6 ms·

The 28 Corporations Supporting CISPA

65 points by CowboyRobot 15y ago

dmoy 15y ago
Most of these are not terribly surprising. Defense contractors, telecom, Facebook, etc.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Microsoft being there is not that surprising either. They will always support an anti-piracy or similar law, at least until the public outrage is big enough for them to withdraw.
rdl 15y ago
I am somewhat shocked that Facebook is on the list. I'd like to know their reasoning.
- yuvadam 15y ago
  > "800 million users entrust Facebook with their personal information" [1] Make that 799,999,999. I do not trust any corporation that supports further institutionalized intervention in our lives. [1] - http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/FacebookHR3523.pdf http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/f...
- Tzunamitom 15y ago
  I am more shocked that Facebook have a "Vice President, US Public Policy"!
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  Facebook wants better intel on new attacks as they happen. The same intrusion tactics that are tried against, say, Google or RSA, are used against Facebook. But right now Facebook would have no idea what those are until they hit, because there is no legal framework for sharing detailed network intrusion data, without risking legal liability. In addition the only government clearinghouse for this sort of data is US-CERT, which is so slow that its alerts are only good for nostalgic remembrances of attacks long past.
Xuzz 15y ago
Please read the actual text of CISPA before making any judgements. It's reasonably short and not all that hard to understand. It's also nowhere near as evil as it is being made out to be. For those interested, here's a link: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text As far as I can tell, it appears to be essentially a data-sharing bill for network intrusions, to allow companies and government to get around existing barriers to investigate network intrusions. I'm certainly open to the possibility that it is somehow worse, but I am really having a hard time seeing how.
- tptacek 15y ago
  SOPA was a rageview bonanza for sites like Wired and Mashable. This bill could declare the sky to be periodically be blue; so long as it contained the word "cyber" or mentioned computers, a credulous mob will vote it up. In this particular case, venues like the EFF blog are counting on the idea that readers don't know what the ECPA is, and that they'll believe that it was somehow unlawful for companies like AT&T and Google to monitor their networks and, yes, your data for evidence of intrusions, or to share that data once it's uncovered. It is not unlawful. This bill does virtually nothing. It's probably just a ploy for attention.
  - rdl 15y ago
    ECPA primarily covers networks and attacks on networks, and incidentally protects certain forms of communication, including stored information. In general, ECPA seems to restrict government activity. I don't think it goes far enough (it protects certain types of communication more than others, and the way they were picked seems to be a historical accident.) CISPA, as I read it, both protects networks AND "information rights holders". Given the history with DMCA, COPA, (+ SOPA, PIPA), etc., it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to think the government (and those information rights holders) will use CISPA to use the tools provided for national security to address copyright violation. This is the same government using PATRIOT to go after local drug dealers. I could support CISPA if it focused solely on information sharing from government to private enterprise (and protection from liability) for network or infrastructure attacks. Most of the legitimate network-defense activities which would be permitted under CISPA are already allowed under existing laws. There might be a few corner cases around classified intelligence and uncleared entities, but this legislation is overly broad.
lallysingh 15y ago
A cybersec tightening is inevitable. The US is getting hit hard. The lockheed hack ( http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Hackers+Use+Stolen+RSA+Information+to+Hack+Lockheed+Martin/article21757.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Hackers+Use+Stolen+RSA+Info... ) was a pretty loud wake-up call. The "not a nerds" in DC are slowly realizing that this issue can help them get election money. The US's infrastructure is predominantly private so the tightening will inevitable be in (a) policy and (b) spending. Not speaking directly about this bill, but when the government does both for security, it's always a cluster-!@#$ shit-show.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  The RSA -> Lockheed attacks were what led directly to this bill. That is why, for instance, the bill includes language on "intellectual property". The attackers were trying to steal design and software files from Lockheed, which could both be considered intellectual property. Personally I think they could drop that language from the bill entirely, since unauthorized network access is already a crime in the U.S. The private ownership of U.S. infrastructure is why this bill is built primarily around limitation of liability. The idea is that U.S. private companies will do a better job communicating with one another on cybersecurity if they don't have to worry about getting sued for admitting that they got attacked.
shareme 15y ago
I have a question.. Why is the US government attempting to prop up the flaws of closed OS system by engaging in the wholesale revoking of the US constitution? I do not think US Congress was ever implemented or thought to be the exact org to fix such a private and commercial transgression. However, banning MS OS from internet would be just as wrong. Why not have US Congress give incentives for end users to choose secure desktop OSes?

