4 ms·

This doesn't invalidate anything I said. The sections which were removed were designed to compel the executive branch to take certain actions. The Obama adminis

This doesn't invalidate anything I said. The sections which were removed were designed to compel the executive branch to take certain actions. The Obama administration believed Congress should not have the power to compel the President to take action. Instead, the administration is only allowed to indefinitely detain citizens without trial in the final bill's section 1021. Unlike section 1021, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld only applies to citizens arrested overseas like Hamdi (in a literal battlefield) so long as they may contest their designation as an "enemy combatant". A veto threat is not a veto promise. Just because most Americans oppose a certain provision doesn't mean the veto threat is conditioned on removing that same provision. The proof is in the handling of the NDAA bill text.

azernik 15y ago
In that case, the sections the Administration objected to (and got removed) were about compelling the executive branch to act; in this case, the ones cited in the veto threat (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-administrations-threatens-to-veto-cispa-20120425,0,1194826.story http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-a...) are about the precisely the privacy concerns you're worried about. Though I'm not familiar enough with the bill to know if everything objectionable in CISPA is in fact objected to in the memo, it's definitely a substantial and positive step.
- dfc 15y ago
  How would you know if its a "substantial and positive step" if you are not familiar with everything in the bill?
  - azernik 15y ago
    Because the changes mentioned in the memo cite the specific parts of the bill to which they would apply. For example: In addition, H.R. 3523 would inappropriately shield companies from any suits where a company's actions are based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this bill, regardless of whether that action otherwise violated Federal criminal law or results in damage or loss of life. This broad liability protection not only removes a strong incentive to improving cybersecurity, it also potentially undermines our Nation's economic, national security, and public safety interests. I don't need to know everything about the bill to know that liability protection that broad is a Bad Thing, and that attempts to strip it out are both substantial and positive.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Under what law would an email provider be exposed to liability should they opt to share information about email accounts, or even the contents of email messages, in the course of responding to a network security incident? Hint: the Federal law that attempts to establish that email stored at a provider is even "private" to begin with carves out a broad exception for exactly this kind of sharing, with no limitations on how that information is stored or relayed.
      - azernik 15y ago
        But a lot of companies that aren't e-mail providers (for example, health care providers) are currently exposed to a lot of liability if they share your information without your consent.
        tptacek 15y ago
        This is a really good point. I see the conflict between HIPAA and CISPA as an artifact of it being a bad, poorly- thought- out bill, though, not a conspiracy to gain access to (e.g.) medical data. It's also worth noting that HIPAA is a notoriously toothless regulation; if you talk to practice managers that focus on health care, you'll hear stories about companies simply setting aside funds to pay the (comparatively minor) fines they're unlikely to be assessed.

azernik 15y ago

In that case, the sections the Administration objected to (and got removed) were about compelling the executive branch to act; in this case, the ones cited in the veto threat (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-administrations-threatens-to-veto-cispa-20120425,0,1194826.story http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-a...) are about the precisely the privacy concerns you're worried about. Though I'm not familiar enough with the bill to know if everything objectionable in CISPA is in fact objected to in the memo, it's definitely a substantial and positive step.

dfc 15y ago
How would you know if its a "substantial and positive step" if you are not familiar with everything in the bill?
- azernik 15y ago
  Because the changes mentioned in the memo cite the specific parts of the bill to which they would apply. For example: In addition, H.R. 3523 would inappropriately shield companies from any suits where a company's actions are based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this bill, regardless of whether that action otherwise violated Federal criminal law or results in damage or loss of life. This broad liability protection not only removes a strong incentive to improving cybersecurity, it also potentially undermines our Nation's economic, national security, and public safety interests. I don't need to know everything about the bill to know that liability protection that broad is a Bad Thing, and that attempts to strip it out are both substantial and positive.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Under what law would an email provider be exposed to liability should they opt to share information about email accounts, or even the contents of email messages, in the course of responding to a network security incident? Hint: the Federal law that attempts to establish that email stored at a provider is even "private" to begin with carves out a broad exception for exactly this kind of sharing, with no limitations on how that information is stored or relayed.
    - azernik 15y ago
      But a lot of companies that aren't e-mail providers (for example, health care providers) are currently exposed to a lot of liability if they share your information without your consent.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        This is a really good point. I see the conflict between HIPAA and CISPA as an artifact of it being a bad, poorly- thought- out bill, though, not a conspiracy to gain access to (e.g.) medical data. It's also worth noting that HIPAA is a notoriously toothless regulation; if you talk to practice managers that focus on health care, you'll hear stories about companies simply setting aside funds to pay the (comparatively minor) fines they're unlikely to be assessed.