CISPA's sponsors say it's necessary…

Since we already have a track-record of the government granting retroactive immunity for illegal acts by ISPs, why do we need CISPA at all?

Why not just have the Feds or whoever call up Google and say "Look, this is really important information, as I'm sure you agree, so let's solve the problem, and if any technicalities were violated along the way, we'll get them excused by the overwhelming benefit of your actions" ?

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#76

Post by trhtrsh »

tptacek wrote: post #53
declan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that Aaron Swartz was not charged with unauthorized access "solely" because of his violation of a TOU or EULA. Mind you, I'm not saying the previous poster's claim is the best argument against CISPA, but that your claim of "directly contradicted" is false.

No, I was responding to the "unauthorized access" point in the parent comment. Since you can't be charged with a crime under CISPA at all , I'm not sure how your comment isn't a non sequitur.

You can be charged with a crime under existing law, and CISPA can be used to collect evidence for that charge.

Re: Tech group representing Google, Yahoo backs CISPA

#77

Post by trhtrsh »

enraged_camel wrote: post #11
abdophoto wrote: post #6

Don't be evil.

At this point I'm convinced that they never meant this. It was simply a recruiting slogan to attract all the liberal/libertarian/anti-coporation comp sci students who went to Stanford and Berkeley.

A recruiting slogan, and an intstruction to new hires. What does it mean to "not mean" something that your employees believe and live by?
Post reply on HN