6 ms·

In that case, why are they supporting CISA? http://fortune.com/2015/09/24/tech-vendor-cybersecurity-bill/ http://fortune.com/2015/09/24/tech-vendor-cybersecurit

• sigmar 11y ago
  It is a shame this comment will be downvoted only because it does not support the confirmation bias of many HN users.
  • johncolanduoni 11y ago
    Does HN now show downvoted comments at the top of the page? Interesting design choice...
    • Thimothy 11y ago
      I have seen this phenomena before, it seems that they take into account more things that just how upvoted/downvoted it was, like the posting user karma, how much the answers were upvoted or the answering users karma. It makes sense, sometimes a really stupid comment (not implying this was the case) can sprawl a really interesting discussion. I often look at the bottom of the comments for hidden goodies.
• hoorayimhelping 11y ago
  This [1] is the letter linked to in the article that is evidence they support CISA, correct? Maybe it's because I can't read legalese very well, but this looks like tech companies asking congress to codify our rights for the digital age, and to provide a well defined legal framework for those rights to exist within. I'm not really seeing support for sweeping powers of spying; it seems like they're asking for the opposite in fact. Again, I may be misreading that. 1: http://www.bsa.org/~/media/Files/Policy/data/09142015CongLeadershipDataAgendaLetter.pdf http://www.bsa.org/~/media/Files/Policy/data/09142015CongLea...
  • rubbingalcohol 11y ago
    The letter calls for "Cyber Threat Information Sharing Legislation" without specifying _which_ bill. But given that CISA is the only such bill in front of Congress, it looks like Apple has endorsed the bill (without technically endorsing it). Given the specifity of the other bills the letter mentioned, and how publicly unpopular CISA is, this seems like a massively spineless move. If Apple is serious about privacy they should clarify and affirmatively oppose CISA.
  • takeda 11y ago
    It's not as much legalese but trying to hide a wolf in sheep clothing. They put other legislations around (I did not inspect them, so can't comment) and among them (in the center so person skimming it might miss it) they put: "Cyber Threat Information Sharing Legislation". They don't mention which bills they are referring to and they made sure that acronym doesn't match CISPA. If you search it you will find that there's no legislation with that name, and the only results you get are CISPA. Why those companies want CISPA? Because it removes all liability from them when they share the data without a warrant. Basically we no longer will be able to sue them for violating our privacy.
    • pdkl95 11y ago
      > Because it removes all liability from them when they share the data without a warrant. Aka, a Letter of Marque[1]. Some companies really want to be the privateers of the surveillance-industrial complex. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
    • mozumder 11y ago
      > Why those companies want CISPA? Because it removes all liability from them when they share the data without a warrant. Basically we no longer will be able to sue them for violating our privacy. Nothing in CISPA allows them to violate their EULA. If they had EULAs that violated your privacy in the first place, then that's a problem between you and the company, independent of CISPA.
      • 11y ago
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]