3 ms·

So now how do you get a bill like these repealed, and after how much time?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 l

So now how do you get a bill like these repealed, and after how much time?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 15y ago
Why 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 15y ago
  If 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 15y ago
    How would it be open to lawsuits? Under what law?
    - ewillbefull 15y ago
      How 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?
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Yes, it does. What is it that you think "incident to rendition of service" means? (Not that I think this is dispositive, but I had an actual run-in with an ISP over this clause. They suspected me of hacking their service, because they read my home directory [yes, this is shell server Internet access; I'm old] and found SMTP code in it --- so they recorded copies of all my email messages. A friend worked there and ratted them out. I met with a (good) lawyer. The response: too bad, so sad. GO ECPA!)
        ewillbefull 15y ago
        I assume that it means there is some compelling, /defensive/ purpose of disclosing the information. CISPA is completely indiscriminate and does not carry that same guarantee. Also your example appears to address what the ISP is allowed to record, not what they are allowed to share, which is a different issue all-together.
        tptacek 15y ago
        See: US v. Harvey US v. Goldstein US v. Auler US v. DeLeeuw Also, reread CISPA, particularly the amendments clarifying what was meant by "cyber threat" and what activities were exempt from disclosure under CISPA.
        ewillbefull 15y ago
        Thank you. It appears the EFF disagrees that cyber security threats were meaningfully narrowed in the amendments -- though this does not specifically pertain to any of my previous arguments. > Unfortunately, this amendment doesn’t address the serious problems with the vague definitions. Even after amendments, “Cybersecurity system" defines the system that “cybersecurity providers” or self-protected entities use to monitor and defend against cyber threats. This is a “system” intended to safeguard “a system or network.” The definition could mean anything—a Local Area Network, a Wide Area Network, a microchip, a website, online service, or a DVD. It might easily be stretched to be a catch-all term with no meaning. For example, it is unclear whether DRM on a DVD constitutes a “cybersecurity system.” And such a “cybersecurity system” is defined to protect a system or network from “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy”—language that is similarly too broad. Degrading a network could be construed to mean using a privacy-enhancing technology like Tor, or a p2p protocol, or simply downloading too many files. Your thoughts?

tptacek 15y ago

Why 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 15y ago
If 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 15y ago
  How would it be open to lawsuits? Under what law?
  - ewillbefull 15y ago
    How 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?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Yes, it does. What is it that you think "incident to rendition of service" means? (Not that I think this is dispositive, but I had an actual run-in with an ISP over this clause. They suspected me of hacking their service, because they read my home directory [yes, this is shell server Internet access; I'm old] and found SMTP code in it --- so they recorded copies of all my email messages. A friend worked there and ratted them out. I met with a (good) lawyer. The response: too bad, so sad. GO ECPA!)
      - ewillbefull 15y ago
        I assume that it means there is some compelling, /defensive/ purpose of disclosing the information. CISPA is completely indiscriminate and does not carry that same guarantee. Also your example appears to address what the ISP is allowed to record, not what they are allowed to share, which is a different issue all-together.
        tptacek 15y ago
        See: US v. Harvey US v. Goldstein US v. Auler US v. DeLeeuw Also, reread CISPA, particularly the amendments clarifying what was meant by "cyber threat" and what activities were exempt from disclosure under CISPA.
        ewillbefull 15y ago
        Thank you. It appears the EFF disagrees that cyber security threats were meaningfully narrowed in the amendments -- though this does not specifically pertain to any of my previous arguments. > Unfortunately, this amendment doesn’t address the serious problems with the vague definitions. Even after amendments, “Cybersecurity system" defines the system that “cybersecurity providers” or self-protected entities use to monitor and defend against cyber threats. This is a “system” intended to safeguard “a system or network.” The definition could mean anything—a Local Area Network, a Wide Area Network, a microchip, a website, online service, or a DVD. It might easily be stretched to be a catch-all term with no meaning. For example, it is unclear whether DRM on a DVD constitutes a “cybersecurity system.” And such a “cybersecurity system” is defined to protect a system or network from “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy”—language that is similarly too broad. Degrading a network could be construed to mean using a privacy-enhancing technology like Tor, or a p2p protocol, or simply downloading too many files. Your thoughts?