4 ms·

CISPA is not SOPA

2 points by kylemaxwell 15y ago

pwg 15y ago
> I do not have an attorney’s license, or even a law degree, And therein lies the trouble with the analysis. It is factual, but performed from a perspective of an engineer. An engineer not looking for loopholes and not looking for how to stretch the meaning of the broad wording to attach it to something else entirely. Attorneys are paid to find the loopholes, and to stretch the meaning of the statutes to fit the desires of their clients. Broad sweeping definitions just make it infinitely easier to stretch the bill's language to make it apply to unrelated areas. If the bill was honestly and truly meant to be what it purports, then the language would be nice and tight, with no wiggle room to stretch it to fit something else. For example, here's passage (B)(1)(i) of the bill: > `(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity; and The bill does not define "cybersecurity systems" - leaving this term open to be just about anything. Nor does the bill define "cyber threat information" - leaving this term open to be just about anything. So long as they are "protect[ing] the rights and property" of a protected entity. So, with this broad language, a deep-level packet inspection system sniffing every ISP's users data streams looking for purported copyright infringement would be perfectly legal, because it would be a "cybersecurity system" protecting against "cyber threats" in order to "protect the rights and property" of a "protected entity". Where "rights" is the copyright and the protected entity is a MPAA/RIAA member, and the "cyber threat" is that of supposed lost profits from supposed copyright infringement. That's the trouble with broadly worded bills. They allow attorneys to stretch them to fit something they were never intended. Read up on "unintended consequences": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences.
- kylemaxwell 15y ago
  Except nothing in the bill obliges the ISP to monitor for copyright holders, which would run significant costs for them both in terms of systems and personnel. The ISP is not a cybersecurity provider for rights holders under the definitions of the proposed statute. Please don't be condescending in actually linking a Wikipedia article on unintended consequences, by the way. That's not necessary for civil, rational debate.
  - pwg 15y ago
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120410/12180518442/cispa-is-really-bad-bill-heres-why.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120410/12180518442/cispa-...
    - kylemaxwell 15y ago
      Another flawed analysis. Again, while imperfect, this bill simply does not contain any provision that obliges anyone to do anything. I don't disagree that it can be improved, but CISPA isn't even close to SOPA: no blocking requirements, no facilities for intervening with advertisers or payment providers, etc.

2 points by kylemaxwell 15y ago

pwg 15y ago

> I do not have an attorney’s license, or even a law degree, And therein lies the trouble with the analysis. It is factual, but performed from a perspective of an engineer. An engineer not looking for loopholes and not looking for how to stretch the meaning of the broad wording to attach it to something else entirely. Attorneys are paid to find the loopholes, and to stretch the meaning of the statutes to fit the desires of their clients. Broad sweeping definitions just make it infinitely easier to stretch the bill's language to make it apply to unrelated areas. If the bill was honestly and truly meant to be what it purports, then the language would be nice and tight, with no wiggle room to stretch it to fit something else. For example, here's passage (B)(1)(i) of the bill: > `(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity; and The bill does not define "cybersecurity systems" - leaving this term open to be just about anything. Nor does the bill define "cyber threat information" - leaving this term open to be just about anything. So long as they are "protect[ing] the rights and property" of a protected entity. So, with this broad language, a deep-level packet inspection system sniffing every ISP's users data streams looking for purported copyright infringement would be perfectly legal, because it would be a "cybersecurity system" protecting against "cyber threats" in order to "protect the rights and property" of a "protected entity". Where "rights" is the copyright and the protected entity is a MPAA/RIAA member, and the "cyber threat" is that of supposed lost profits from supposed copyright infringement. That's the trouble with broadly worded bills. They allow attorneys to stretch them to fit something they were never intended. Read up on "unintended consequences": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences.

kylemaxwell 15y ago
Except nothing in the bill obliges the ISP to monitor for copyright holders, which would run significant costs for them both in terms of systems and personnel. The ISP is not a cybersecurity provider for rights holders under the definitions of the proposed statute. Please don't be condescending in actually linking a Wikipedia article on unintended consequences, by the way. That's not necessary for civil, rational debate.
- pwg 15y ago
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120410/12180518442/cispa-is-really-bad-bill-heres-why.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120410/12180518442/cispa-...
  - kylemaxwell 15y ago
    Another flawed analysis. Again, while imperfect, this bill simply does not contain any provision that obliges anyone to do anything. I don't disagree that it can be improved, but CISPA isn't even close to SOPA: no blocking requirements, no facilities for intervening with advertisers or payment providers, etc.