3 ms·
> I don't think the ECPA is/needs to be overridden by this law. Well, the EFF seems to think it creates a giant exception to pretty much everything so long as
by Natsu 15y ago
> I don't think the ECPA is/needs to be overridden by this law.
Well, the EFF seems to think it creates a giant exception to pretty much everything so long as you're dealing with network security and I've read those "notwithstanding" clauses for myself, so we'll have to disagree on that. It has a huge catch-all net and we both know that there's always some joker trying to exploit random machines on the internet and you'll catch plenty of automated attempts if you watch your IDS & firewall logs.
Insofar as the law is unnecessary, that's all the more reason not to pass it in the first place. You may very well be right about it being a favor for whomever. But it is the burden of the proponents to make the case that it is necessary and I've not seen anyone do that.
I haven't seen anyone running through the streets shouting that the end is near, here, but I didn't bother to read any Wired or TC pieces on it, either. There's no reason we can't calmly explain to our reps that we oppose this unnecessary bill. I have no interest in defending whatever hyperbolic articles you've read. I haven't even bothered to read much of anything except the bill itself and the EFF piece.
Even so, I find it to be a poorly considered law and I see good reason to calmly explain to my reps that I oppose it, even if nothing comes of it in the end.
- tptacek 15y agoEFF has two reasons to oppose this bill other than that it's bad public policy: (a) EFF consistently objects to the language used in every law pertaining to the Internet; in this case, their lede is that the language is "too broad". It's possible that no bill with any reasonable chance of escaping committee will ever have language locked down enough to satisfy the EFF publicly. (b) The EFF can fundraise (and, at the very least, draw attention) out of every one of these controversies. I personally think the EFF has overspent it's credibility doing this over the past several years. Note the difference in coverage between EFF and ACLU (which I do support, and contribute to), on both CISPA and SOPA. The do-nothing attention-grabbing nature of this bill is a reason to oppose it, and probably one that I share. But that does not make it OK to stir up pointless controversy, to extrapolate wildly from its text, to invent features of the bill out of whole cloth, or to demonize any company associated with it. (Not that you're doing any of that.)
- Natsu 15y ago> Note the difference in coverage between EFF and ACLU (which I do support, and contribute to), on both CISPA and SOPA. Is this the ACLU coverage of CISPA you're talking about? https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-opposition-hr-3523-cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-2011 https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-opposition-... The ACLU appears to oppose CISPA just as strongly as the EFF. I may have missed something, but I'm not able to find substantial disagreement between their positions on this one. Am I missing something here, or is it a matter of style rather than substance that you dislike? I note in particular that the ACLU agrees with the EFF about the language of CISPA being too broad. One of its recommendations is that CISPA should be amended to "Narrowly define the privacy laws it will contravene. The committee must carefully consider what privacy laws truly inhibit necessary information-sharing and craft narrow exceptions limited to just those critical circumstances." I have to agree with both the ACLU & EFF on this point. While this is indeed a common complaint about internet legislation, it is not an unreasonable one. Admittedly, I have not compared their stances on SOPA, but SOPA should be pretty much irrelevant now, I hope.