6 ms·
The House passes CISPA with a vote of 248 to 168
- r0s 14y agoThe House passes all kinds of crazy stuff, the Senate is where legislation goes to die.
- cellis 14y agoSeriously who gives a shit what the house does? It's basically a filter for the real issues in the Senate.
- newbie12 14y agoThat's exactly how the system was designed to work-- a feature, not a bug, to let hot issues simmer down before passage.
- Steko 14y agoActually no supermajorities were not in the Senate by design. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Cloture_Voting%2C_United_States_Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Cloture_V...
- culturestate 14y agoHe means that the framers' idea was that the Senate should moderate the House, which is true.
- akavi 14y agoSo much for the theory that the threat of a veto is as good as a veto. Anyone willing to bet Obama won't sign this?
- smashing 14y ago168 / 248 = 0.67 Overriding a veto could be quite easy if this gets sent back to the House.
- eck 14y agoThat's not how the math works. It's 2/3 * 435 = 290, so they're still 42 votes short.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoThey'd need a 2/3 majority in the Senate as well.
- smashing 14y agoI just assumed it was 2/3 of a majority of sitting members. I am surprised at all the downvotes though, but I guess that is how YCombinator news works.
- larsbot 14y agoGood or bad, I'd be surprised if he ever has the chance to sign it. It has to make its way through the quagmire that is the senate first.
- tptacek 14y agoJust a reminder: many (maybe most) of the Dems who voted against CISPA did so because they favor a more intrusive intervention: they want the government to establish standards for "cybersecurity" to apply to private industry systems they consider "critical infrastructure", and then for the government to deputize specific firms (read: Raytheon, SAIC, Lockheed) to conduct mandatory audits of those firms. Privacy is a fig leaf here. Also remember: under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, none of the information disclosure "authorized" by CISPA was already unlawful. 18 USC § 2702 (b) (5): private companies can voluntarily disclose private customer information "as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service". Without limitation. With no check on the what the government does with that information afterwards. CISPA added restrictions (albeit weak ones) on sharing; it didn't meaningfully broaden what could be shared. Regardless of what EFF says about this (unfortunately, I personally believe EFF's interest in CISPA is largely about fundraising), you probably should be careful about cheering CISPA's demise.
- rayiner 14y agoYes, thank you. The CISPA fear totally ignores the fact that all of the stuff in CISPA is already legal. You don't have a privacy interest in all of that information you give to third parties every day. Maybe you should, but that's a matter for a Constitutional amendment, because as it is that information is fair game.
- throwaway64 14y agothere is not however, guaranteed immunity from civil/criminal prosecution for sharing data under the auspices of "national security", thats whats important about CISPA, it is carte blanc for the government to collect whatever data it wants, with zero oversight or accountability. tptacek seems to be pushing the line that "this bill does nothing, everything it establishes is already legal". But i caution HN users to be aware of his own vested interests in this bill.
- tptacek 14y ago
- vectorpush 14y agoI have no faith in an Obama veto. I feel confident that whatever changes are made to the bill before it passes the senate will be used as an excuse for Obama to sign it.
- blhack 14y agoListening to this on cspan was...frustrating. These are people who only learned what the terms "network" and "line of code" mean a few months ago, using them as if they are an authority on the topic. And to hear some of this nonsense, about China being "an organized crime syndicate", or all the negativity about Russia. Or about how they're doing all of this because they need to protect citizens from "cyber threats". FFS, guys, no. Look at the complete disaster of security that is the TSA. You're telling us that you're the ones that are going to protect us? Your understanding of what you're talking about is so limited that it took shutting down wikipedia, reddit, and countless other websites for a day to keep you from completely breaking the DNS a couple of months ago. I think we're doing fine protecting ourselves from "cyber threats", guys, thanks. [And yes, of course I realize that the "we're doing it for you!" is just nonsense.]
- tptacek 14y agoI know what a network is and I know what a line of code is. The underlying concern being addressed here is not invalid. We are not doing "just fine" protecting ourselves from "cyber threats". In fact, I don't know a single credible person working in software security who believes that. If anything, things in 2012 are far worse than they were in 2001: more critical systems than ever are networked, either directly to the Internet, to open GSM networks, or to proprietary RF. Those that aren't are virtually always one hop away from someone using completely vulnerable clientside software. Organized hacking syndicates in China are also not a made-up problem. I probably share your confidence in the Administration's ability to address the problem top-down, but comments like yours actually subtract value from the discussion. Any debate where you lead the opposition to things like CISPA dies immediately, because you've chosen to attack a totally valid premise instead of the specific arguments this bill or Obama's makes.
- PaperclipTaken 14y agoI think that to give the responsibility of security to the government is a fallacy, not only because the government is very capable of abusing the power and screwing up in a huge way, but also because it will make private companies less likely to take the appropriate measures to protect themselves. Defending yourself from an attack is almost always easier than being the attacker. You just have to know what type of technology you are working with and the inherent security holes in that technology. You don't need to blow millions of dollars on security unless you are already a company worth several hundred million dollars. And the other problem is that there will always be skillful hackers, and these hackers will always have the means and the knowledge to hide from the government, even if the government has access to a much greater percentage of information going through the internet. If the government has fancier tools to access things like email, hackers will be more careful/liberal with their use of encryption. I believe that this bill is going to work a lot like DRM. It's going to put hackers and civilians alike in a more uncomfortable position, except that the hackers are going to figure out how to work around it fast enough that its hardly going to make a difference, and the techno-ignorant (for lack of a better term) civilians will just have to deal with it.
