CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by ubernostrum » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 3:23 PM UTC

diminoten wrote: post #83

ubernostrum wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you invite the soldier into your home, you're bypassing the Constitutional protections you're granted. If Facebook gives its information to the government willingly, there is no Constitutional question to be had. CISPA was a voluntary program, you had to solicit the government in order to be involved, not the other way around.

CISPA is not me inviting police in to search my home. It's someone else coming into my home on behalf of the police, conducting a search the police couldn't legally do, and then reporting back on the results the police. And they're doing this with the encouragement of the police and with a promise of legal immunity from the police. But we're going to pretend that wasn't really a search and that the restrictions that apply to the police don't apply here.

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

#92

Post by diminoten » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 9:39 PM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #91

diminoten wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you invite the soldier into your home, you're bypassing the Constitutional protections you're granted. If Facebook gives its information to the government willingly, there is no Constitutional question to be had. CISPA was a voluntary program, you had to solicit the government in order to be involved, not the other way around.

CISPA is not me inviting police in to search my home. It's someone else coming into my home on behalf of the police, conducting a search the police couldn't legally do, and then reporting back on the results the police. And they're doing this with the encouragement of the police and with a promise of legal immunity from the police. But we're going to pretend that wasn't really a search and that the restrictions that…

That's not true at all, the police are entirely capable, legally speaking, of performing the proverbial search. They just don't have the manpower or the expertise.

Furthermore, you don't have to invite anyone into your home if you don't want to, and yet even further you can tell the people you ask to come into your home to not share the information they find with the police. No idea why you would do that, but you absolutely can.

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

#93

Post by diminoten » Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 9:40 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #90

diminoten wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CISPA wouldn't stop a hired security analyst from reading your Facebook messages, it'd stop Facebook from sharing them with the government. Under a passable CISPA, anyway. And furthermore, the whole point of CISPA is to explicitly codify some very grey area. It is possible they do indeed share threat intel with their direct competitors, but there is no legal precedent for doing so. The whole point of CISPA was to low…

> And Facebook has no obligation to disclose breaches, not legally, anyway. Where did you get that information? Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_breach_notification_la... For someone repeatedly making demonstrably false assertions, you are oddly sure of yourself. You're not even challenging a viewpoint here, you're just straight up talking out of your ass. You should stop doing that.

I didn't know California law applied to every company in the US. I said Facebook was just an example, and that it's not important if Facebook specifically does or does not have to disclose breaches, or can you not read?

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

#94

Post by DannyBee » Sun, Apr 28, 2013, 1:44 PM UTC

MereInterest wrote: post #80

DannyBee wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What? You are confusing the warrant requirement, which is completely separate from the reasonableness of a search.

I'm not sure how you are coming up with what you think is th analysis, but every law school textbook, supreme court opinion, etc, will tell you that you start with whether the search was reasonable.

If the search was reasonable by law , there is no 4th amendment violation. Period. Maybe you are confused because they often say these are not searches? For example, you will read that doing helicopter flyovers, even when looking in people's fields, is reasonable (which at the time, meant it wasn't a violation of the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy), and thus, not considered a search that is subject to the rest of the 4th amendment. This isn't because it's "not a search" in reality, it's because the 4th only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches and seizures, and thus, for the rest of 4th amendment purposes, it's not a search.

If the search was not reasonable, it either has to fall into an exception, or requires a warrant.

Now, current jurisprudence considers most searches without a warrant unreasonable (subject to plain sight, automobile exceptions, etc), but that is irrelevant to the steps in the analysis.

You seem to be mixing a lot of the analysis and requirements around.

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

#95

Post by DannyBee » Sun, Apr 28, 2013, 9:00 PM UTC

dontstealmyname wrote: post #89

DannyBee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 supp…

Like passing retroactive bills so its "not illegal". (not saying this one is just that but they have done it in the past so the telcos didn't get sued I believe)

Sure, but note that this is completely constitutional, the constitution explicitly grants Congress the right to set the jurisdiction of all courts inferior to the Supreme Court.