5 ms·

Obama Will Veto CISPA Unless Changes Are Made

102 points by llambda 15y ago

geophile 15y ago
... or until he caves, yet again.
- geophile 15y ago
  Why was that downvoted? The guy has a track record. He was dead-set against telecom immunity, before he voted to support it (back when he was a senator). He was for repealing the Bush tax cuts until he wasn't. He caved on budget negotiations when he agreed that the deficit was the biggest budget problem. He was all for closing Gitmo until he wasn't. He was against signing statements until he got into office. His record on civil liberties (domestic spying, FOIA, strip searches -- he argued for the majority opinion, domestic use of drones) has been in stark contrast to the sort of things he was saying when he was a candidate. I think he has proven that statements beginning with the words "I will" must be taken with a large grain of salt. In fact, with CSIPA you can already see it happening -- the weasel words to note are "in its current form". How can you believe his progressive-leaning statements any longer without being completely naive?
  - gte910h 15y ago
    He was still for repealing the tax cuts, but he was unwilling to let the unemployment benefits lapse as would if he didn't.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    >Why was that downvoted? Tone, I'd take it. The same reason you are being downvoted.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Stop getting your news from blogs. Really.
  - mcknz 15y ago
    Probably initially DVed b/c it doesn't add anything to the discussion, and partisan, unbacked assertions generally aren't welcomed. Poisoning the well fallacy might apply here.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I downvoted it because the comment was content-free. "Backs down" from what? What's the likelihood that a random HN commenter intends to communicate support for the 2012 White House "Cybersecurity" agenda with a comment like that? Epsilon. As for your "in their current form" innuendo: that would be clever, except that the Administration has for several years communicated loud and clear what their agenda is on this subject. That it is surely something you will not approve of (likelihood that random sampling of HN readers will go apeshit over what the Obama Administration wants to do vis a vis cyberspace: 99.999%) doesn't make it "weaselly". They've been anything but weaselly on this topic.
  - nacker 15y ago
    There are plenty of technically smart people who are politically completely naive, geophile! Most of them are also blissfully unaware of Oblabla's statements that he would veto the NDAA, until the last moment, of course, when in the dead of night on New Year's Eve, he had a "sudden change of heart", and signed it. Oops!
tptacek 15y ago
Note to poorly-informed HN readers: the conflict playing out here isn't --- IS NOT --- between the GOP which wants intrusive monitoring of Facebook and the Obama camp which wants government to keep its grubby paws off private data. Instead, what's happening is that policy people in the Administration believe we need extensive further legislation and rulemaking to ensure that computer systems which are in any way "vital to the national interest" are kept "secure", where a final definition of "security" is sure to rest on "XXX hours of $400/person/hour time from a Raytheon or Lockheed subcontractor". Restated†: The GOP: * Wants Government to keep its hands off private networks * Does not currently see "cybersecurity" as a subject worth increasing Executive power over (possibly a side effect of who controls the Executive) * Is, true to form, pursuing a policy of finding minimalistic ways of allowing private industry to self-regulate the problem away * Is marginally more likely than the Democratic Administration to want to concede privacy concerns to private industry and away from end-users in the service of this goal The Democratic Administration: * Generally believes itself to be at (undeclared, cold) war with China over information systems * Believes Government intervention is going to be required to protect utilities, communications, military, and trading exchange networks * Is marginally more likely than the GOP to want to enact rules regarding information privacy that protect end-users from private industry --- but not from the Government. The animating concern regarding CISPA to HN readers is privacy. You should be aware that privacy is a third- or fourth- tier concern of both factions in this policy debate. The real concern is: does private industry tackle the "China hacker problem" itself, or does the Government step in? Excepting that the only mechanism the government has to add security to any network (private, public, or military) is to purchase blocks of Raytheon hours, I don't even disagree with Obama: the security of many networks that are prima facie vital to the public interest are not only a shambles, but continue to degrade in quality as rounds of purchasing and infrastructure upgrades continue to execute without any serious attention given to software security quality. Look at the "Smart Grid" for the most obvious example, but there are more, such as SCADA networks that are "modernizing" into web-based systems with circa-2005 levels of application security. The Administration is not wrong that CISPA doesn't go far enough --- and again: that is the central conflict here, that CISPA does.not.go.far.enough --- but they have no effective mechanisms to bring to bear to improve the situation either. Their vantage point implies a bonanza for giant government contractors like Lockheed and SAIC. Be careful what you wish for, especially if all your opinions about CISPA came from EFF. For the first time, my perception is that the EFF is running with this CISPA issue not out of genuine concern over policy, but because it's a vehicle for fundraising off Internet rage. And look at the result: stories where the Democratic Administration looks like a white knight. Wow, is that ever the opposite of what's actually happening. † (and please note I'm a dollars-donating supporter of the Democratic party; I support public schools and believe in single-payer health care --- but party identification is unavoidable here and vital to understanding what is happening)

