4 ms·

A short summary of CISPA: -- any large internet company can share your data with the government; they can't be sued for it. The U.S. will end up with large da

A short summary of CISPA: -- any large internet company can share your data with the government; they can't be sued for it. The U.S. will end up with large data hoses stuck into all large internet companies. -- any large internet company can share your data with the RIAA/MPAA/private copyright police; they can't be sued for it. The copyright police will end up with large data hoses stuck into all large internet companies. That's about the start and the end of it. If you think it's great that the RIAA/MPAA will end up with the ability to suck down everything that Google/Facebook/Twitter/Verizon/Comcast/etc. know about you, with no subpoena or other legal process required, based on their allegation that you are infringing their copyrights, then you should be cool with this bill. If you think it's great that the NSA will end up with the ability to suck down everything those companies know about you based on their allegation that you are a threat to national security, again with no legal process required, then you should be cool with this bill. If you don't think that's great, you should probably oppose this bill.

tptacek 15y ago
Here's the actual text of the bill, which of course doesn't say any of that: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text Boing Boing, the EFF, and Demand Progress have seized upon the words "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information", claiming that they betray an intent for CISPA to be used as a tool for antipiracy. But, of course, "DVD rips" are just one of a zillion kinds of "intellectual property", most of which is obviously worth protecting. The real problem with this bill is that it doesn't do anything that private industry already does. ISPs already share information about attacks between themselves. The ECPA already allows potentially private information to be shared as part of good-faith investigations of computer misuse. I am personally much more cynical about the motives of major anti-CISPA activists.
- jellicle 15y ago
  >Here's the actual text of the bill, which of course doesn't say any of that: Of course it does. Learn to read. >Boing Boing, the EFF, and Demand Progress have seized upon the words "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information", claiming that they betray an intent for CISPA to be used as a tool for antipiracy. Yes, they "claim" that a law about the theft of intellectual property is about anti-piracy. Heavens to Betsy! What will they claim next? >I am personally much more cynical about the motives of major anti-CISPA activists. Do tell! What are the motives of Boing Boing, the EFF and Demand Progress? They hate America, right? Sorry tptacek, but your above comment is truth-free. If you have any actual comment on the bill, feel free to make it. The bill says exactly what I said it says.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    What action currently unlawful under the more restrictive, pre-PATRIOT ECPA would be made lawful in a plain reading of CISPA?
    - jellicle 15y ago
      I have to say, an argument that a particular proposed law does nothing - literally has no effect - seems inherently dishonest on its face. Your argument then is that the proponents are, um, doing it for their health? Because they're bored and have nothing else to do? I've only ever seen such arguments made about governmental actions by the most dishonest and most self-interested parties. I would say there's a 100% overlap in the sets of people who say "pay no attention to bill 17, it does nothing" and people who stand to benefit substantially from bill 17. ECPA is actually fairly strict. It would be both illegal and tortious for Google to, for example, share the entire contents of your Gmail archives with the MPAA, currently. But after CISPA passes, it would be neither illegal nor a tort. As for the government, it overturns and eliminates warrant/certification requirements for a wide swath of purposes. Under ECPA, a communications provider could give data to the government only if it reasonably believed it was immediately necessary to prevent death or serious injury. Under CISPA, any internet entity can give any data to the government OR ANY OTHER ENTITY for almost any sort of reason - "ensuring the integrity" of any internet service cuts a giant, giant swath. And specifically enumerated in CISPA, but entirely absent from ECPA, are that anything relating to antipiracy efforts is also covered. You seem to have a very confused idea about ECPA-1986 if you think it has much in common with CISPA-2012. To the extent that they overlap, CISPA is intended to overrule protections that ECPA provided.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        As someone who has actually had dialog with an attorney after having his mail stolen by a provider incident to a (bogus) security investigation, I believe you're wrong. Service providers have broad authority to capture, read, and even disclose information carried on their networks incident to their (sweeping) duties to operate their services and protect their property. Also: your understanding of warrant requirements under ECPA is skewed; service providers also have broad authority to disclose information to people acting under color of law in the course of criminal investigations. Again: under the restrictive 1986 ECPA (which is not the current law of the land). Also, you're mistaken about the argument I'm making. I don't think CISPA replaces ECPA.
- harshreality 15y ago
  1104 (b)(1)(B)(ii) and (b)(2)(C) and (b)(3)

