3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhat 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoSection 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...