6 ms·

Looks like it is actually worse than CISA... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151215/06470133083/congress-drops-all-pretense-quietly-turns-cisa-into-full-su

Looks like it is actually worse than CISA... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151215/06470133083/congress-drops-all-pretense-quietly-turns-cisa-into-full-surveillance-bill.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151215/06470133083/congr...

tptacek 11y ago
Someone asked me about this last night. Is there sourcing for this beyond "Techdirt says so"? Because on matters of law, Techdirt is extraordinarily untrustworthy. I'd love to see the amendments or revisions that are purported to be doing this to the bill. (I don't support CISA, but if you asked me which I'd rather get rid of, CISA or Techdirt, I'd have to think about it.) update: No. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10747359 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10747359
- yuhong 11y ago
  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151216/05514933094/as-predicted-congress-turned-cisa-into-clear-surveillance-bill-put-it-into-must-pass-govt-funding-bill.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151216/05514933094/as-pr... has an embedded document and a link.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Thanks. Here's a sane version of that link, I think: http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20151214/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-SAHR2029-AMNT1final.pdf http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20151214/CPRT-114-HPRT-R...
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Conclusion: Techdirt is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10747359 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10747359
    - jqm 11y ago
      That's 2000 pages! "Sane" isn't a word I'd use to describe it either.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I meant "sane" as in "not a web-based PDF viewer". It's a whole bunch of bills crammed into one document. CISA starts around page 1730.
        jqm 11y ago
        I didn't read the techdirt article but did read the relevant section of the bill. It sounds on the whole fairly reasonable. Here is my understanding... Companies can monitor their own systems or the systems of clients for cyberthreats and share this information with the government and with each other. They must redact personal information of non-involved parties. The capabilities and scope of the monitoring system are to be disclosed publicly. All sounds fine. Where it appears to go a bit off the rails is page 1765-1766 (section A). Here the purpose seems to expand beyond "cybersecurity" and deviate into monitoring non-cyber criminal behavior. Preventing threat of death, terrorist attacks, harm to minors (yes.. think of the children), and... serious economic harm (what exactly is that and to who?). So... it is more than a cybersecurity bill but this little bit is buried in a small few lines 40 pages into the section after mentioning "cybersecurity" probably 70 times previously as the purpose of the bill. Seems a little bait and switch. For the record I don't disagree (in total) with monitoring for these types of serious criminal activities.. I've always assumed it was done and assume it will continue to be done. Just don't call it "cybersecurity" when it is really flat out mass surveillance for non-cyber related threats. Also, it seems that the bottom line is a committee to talk about a committee in some far off period of time. Typical. But overall I agree... bureaucratic silliness. Bait and switch dishonesty. Think of the children nonsense. In short, typical Washington DC behavior. But not the end of the free internet.
    - wkdown 11y ago
      "Divison N" or page 1728
- vdfs 11y ago
  http://motherboard.vice.com/read/lawmakers-have-snuck-cisa-into-a-bill-that-is-guaranteed-to-become-a-law http://motherboard.vice.com/read/lawmakers-have-snuck-cisa-i...
- morninj 11y ago
  > (I don't support CISA, but if you asked me which I'd rather get rid of, CISA or Techdirt, I'd have to think about it.) Why? Techdirt often has great coverage of tech policy issues.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's fantastic if you just want a lurid source that will get your blood boiling while confirming your biases. If you actually want to learn things about public policy, though, Techdirt will harm you. They're in business to generate rageviews, not to inform. Techdirt is like the ZeroHedge of Internet policy news.
    - supercanuck 11y ago
      A lot of tech policy is worthy of getting your blood boiling.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Yes, and Techdirt exploits that to get you to click on their site, even though they're almost always wrong.
        supercanuck 11y ago
        Well, you are most certaintly entitled to that opinion.

tptacek 11y ago

Someone asked me about this last night. Is there sourcing for this beyond "Techdirt says so"? Because on matters of law, Techdirt is extraordinarily untrustworthy. I'd love to see the amendments or revisions that are purported to be doing this to the bill. (I don't support CISA, but if you asked me which I'd rather get rid of, CISA or Techdirt, I'd have to think about it.) update: No. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10747359 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10747359

yuhong 11y ago
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151216/05514933094/as-predicted-congress-turned-cisa-into-clear-surveillance-bill-put-it-into-must-pass-govt-funding-bill.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151216/05514933094/as-pr... has an embedded document and a link.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Thanks. Here's a sane version of that link, I think: http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20151214/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-SAHR2029-AMNT1final.pdf http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20151214/CPRT-114-HPRT-R...
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Conclusion: Techdirt is full of shit: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10747359 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=10747359
  - jqm 11y ago
    That's 2000 pages! "Sane" isn't a word I'd use to describe it either.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I meant "sane" as in "not a web-based PDF viewer". It's a whole bunch of bills crammed into one document. CISA starts around page 1730.
      - jqm 11y ago
        I didn't read the techdirt article but did read the relevant section of the bill. It sounds on the whole fairly reasonable. Here is my understanding... Companies can monitor their own systems or the systems of clients for cyberthreats and share this information with the government and with each other. They must redact personal information of non-involved parties. The capabilities and scope of the monitoring system are to be disclosed publicly. All sounds fine. Where it appears to go a bit off the rails is page 1765-1766 (section A). Here the purpose seems to expand beyond "cybersecurity" and deviate into monitoring non-cyber criminal behavior. Preventing threat of death, terrorist attacks, harm to minors (yes.. think of the children), and... serious economic harm (what exactly is that and to who?). So... it is more than a cybersecurity bill but this little bit is buried in a small few lines 40 pages into the section after mentioning "cybersecurity" probably 70 times previously as the purpose of the bill. Seems a little bait and switch. For the record I don't disagree (in total) with monitoring for these types of serious criminal activities.. I've always assumed it was done and assume it will continue to be done. Just don't call it "cybersecurity" when it is really flat out mass surveillance for non-cyber related threats. Also, it seems that the bottom line is a committee to talk about a committee in some far off period of time. Typical. But overall I agree... bureaucratic silliness. Bait and switch dishonesty. Think of the children nonsense. In short, typical Washington DC behavior. But not the end of the free internet.
  - wkdown 11y ago
    "Divison N" or page 1728
vdfs 11y ago
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/lawmakers-have-snuck-cisa-into-a-bill-that-is-guaranteed-to-become-a-law http://motherboard.vice.com/read/lawmakers-have-snuck-cisa-i...
morninj 11y ago
> (I don't support CISA, but if you asked me which I'd rather get rid of, CISA or Techdirt, I'd have to think about it.) Why? Techdirt often has great coverage of tech policy issues.
- tptacek 11y ago
  It's fantastic if you just want a lurid source that will get your blood boiling while confirming your biases. If you actually want to learn things about public policy, though, Techdirt will harm you. They're in business to generate rageviews, not to inform. Techdirt is like the ZeroHedge of Internet policy news.
  - supercanuck 11y ago
    A lot of tech policy is worthy of getting your blood boiling.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Yes, and Techdirt exploits that to get you to click on their site, even though they're almost always wrong.
      - supercanuck 11y ago
        Well, you are most certaintly entitled to that opinion.