2 ms·
I've been pretty consistently disappointed with how EFF has been portraying this bill The ACLU has had a much more measured response Say what? http://www.acl
by ScottBurson 15y ago
I've been pretty consistently disappointed with how EFF has been portraying this bill
The ACLU has had a much more measured response
Say what? http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/kicking-stop-cyber-spying-week http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-li... Sounds to me like they're singing from the same hymnal (and the ACLU page specifically says that they're joining the EFF, among others, in opposing CISPA).
It's another thing entirely to attempt to twist every meaningless, do-nothing piece of legislation to come out of Washington as an attempt to rewire the Internet in favor of the MPAA, which is exactly what the EFF appears to be doing here.
Say what? The linked page specifically acknowledges a proposed amendment to remove "intellectual property" from the relevant spot in the text -- while reminding us that said amendment has not yet been voted on. If CISPA were to pass with that phrase "intellectual property" intact, of course content owners would do their best to use it for their purposes. How far they might get, I don't know, but I think we can all agree that the amendment, once accepted, will be a valuable clarification.
Basically your argument seems to be that CISPA isn't a big deal because it's not much worse than ECPA. This is an important point, I agree. But if the goal is to improve online privacy generally, it seems to me that further steps in the wrong direction need to be opposed successfully before there can be any hope of positive movement.
If the arguments against CISPA are ultimately arguments for revising ECPA and PATRIOT, those arguments need to gain currency. People need to be sensitized to them and to think about them. That's going to take time and many battles. You seem to think we should skip this battle and save our powder. I am more inclined to the view that even if this is not the most important battle, every victory helps and this is not the time to concede anything.
- tptacek 15y agoThat ACLU blog post is from today; I hadn't seen it, and was citing a much more measured policy statement from several months ago. I find today's blog post equally as disappointing as EFF's coverage. I fundamentally disagree with the argument that we should pick sides and strive towards victory for victory's sake. That's a bad policy mechanism, but more pragmatically, it also creates fatigue, attenuates opposition to real issues, and generates a deficit of goodwill. While I don't think the legislative sponsorship of CISPA is done in good faith, I think its industry backers genuinely do feel like something needs to be done about online attacks. Though you clearly disagree with me, I think you've done a good job of summarizing my points. I'd only add this: my problem is less with opposition to the bill (I think it's a bad bill) and more with the way it's been covered by EFF, Demand Progress and Boing Boing.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Natsu 15y agoOne other problem I had with the original was how it would actively prevent any state level privacy laws from coming into effect to improve things. While I can certainly sympathize with the idea that, for simplicity's sake, such laws probably ought to be federal, that explicit preemption in the original was also worrying, because it would cut off one route towards better privacy. Perhaps they've amended that--I confess that I've not yet read the latest draft just yet--but that was a worry I had about the original. Ultimately, I think what we really need to do here is to push for better privacy laws, rather than fighting off every half-baked half-measure some legislator comes up with, and if I've understood you correctly, we agree on that.
- tptacek 15y agoYep, I think we agree. ECPA2012 sounds like a great goal.