3 ms·

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

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.
    - logn 11y ago
      Their EULA's are written to allow for this. Salesforce.com reserves the right to use or disclose information provided if required by law or if they reasonably believe that use or disclosure is necessary to protect their rights. Apple may also disclose information about you if they determine that for purposes of national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary or appropriate. IBM may also use or share your information to protect its rights or property.
- mtgx 11y ago
  Getting immunity will eventually make them as bad as the carriers once they form "relationships" with the government, or when they want to win some big fat government contracts. Microsoft already "needs" to win multiple contracts with the government, and Apple is supposed to "win" Apple Pay integration with federal services. If all the data requests would be legal then they shouldn't need immunity, should they? This is 90% of the way the encryption backdoor the government has been requesting. That's why it's "backing down" on that. Much like what Microsoft has already been doing years before this [1], the NSA will get Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle and others' zero-days ~3-12 months before they are patched, as part of the "cyber-threat sharing" program. That's as good as having dozens of backdoors in tech companies' software that billions of people are using. Michael Hayden, who formerly directed the National Security Agency and the CIA, described the attention paid to important company partners: “If I were the director and had a relationship with a company who was doing things that were not just directed by law but were also valuable to the defense of the Republic, I would go out of my way to thank them and give them a sense as to why this is necessary and useful.” This is how they are thanking them, by giving them immunity. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-14/u-s-agenci...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

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.
  - logn 11y ago
    Their EULA's are written to allow for this. Salesforce.com reserves the right to use or disclose information provided if required by law or if they reasonably believe that use or disclosure is necessary to protect their rights. Apple may also disclose information about you if they determine that for purposes of national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary or appropriate. IBM may also use or share your information to protect its rights or property.
mtgx 11y ago
Getting immunity will eventually make them as bad as the carriers once they form "relationships" with the government, or when they want to win some big fat government contracts. Microsoft already "needs" to win multiple contracts with the government, and Apple is supposed to "win" Apple Pay integration with federal services. If all the data requests would be legal then they shouldn't need immunity, should they? This is 90% of the way the encryption backdoor the government has been requesting. That's why it's "backing down" on that. Much like what Microsoft has already been doing years before this [1], the NSA will get Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle and others' zero-days ~3-12 months before they are patched, as part of the "cyber-threat sharing" program. That's as good as having dozens of backdoors in tech companies' software that billions of people are using. Michael Hayden, who formerly directed the National Security Agency and the CIA, described the attention paid to important company partners: “If I were the director and had a relationship with a company who was doing things that were not just directed by law but were also valuable to the defense of the Republic, I would go out of my way to thank them and give them a sense as to why this is necessary and useful.” This is how they are thanking them, by giving them immunity. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap-data-with-thousands-of-firms http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-14/u-s-agenci...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]