4 ms·

Honestly I'm not a CISPA expert. I do see two concerns: 1. It seems to me that inviting government examination and regulation of network traffic, in the name

Honestly I'm not a CISPA expert. I do see two concerns: 1. It seems to me that inviting government examination and regulation of network traffic, in the name of security, seems unlikely to make the 'net _more_ flexible, and potentially could lead real rigidity that would be bad for development of 'net businesses and degrading the experience possible over the 'nets. 2. Stuff like CISPA is generally validating of 'net control regimes such as in Iran and China. As the malice of those becomes ever more apparent, US policies viewed as precedents and justifications will be suspect, as will supporters of those policies. Supporting this stuff will be like supporting tobacco companies and netting dolphins to catch tuna -- and may cause deep customer suspicion in a field where trust will be crucial. Now item item 1, more rigidity, could be seen as positive for incumbents like FB. To which I'd would say that technology has already evolved around a lot of rigidity and that any business founded on a particular regulatory environment is dated to the moment when technology obviates those regulations. Item 2 is more speculative, but I actually think more likely to prove telling. But it's going to take 5 - 10 years. Someone more knowledable of CISPA could do better. The broader point of my remark is, figure out how those details relate to the Facebook business model and speak to that. Do that and you'll have an audience. And there's no need to rush, the stock will be around for a while.

tptacek 14y ago
CISPA doesn't add any regulation to network traffic. It doesn't impose government controls. It's an opt-in mechanism that purports to allow private companies to share information incident to security attacks on their services; what it does, essentially, is clarify the (already very weak) privacy controls of the ECPA to make it clear that companies who are being attacked can share traffic captures without being sued the way Google is now for the Street View fiasco.† It doesn't authorize countermeasures; it doesn't enable services to be shut off; it doesn't alter due process controls for the government to seize information from non-cooperative services. With that in mind, I'm curious as to how your reasoning might change. Do you think an opt-in information sharing mechanism for corporations really validates the state-sponsored network access control used in Iran and China? I'm interested in how. † They already probably can't be sued for that, but I believe the thinking here is that by spelling it out in black-letter law, companies will be encouraged to share information more than they already do; note that ISPs already do have programs to share attack information among themselves, but application service providers tend not to.
- chernevik 14y ago
  I have now spent 5 minutes on the EFF site and am now qualified to hold forth at length. More seriously, that depends on the terms of "opt-in" and "sharing" and "security", yes? Such details make nice real estate for the Devil. I'm by no means convinced that the people writing these laws understand the implications and possibilities -- I don't trust their values because I don't think they have the understanding to even have values. Or understand how those values are advanced or eroded. What opinions I have of their values are formed by the SOPA episode. To _my_ mind, I would need to see the compelling argument for why we need legislation in the first place. At which time I'd have to go to school on this more than I have. And most of the security problems I've read about have more to do with corporations doing a terrible job configuring their own equipment than with some remarkable threat that can only be met through government-organized action. So in general, I'm against any law without some compelling need. I don't see one here, and that might be ignorance, but that's my view at the moment. How would I relate that to Facebook? If my view were valid, my first stab would be, "They are supporting over-broad legislation, without a stated need, that could easily go wrong. That bespeaks a centralized-solution attitude contrary to the values that have built the 'net we have today, and unlikely to found the trust needed to make the 'net work best going forward." But even if that withstood scrutiny I'm not sure their business is going to live or die based on what is essentially a question of corporate culture. If they don't die of something else, they'll get opportunities to change their approach on this stuff.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Your time would be better spent reading the CISPA bill itself, which goes to some length to define "sharing" and "security". I can summarize, but the firsthand sources are surprisingly readable: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523 As regards "opt-in": it's inherently opt-in, because it provides no mechanism for the government to demand information from any provider. Obviously, the government can already use court orders to get access to information. Beyond that, the bill explicitly prevents the government from making such demands; for instance: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Federal Government to... ‘(A) require a private-sector entity to share information with the Federal Government;". As regards "security": the bill actually defines this term (a novel twist in "cyber security" legislation): ‘(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity; ‘(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network; ‘(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or ‘(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity.

tptacek 14y ago

CISPA doesn't add any regulation to network traffic. It doesn't impose government controls. It's an opt-in mechanism that purports to allow private companies to share information incident to security attacks on their services; what it does, essentially, is clarify the (already very weak) privacy controls of the ECPA to make it clear that companies who are being attacked can share traffic captures without being sued the way Google is now for the Street View fiasco.† It doesn't authorize countermeasures; it doesn't enable services to be shut off; it doesn't alter due process controls for the government to seize information from non-cooperative services. With that in mind, I'm curious as to how your reasoning might change. Do you think an opt-in information sharing mechanism for corporations really validates the state-sponsored network access control used in Iran and China? I'm interested in how. † They already probably can't be sued for that, but I believe the thinking here is that by spelling it out in black-letter law, companies will be encouraged to share information more than they already do; note that ISPs already do have programs to share attack information among themselves, but application service providers tend not to.

chernevik 14y ago
I have now spent 5 minutes on the EFF site and am now qualified to hold forth at length. More seriously, that depends on the terms of "opt-in" and "sharing" and "security", yes? Such details make nice real estate for the Devil. I'm by no means convinced that the people writing these laws understand the implications and possibilities -- I don't trust their values because I don't think they have the understanding to even have values. Or understand how those values are advanced or eroded. What opinions I have of their values are formed by the SOPA episode. To _my_ mind, I would need to see the compelling argument for why we need legislation in the first place. At which time I'd have to go to school on this more than I have. And most of the security problems I've read about have more to do with corporations doing a terrible job configuring their own equipment than with some remarkable threat that can only be met through government-organized action. So in general, I'm against any law without some compelling need. I don't see one here, and that might be ignorance, but that's my view at the moment. How would I relate that to Facebook? If my view were valid, my first stab would be, "They are supporting over-broad legislation, without a stated need, that could easily go wrong. That bespeaks a centralized-solution attitude contrary to the values that have built the 'net we have today, and unlikely to found the trust needed to make the 'net work best going forward." But even if that withstood scrutiny I'm not sure their business is going to live or die based on what is essentially a question of corporate culture. If they don't die of something else, they'll get opportunities to change their approach on this stuff.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Your time would be better spent reading the CISPA bill itself, which goes to some length to define "sharing" and "security". I can summarize, but the firsthand sources are surprisingly readable: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523 As regards "opt-in": it's inherently opt-in, because it provides no mechanism for the government to demand information from any provider. Obviously, the government can already use court orders to get access to information. Beyond that, the bill explicitly prevents the government from making such demands; for instance: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Federal Government to... ‘(A) require a private-sector entity to share information with the Federal Government;". As regards "security": the bill actually defines this term (a novel twist in "cyber security" legislation): ‘(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity; ‘(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network; ‘(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or ‘(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity.