3 ms·

Is government compelling these companies to hand over data? Or is it voluntary? If government forced me to hand over data on users, I wouldn't want to be held

Is government compelling these companies to hand over data? Or is it voluntary? If government forced me to hand over data on users, I wouldn't want to be held liable for that. So, I'm not sure why people are complaining to companies about it? Do they expect companies to break laws? People forget that government is always the highest power of the land. You are forced to do what government decides it wants to do. Take your issues up with government, not me.

Absentinsomniac 11y ago
Based on what I'm reading, they don't require sharing of the information, they just give companies sweeping immunity to do plenty of illegal things while doing so. The government sort of incentivizes this behavior. The problem is, companies are now lobbying to get this pushed through, so yeah, that's the fault of both the corporate and government players involved.
- mozumder 11y ago
  What exactly would be an "illegal behavior"? Some companies already have legal contracts with you to protect your private data. Are you implying they can break those contracts? I need actual scenarios written out, preferably based on an actual example EULA being violated. Not "maybe something scary might possibly happen in the future."
  - Absentinsomniac 11y ago
    The whole point of providing immunity is that previous contracts such as privacy policies become null and void in this context... I'm pretty sure you didn't read the link...
    - mozumder 11y ago
      I literally cannot find the exact contract violating statement in the law that you are referring to. I see an exemption for anti-trust, and I see an immunity to other laws requiring disclosure (say, FOIA), but I do not see any immunity to violate previously established EULAs. Do you?
      - sehugg 11y ago
        Section 6(b): No cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any court against any entity, and such action shall be promptly dismissed, for the sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators or defensive measures under section 4(c) if ... (you follow the sharing rules and don't do anything provably sinister) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754...
tristanj 11y ago
Participation in this program is voluntary. Section 8 of the bill prohibits this act from being construed to permit the federal government to require an entity to provide information to the federal government. Here's the money quote: (i) No Liability For Non-Participation.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to subject any entity to liability for choosing not to engage in the voluntary activities authorized in this Act. Reading through the bill, it seems like this is a well-intentioned attempt to promote data sharing between corporations and security agencies in the event of a widespread cyberattack. There are definite use cases for a law like this. For example, if both Lockheed Martin and Boeing are hit by a cyberattack, under this bill they are allowed to coordinate and mitigate the attack using data from both parties. But the enormous flaw in this bill is that there are only vague restrictions on the type of data allowed to be shared. These restrictions are so vague that an unscrupulous company could send all their customers' private data to the government under the context of this law. The US needs reform on its cybersecurity defense and this bill is a step towards change. But with the potential for abuse this bill is a huge step backwards. Hopefully there are other ways to improve US cybersecurity defense without compromising civil liberties. You can find a copy of the bill, including a short summary of each section, at the link below: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754
- mozumder 11y ago
  OK WTF? So why is this a problem? Doesn't this just mean companies don't have to hand-off private data to government? Isn't that the exact opposite thing people are complaining about?
  - NhanH 11y ago
    They companies don't have to, but they decide to do it anyway. That's why people complained. Did you even read the original link, or anything anyone posted in the thread so far?
    - mozumder 11y ago
      Since you are obviously very smart and read the original link, can you point out where a company like Apple "decide to do it anyway?" Show me an example where they violated their users EULA.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>If government forced me to hand over data on users, I wouldn't want to be held liable for that. Government couldn't have gotten it if you didn't collect it. Why should you be held responsible for storing data in an insecure fashion (which given the long arm of the government, translates to storing the data at all). This is especially true of data the average user isn't considering as being captured/stored, such as Microsoft's grabbing everything you do and storing it.

Absentinsomniac 11y ago

Based on what I'm reading, they don't require sharing of the information, they just give companies sweeping immunity to do plenty of illegal things while doing so. The government sort of incentivizes this behavior. The problem is, companies are now lobbying to get this pushed through, so yeah, that's the fault of both the corporate and government players involved.

mozumder 11y ago
What exactly would be an "illegal behavior"? Some companies already have legal contracts with you to protect your private data. Are you implying they can break those contracts? I need actual scenarios written out, preferably based on an actual example EULA being violated. Not "maybe something scary might possibly happen in the future."
- Absentinsomniac 11y ago
  The whole point of providing immunity is that previous contracts such as privacy policies become null and void in this context... I'm pretty sure you didn't read the link...
  - mozumder 11y ago
    I literally cannot find the exact contract violating statement in the law that you are referring to. I see an exemption for anti-trust, and I see an immunity to other laws requiring disclosure (say, FOIA), but I do not see any immunity to violate previously established EULAs. Do you?
    - sehugg 11y ago
      Section 6(b): No cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any court against any entity, and such action shall be promptly dismissed, for the sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators or defensive measures under section 4(c) if ... (you follow the sharing rules and don't do anything provably sinister) https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754...

tristanj 11y ago

Participation in this program is voluntary. Section 8 of the bill prohibits this act from being construed to permit the federal government to require an entity to provide information to the federal government. Here's the money quote: (i) No Liability For Non-Participation.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to subject any entity to liability for choosing not to engage in the voluntary activities authorized in this Act. Reading through the bill, it seems like this is a well-intentioned attempt to promote data sharing between corporations and security agencies in the event of a widespread cyberattack. There are definite use cases for a law like this. For example, if both Lockheed Martin and Boeing are hit by a cyberattack, under this bill they are allowed to coordinate and mitigate the attack using data from both parties. But the enormous flaw in this bill is that there are only vague restrictions on the type of data allowed to be shared. These restrictions are so vague that an unscrupulous company could send all their customers' private data to the government under the context of this law. The US needs reform on its cybersecurity defense and this bill is a step towards change. But with the potential for abuse this bill is a huge step backwards. Hopefully there are other ways to improve US cybersecurity defense without compromising civil liberties. You can find a copy of the bill, including a short summary of each section, at the link below: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754

mozumder 11y ago
OK WTF? So why is this a problem? Doesn't this just mean companies don't have to hand-off private data to government? Isn't that the exact opposite thing people are complaining about?
- NhanH 11y ago
  They companies don't have to, but they decide to do it anyway. That's why people complained. Did you even read the original link, or anything anyone posted in the thread so far?
  - mozumder 11y ago
    Since you are obviously very smart and read the original link, can you point out where a company like Apple "decide to do it anyway?" Show me an example where they violated their users EULA.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>If government forced me to hand over data on users, I wouldn't want to be held liable for that. Government couldn't have gotten it if you didn't collect it. Why should you be held responsible for storing data in an insecure fashion (which given the long arm of the government, translates to storing the data at all). This is especially true of data the average user isn't considering as being captured/stored, such as Microsoft's grabbing everything you do and storing it.