tptacek 15y ago

Here's the actual text of the bill, which of course doesn't say any of that: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text Boing Boing, the EFF, and Demand Progress have seized upon the words "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information", claiming that they betray an intent for CISPA to be used as a tool for antipiracy. But, of course, "DVD rips" are just one of a zillion kinds of "intellectual property", most of which is obviously worth protecting. The real problem with this bill is that it doesn't do anything that private industry already does. ISPs already share information about attacks between themselves. The ECPA already allows potentially private information to be shared as part of good-faith investigations of computer misuse. I am personally much more cynical about the motives of major anti-CISPA activists.

jellicle 15y ago
>Here's the actual text of the bill, which of course doesn't say any of that: Of course it does. Learn to read. >Boing Boing, the EFF, and Demand Progress have seized upon the words "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information", claiming that they betray an intent for CISPA to be used as a tool for antipiracy. Yes, they "claim" that a law about the theft of intellectual property is about anti-piracy. Heavens to Betsy! What will they claim next? >I am personally much more cynical about the motives of major anti-CISPA activists. Do tell! What are the motives of Boing Boing, the EFF and Demand Progress? They hate America, right? Sorry tptacek, but your above comment is truth-free. If you have any actual comment on the bill, feel free to make it. The bill says exactly what I said it says.
- tptacek 15y ago
  What action currently unlawful under the more restrictive, pre-PATRIOT ECPA would be made lawful in a plain reading of CISPA?
  - jellicle 15y ago
    I have to say, an argument that a particular proposed law does nothing - literally has no effect - seems inherently dishonest on its face. Your argument then is that the proponents are, um, doing it for their health? Because they're bored and have nothing else to do? I've only ever seen such arguments made about governmental actions by the most dishonest and most self-interested parties. I would say there's a 100% overlap in the sets of people who say "pay no attention to bill 17, it does nothing" and people who stand to benefit substantially from bill 17. ECPA is actually fairly strict. It would be both illegal and tortious for Google to, for example, share the entire contents of your Gmail archives with the MPAA, currently. But after CISPA passes, it would be neither illegal nor a tort. As for the government, it overturns and eliminates warrant/certification requirements for a wide swath of purposes. Under ECPA, a communications provider could give data to the government only if it reasonably believed it was immediately necessary to prevent death or serious injury. Under CISPA, any internet entity can give any data to the government OR ANY OTHER ENTITY for almost any sort of reason - "ensuring the integrity" of any internet service cuts a giant, giant swath. And specifically enumerated in CISPA, but entirely absent from ECPA, are that anything relating to antipiracy efforts is also covered. You seem to have a very confused idea about ECPA-1986 if you think it has much in common with CISPA-2012. To the extent that they overlap, CISPA is intended to overrule protections that ECPA provided.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      As someone who has actually had dialog with an attorney after having his mail stolen by a provider incident to a (bogus) security investigation, I believe you're wrong. Service providers have broad authority to capture, read, and even disclose information carried on their networks incident to their (sweeping) duties to operate their services and protect their property. Also: your understanding of warrant requirements under ECPA is skewed; service providers also have broad authority to disclose information to people acting under color of law in the course of criminal investigations. Again: under the restrictive 1986 ECPA (which is not the current law of the land). Also, you're mistaken about the argument I'm making. I don't think CISPA replaces ECPA.
harshreality 15y ago
1104 (b)(1)(B)(ii) and (b)(2)(C) and (b)(3)