102 points by llambda 15y ago

geophile 15y ago

... or until he caves, yet again.

geophile 15y ago
Why was that downvoted? The guy has a track record. He was dead-set against telecom immunity, before he voted to support it (back when he was a senator). He was for repealing the Bush tax cuts until he wasn't. He caved on budget negotiations when he agreed that the deficit was the biggest budget problem. He was all for closing Gitmo until he wasn't. He was against signing statements until he got into office. His record on civil liberties (domestic spying, FOIA, strip searches -- he argued for the majority opinion, domestic use of drones) has been in stark contrast to the sort of things he was saying when he was a candidate. I think he has proven that statements beginning with the words "I will" must be taken with a large grain of salt. In fact, with CSIPA you can already see it happening -- the weasel words to note are "in its current form". How can you believe his progressive-leaning statements any longer without being completely naive?
- gte910h 15y ago
  He was still for repealing the tax cuts, but he was unwilling to let the unemployment benefits lapse as would if he didn't.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >Why was that downvoted? Tone, I'd take it. The same reason you are being downvoted.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Stop getting your news from blogs. Really.
- mcknz 15y ago
  Probably initially DVed b/c it doesn't add anything to the discussion, and partisan, unbacked assertions generally aren't welcomed. Poisoning the well fallacy might apply here.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I downvoted it because the comment was content-free. "Backs down" from what? What's the likelihood that a random HN commenter intends to communicate support for the 2012 White House "Cybersecurity" agenda with a comment like that? Epsilon. As for your "in their current form" innuendo: that would be clever, except that the Administration has for several years communicated loud and clear what their agenda is on this subject. That it is surely something you will not approve of (likelihood that random sampling of HN readers will go apeshit over what the Obama Administration wants to do vis a vis cyberspace: 99.999%) doesn't make it "weaselly". They've been anything but weaselly on this topic.
- nacker 15y ago
  There are plenty of technically smart people who are politically completely naive, geophile! Most of them are also blissfully unaware of Oblabla's statements that he would veto the NDAA, until the last moment, of course, when in the dead of night on New Year's Eve, he had a "sudden change of heart", and signed it. Oops!

tptacek 15y ago

Note to poorly-informed HN readers: the conflict playing out here isn't --- IS NOT --- between the GOP which wants intrusive monitoring of Facebook and the Obama camp which wants government to keep its grubby paws off private data. Instead, what's happening is that policy people in the Administration believe we need extensive further legislation and rulemaking to ensure that computer systems which are in any way "vital to the national interest" are kept "secure", where a final definition of "security" is sure to rest on "XXX hours of $400/person/hour time from a Raytheon or Lockheed subcontractor". Restated†: The GOP: * Wants Government to keep its hands off private networks * Does not currently see "cybersecurity" as a subject worth increasing Executive power over (possibly a side effect of who controls the Executive) * Is, true to form, pursuing a policy of finding minimalistic ways of allowing private industry to self-regulate the problem away * Is marginally more likely than the Democratic Administration to want to concede privacy concerns to private industry and away from end-users in the service of this goal The Democratic Administration: * Generally believes itself to be at (undeclared, cold) war with China over information systems * Believes Government intervention is going to be required to protect utilities, communications, military, and trading exchange networks * Is marginally more likely than the GOP to want to enact rules regarding information privacy that protect end-users from private industry --- but not from the Government. The animating concern regarding CISPA to HN readers is privacy. You should be aware that privacy is a third- or fourth- tier concern of both factions in this policy debate. The real concern is: does private industry tackle the "China hacker problem" itself, or does the Government step in? Excepting that the only mechanism the government has to add security to any network (private, public, or military) is to purchase blocks of Raytheon hours, I don't even disagree with Obama: the security of many networks that are prima facie vital to the public interest are not only a shambles, but continue to degrade in quality as rounds of purchasing and infrastructure upgrades continue to execute without any serious attention given to software security quality. Look at the "Smart Grid" for the most obvious example, but there are more, such as SCADA networks that are "modernizing" into web-based systems with circa-2005 levels of application security. The Administration is not wrong that CISPA doesn't go far enough --- and again: that is the central conflict here, that CISPA does.not.go.far.enough --- but they have no effective mechanisms to bring to bear to improve the situation either. Their vantage point implies a bonanza for giant government contractors like Lockheed and SAIC. Be careful what you wish for, especially if all your opinions about CISPA came from EFF. For the first time, my perception is that the EFF is running with this CISPA issue not out of genuine concern over policy, but because it's a vehicle for fundraising off Internet rage. And look at the result: stories where the Democratic Administration looks like a white knight. Wow, is that ever the opposite of what's actually happening. † (and please note I'm a dollars-donating supporter of the Democratic party; I support public schools and believe in single-payer health care --- but party identification is unavoidable here and vital to understanding what is happening)