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

CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#71

Post by lawnchair_larry »

GHFigs wrote: post #63
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that it does, and that's why it's being pushed. See new details uncovered by EPIC: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-... CISPA's true motivation is becoming very clear. It's needed to expand a pilot program for dragnet surveillance by the NSA and defense contractors. You know, the same thing they've been doing for ages and getting sued over by the EFF. If you read the letters in suppo…

It's needed to expand a pilot program for dragnet surveillance by the NSA and defense contractors. What horseshit! Even your own link describes the program as applicable to private networks of the participating companies . That's why there's a quote from an email wondering (emphasis mine) "Will the program cover all parts of the company network -- including say day care centers (as mentioned as a question in a [deput…

No, you stopped reading too soon. It's being extended to ISPs, and customer data.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#72

Post by knowaveragejoe »

sehugg wrote: post #18

Anyone taking a look at the Senate bill S.2102? http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s2102is/pdf/BILLS-112s...

Is this the democrat sponsored version of the bill? From what I understand, it's even worse from a privacy standpoint, but I haven't read it myself. Any insight?

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#73

Post by DannyBee »

darkarmani wrote: post #33
DannyBee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all of them.

Except the ones that aren't unreasonable are carried out with a judge's signature or have very narrow latitude (plain sight, hot pursuit).

No. The judge signature is basically the other part of the 4th amendment, about warrants. That is what makes an otherwise unreasonable search, reasonable: it was reviewed by a neutral magistrate, and the neutral magistrate determined they had probable cause.

If the search is reasonable, you don't need anything from a judge.

This doesn't mean you can go busting into places, but ...

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#74

Post by DannyBee »

trobertson wrote: post #29
DannyBee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all of them.

Would you find it unreasonable to have a search warrant on every single American's internet activity? As far as I understand it, that is, in effect, what CISPA proposes.

This is not what CISPA proposes. It really isn't.

There are a lot of advocacy organizations (EPIC, etc) that like to bluster about what it does. Right now EPIC is blustering that it's part of authorizing a secret program.

What they didn't tell you is that this is their real goal is to gain possible congressional support for the FOIA request they filed, they are just trying to tie it all together so they can gain support from CISPA haters.

A lot of these advocacy orgs that lobby are good in the sense of trying to do what they think is right but they often present pretty extreme (IMHO) interpretations of bills/laws and viewpoints to support this.

Full disclosure: I have interned at one of these advocacy orgs before (CDT).

It's true the government would be happy if they could monitor everyone's activity, but that isn't CISPA, and crying wolf repeatedly about every bill just makes people less likely to care. If they really wanted to monitor everyone's activity, they'd just do it, and clean up the mess later.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#75

Post by DannyBee »

ubernostrum wrote: post #54
diminoten wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A passable CISPA is one that wouldn't allow companies to share information specific to its users (except it's not that simple, if I'm a hacker do I get some kind of special immunity if I register on the website I hacked? What if part of the hack required me to register, is that information suddenly invalid because I have a username and a password?). I should be able to share the md5s of malware I found on my system w…

As far as I can tell, I argued that the "solution" CISPA offers is one that is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States. Again, that makes it a bit of a non-starter, regardless of what problem it's attempting to solve.

But you haven't explained why it is incompatible. It looks perfectly compatible to me.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#76

Post by DannyBee »

darkarmani wrote: post #35
tomku wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people oppose CISPA because of fixable issues regarding privacy or overly broad scope, some oppose it because they they think that it'll let the government spy on every URL they visit or allow the MPAA to take down all of Facebook for copyright infringement. According to the latter, CISPA isn't just a bad idea, it's pure malicious evil - the people supporting it need to be defeated so soundly that they never eve…

> Unfortunately, that latter group is quite well-represented here on HN. And most of the US except for a few industries with powerful lobbyists.

[Citation Needed].

Reality is, as far as i can tell, tech oriented folks care a lot. "Most of the US" probably doesn't give a shit one way or the other, or worse, would be okay with it.

In a US where a significant percentage of people believe we should be throwing the constitution out the window to 'fight terrorism', you are going to need a bit of evidence to suppor the idea that it's 'most of the US except for a few industries with powerful lobbyists'.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#77

Post by rayiner »

relic wrote: post #70
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is "underhanded" about CISPA? They've got a coalation favoring it that includes companies like Google and Facebook. It's not an unpopular law, except among a small demographic of civil libertarians (and not even really among traditional civil libertarians, just the internet-focused ones). Average people don't care. An unpopular law would be something like cutting Social Security benefits. That's somethin…

arjn isn't saying CISPA itself is underhanded, just that the tactics employed to push it through may be. He said CISPA was unpopular, and you can't argue that.

I argue with both of these points. What's underhanded about how it's being passed? It's a bill being voted on like any other.

And CISPA is not unpopular, at least not generally. Most voters have no idea what it is, nor would they care if you explained it to them. What you really have is one small bloc: Google, Facebook, government security people, etc, supporting CISPA, and one small bloc, the ACLU, EFF, etc, opposing it. If CISPA gets passed, it's not some sneaky thing getting passed in an underhanded way against the wishes of the majority of the people. It's one small bloc winning out over another small bloc over an issue the majority of people don't care about.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#79

Post by GHFigs »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #71
GHFigs wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's needed to expand a pilot program for dragnet surveillance by the NSA and defense contractors. What horseshit! Even your own link describes the program as applicable to private networks of the participating companies . That's why there's a quote from an email wondering (emphasis mine) "Will the program cover all parts of the company network -- including say day care centers (as mentioned as a question in a [deput…

No, you stopped reading too soon. It's being extended to ISPs, and customer data.

I didn't stop reading.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#80

Post by MereInterest »

DannyBee wrote: post #73
darkarmani wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the ones that aren't unreasonable are carried out with a judge's signature or have very narrow latitude (plain sight, hot pursuit).

No. The judge signature is basically the other part of the 4th amendment, about warrants. That is what makes an otherwise unreasonable search, reasonable: it was reviewed by a neutral magistrate, and the neutral magistrate determined they had probable cause. If the search is reasonable, you don't need anything from a judge. This doesn't mean you can go busting into places, but ...

What? No, no, no, NO. That is completely wrong. There are cases where a warrant is not necessary, such as immediate danger to an officer. However, a warrant is issued only upon probable cause. This still needs to be reasonable, and the judge is the one who decides if the search is reasonable.
Post reply on HN