- rosebush 14y agoEvery US Citizen that reads & participates in Hacker News needs to protest this. This will impact all of you if this goes through & is signed by the President. America, the home of the free & brave. This is no longer true anymore.
- dholowiski 14y agocitizens in other countries need to find out how to participate too, because as the us goes, so goes many other countries too.
- nextparadigms 14y agoSo now how do you get a bill like these repealed, and after how much time? Imagine if SOPA passed like this. I think a lot of people just give up after a bill like this is passed. Plus it's simply much harder to repeal it afterwards - could be a decade or more. Just look at the Patriot Act. No wonder the politicians wants to pass some bills before Christmas or other vacation. They know once it's passed quickly, the population will do nothing serious about it, and it's over.
- tptacek 14y agoWhy exactly would you want to repeal CISPA? Fast forward 1 year, at which time CISPA is in effect, repeal CISPA, and then fast forward again 1 day. How is that day different than the one before it? Be as specific as you can.
- Peaker 14y agoIf government pressures telcom to give it user data, and the telcom gives it data, it becomes open to lawsuits. Thus, telcom might decide it wants a warrant after all.
- tptacek 14y agoHow would it be open to lawsuits? Under what law?
- ewillbefull 14y agoHow about the ECPA? Does this: > as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service allow a telecom to randomly hand private information over to the government? Because it sounds to me like it's not "necessarily incident" unless it's, you know, necessarily incident. Thankfully our court system has the authority to decide that as well. In the case of CISPA, there are absolutely NO restrictions, and it's been broadened to apply to even more situations than just the provider's security. You are mischaracterizing the current nature of the privacy laws, unless you have something else to add?
- dguaraglia 14y agoOh, here we go... not this shit again. FFS.
- sehugg 14y agoDon't forget to thank your Congressperson if they voted NO.
- tptacek 14y agoHow do you know your congressperson doesn't favor some worse intervention than CISPA? Because by HN standards, the Administration's favored course on "cybersecurity" is way worse.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- r00fus 14y agoReward good behavior - it's the only way to train them.
- jongraehl 14y agoGood point. Obviously you'd let them know why you were thankful they voted no :)
- sehugg 14y agoEven if a worse intervention is planned (like the one you described above) wouldn't passage of CISPA help to validate it? Probably even make it easier to pass because the Internet's rage has already been depleted?
- tptacek 14y agoNo, that's not how legislation works. When you have two options, one an interventionist Democratic† bill and the other a self-regulating GOP bill, and the GOP bill passes, the Democratic bill does not find a more receptive Congress. † <--- again, note, actual Democrat typing
- slurgfest 14y agoYour scaremongering about an "interventionist Democratic bill" means exactly nothing until you have such a bill in the same position that CISPA is in today. Nor is there anything "self-regulating" about expansive internet surveillance . Let politicians be judged by their votes, not the imagined future plans attributed to them by whoever on no particularly reliable basis... http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml
- ajross 14y agoNote that this is a 57% margin. If the same holds in the Senate, it won't pass cloture and won't reach the president's desk.
- bonjourmr 14y agoWhen SOPA was beaten, I was hoping that our victories against it and each latter mutation of it would outlast the senators voting for it. Should we be worried now?
- rdl 14y agoWhat is the deal with the Quayle amendment? "Would limit government use of shared cyber threat information to only 5 purposes: (1) cybersecurity; (2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; (3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; (4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and (5) protection of the national security of the United States."
- cfinke 14y agoIt's an attempt to gain more votes, as opponents could then be painted as having voted against preventing "physical or psychological harm" to minors.
- westicle 14y agoWithout wanting to sidetrack the thread from the real issue of CISPA, I have to take issue with the quality of reporting. "Many have found the bill to be troublesome, given that, in their estimation, its language was too broad to be safe. Also that the government could use the mandates and powers contained therein in ways that would be antithetical to privacy, and even in the cause of cyber security, could be too intrusive." In their estimation, powers contained therein, antithetical. What happened to plain language? "The language of the bill is too broad. It gives the government powers to intrude on the privacy of individuals. Even in the context of security legislation these powers are too intrusive."
- bitsoda 14y agoWith each passing year, Richard Stallman looks wiser.
- debacle 14y agoIf CISPA is passed, we, the citizens of the Internet, need to take broad and quick action to protect ourselves from the affronts of these aging, bloated government bodies. Tor has proven to be compromised. Almost every forum on the Internet has its handful of sock puppets. What can we do to ensure that our future is free, secure, and anonymous?
- Tipzntrix 14y agoEVE is coming to real life. Watch out for space pirates out there man. "2mil ISK OR PODDED"