4 ms·
As a wise man pointed out on HN the last time around, we haven't won when this law fails to pass. We've only won a law explicitly stating the opposite passes.
by TallGuyShort 14y ago
As a wise man pointed out on HN the last time around, we haven't won when this law fails to pass. We've only won a law explicitly stating the opposite passes.
- tptacek 14y agoSo what you're saying is, the best possible thing to happen would be a law specifically preventing any American company from relaying threat information --- packet captures of exploits, netflow traffic profiles of botnets, &c --- to the US government, and, further, preventing any agency in the USG from providing traffic capture information, packet filter information, or botnet identification information to private companies.
- TallGuyShort 14y agoNo. In my mind, the best possible thing to happen would be a law specifically preventing any American government agency from requiring any company to hand over such information without due process. Sadly, you would think this was already clear enough from the constitution, but there are already enough loop holes that it happens anyway. Another good thing would be for American internet companies to voluntarily adopt and adhere to privacy policies along the same lines.
- tptacek 14y agoCISPA does not require any company to hand over any information to the USG without due process!
- TallGuyShort 14y agoI think you're taking the "opposite" in my initial post more literally than I intended. My point was that if the law seeks to violate certain rights to privacy we believe we have, the law being struck down is not the final solution. The final solution if the rights to privacy we believe we have successfully being codified into law to prevent that bad parts from being practical options in the future. I did not mean to imply that each term in CISPA be logically negated and passed into law.
- meric 14y agoHe isn't saying CISPA should be opposed, but rather, additional specific legislation to protect individual's data from being retrieved by the government without due process.
- tptacek 14y agoBut that is already unlawful.
- meric 14y agoI was pointing out a misunderstanding of what he was saying.
- TallGuyShort 14y agoI think the recent thread about how people can be compelled to keep searches and confiscations secret makes my point sufficiently clear. I think by "due process" you mean "according the law". By "due process", I mean in a very fair, transparent, limited and well-defined way. edit: Specifically, this is a precedent that is a big step in the right direction for this kind of thing, IMO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5382891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5382891