4 ms·

Your statement is ridiculous - by your own logic Obama took it from them and then assault is continued by his government.

by vl 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago
Did you read the bill?
- vl 14y ago
  I haven't read this specific bill, but parent's comment was a meta-comment about policy and is not specifically about this bill. I was strong Obama supporter, but my opinion has changed.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Do you have an opinion about this bill as it pertains to civil liberties, or are you just commenting because of an ambient concern about Obama's handling of civil liberties? If you do have an opinion about the bill, will you consider reading it?
    - vl 14y ago
      I'm commenting because of a well-defined concern about current goverment's handling of civil liberties in a comment thread not specific to this bill.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- crisnoble 14y ago
  Everybody, let's just read the bills together: Lieberman-Collins “Cybersecurity Act of 2012: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s3414/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s3414/text "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011" aka CISPA: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text This link is about an Executive Order, which I cannot find a link to the text, but this is getting there: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/241/3026867/White-House-draft-cyber-order-promotes-voluntary-critical-infrastructure-protections http://www.federalnewsradio.com/241/3026867/White-House-draf... Now that we are all on the same page, let's debate it.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    If you're going to actually read these (and you should, if you care about computer security regulation, but maybe not otherwise since these really aren't far-reaching bills), note that the final CISPA bill the house voted on had several amendments not in the base text; for instance, the final version explicitly struck mention of "intellectual property protection" (not because the House caved, but because the House meant something different by IP protection than what everyone took the text to mean)

Your statement is ridiculous - by your own logic Obama took it from them and then assault is continued by his government.

by vl 14y ago

Your statement is ridiculous - by your own logic Obama took it from them and then assault is continued by his government.

tptacek 14y ago

Did you read the bill?

vl 14y ago
I haven't read this specific bill, but parent's comment was a meta-comment about policy and is not specifically about this bill. I was strong Obama supporter, but my opinion has changed.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Do you have an opinion about this bill as it pertains to civil liberties, or are you just commenting because of an ambient concern about Obama's handling of civil liberties? If you do have an opinion about the bill, will you consider reading it?
  - vl 14y ago
    I'm commenting because of a well-defined concern about current goverment's handling of civil liberties in a comment thread not specific to this bill.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
crisnoble 14y ago
Everybody, let's just read the bills together: Lieberman-Collins “Cybersecurity Act of 2012: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s3414/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s3414/text "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011" aka CISPA: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3523/text This link is about an Executive Order, which I cannot find a link to the text, but this is getting there: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/241/3026867/White-House-draft-cyber-order-promotes-voluntary-critical-infrastructure-protections http://www.federalnewsradio.com/241/3026867/White-House-draf... Now that we are all on the same page, let's debate it.
- tptacek 14y ago
  If you're going to actually read these (and you should, if you care about computer security regulation, but maybe not otherwise since these really aren't far-reaching bills), note that the final CISPA bill the house voted on had several amendments not in the base text; for instance, the final version explicitly struck mention of "intellectual property protection" (not because the House caved, but because the House meant something different by IP protection than what everyone took the text to mean)