65 points by CowboyRobot 15y ago

dmoy 15y ago

Most of these are not terribly surprising. Defense contractors, telecom, Facebook, etc.

nextparadigms 15y ago
Microsoft being there is not that surprising either. They will always support an anti-piracy or similar law, at least until the public outrage is big enough for them to withdraw.

rdl 15y ago

I am somewhat shocked that Facebook is on the list. I'd like to know their reasoning.

yuvadam 15y ago
> "800 million users entrust Facebook with their personal information" [1] Make that 799,999,999. I do not trust any corporation that supports further institutionalized intervention in our lives. [1] - http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/FacebookHR3523.pdf http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/f...
Tzunamitom 15y ago
I am more shocked that Facebook have a "Vice President, US Public Policy"!
snowwrestler 15y ago
Facebook wants better intel on new attacks as they happen. The same intrusion tactics that are tried against, say, Google or RSA, are used against Facebook. But right now Facebook would have no idea what those are until they hit, because there is no legal framework for sharing detailed network intrusion data, without risking legal liability. In addition the only government clearinghouse for this sort of data is US-CERT, which is so slow that its alerts are only good for nostalgic remembrances of attacks long past.

Xuzz 15y ago

Please read the actual text of CISPA before making any judgements. It's reasonably short and not all that hard to understand. It's also nowhere near as evil as it is being made out to be. For those interested, here's a link: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text As far as I can tell, it appears to be essentially a data-sharing bill for network intrusions, to allow companies and government to get around existing barriers to investigate network intrusions. I'm certainly open to the possibility that it is somehow worse, but I am really having a hard time seeing how.

tptacek 15y ago
SOPA was a rageview bonanza for sites like Wired and Mashable. This bill could declare the sky to be periodically be blue; so long as it contained the word "cyber" or mentioned computers, a credulous mob will vote it up. In this particular case, venues like the EFF blog are counting on the idea that readers don't know what the ECPA is, and that they'll believe that it was somehow unlawful for companies like AT&T and Google to monitor their networks and, yes, your data for evidence of intrusions, or to share that data once it's uncovered. It is not unlawful. This bill does virtually nothing. It's probably just a ploy for attention.
- rdl 15y ago
  ECPA primarily covers networks and attacks on networks, and incidentally protects certain forms of communication, including stored information. In general, ECPA seems to restrict government activity. I don't think it goes far enough (it protects certain types of communication more than others, and the way they were picked seems to be a historical accident.) CISPA, as I read it, both protects networks AND "information rights holders". Given the history with DMCA, COPA, (+ SOPA, PIPA), etc., it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to think the government (and those information rights holders) will use CISPA to use the tools provided for national security to address copyright violation. This is the same government using PATRIOT to go after local drug dealers. I could support CISPA if it focused solely on information sharing from government to private enterprise (and protection from liability) for network or infrastructure attacks. Most of the legitimate network-defense activities which would be permitted under CISPA are already allowed under existing laws. There might be a few corner cases around classified intelligence and uncleared entities, but this legislation is overly broad.

lallysingh 15y ago

A cybersec tightening is inevitable. The US is getting hit hard. The lockheed hack ( http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Hackers+Use+Stolen+RSA+Information+to+Hack+Lockheed+Martin/article21757.htm http://www.dailytech.com/Reports+Hackers+Use+Stolen+RSA+Info... ) was a pretty loud wake-up call. The "not a nerds" in DC are slowly realizing that this issue can help them get election money. The US's infrastructure is predominantly private so the tightening will inevitable be in (a) policy and (b) spending. Not speaking directly about this bill, but when the government does both for security, it's always a cluster-!@#$ shit-show.

snowwrestler 15y ago
The RSA -> Lockheed attacks were what led directly to this bill. That is why, for instance, the bill includes language on "intellectual property". The attackers were trying to steal design and software files from Lockheed, which could both be considered intellectual property. Personally I think they could drop that language from the bill entirely, since unauthorized network access is already a crime in the U.S. The private ownership of U.S. infrastructure is why this bill is built primarily around limitation of liability. The idea is that U.S. private companies will do a better job communicating with one another on cybersecurity if they don't have to worry about getting sued for admitting that they got attacked.

shareme 15y ago

I have a question.. Why is the US government attempting to prop up the flaws of closed OS system by engaging in the wholesale revoking of the US constitution? I do not think US Congress was ever implemented or thought to be the exact org to fix such a private and commercial transgression. However, banning MS OS from internet would be just as wrong. Why not have US Congress give incentives for end users to choose secure desktop OSes?