4 ms·

organizations that try to fundraise off the idea that it is are playing games with your attention Are you saying that the Internet Defence League (http://inter

by zizee 14y ago

organizations that try to fundraise off the idea that it is are playing games with your attention Are you saying that the Internet Defence League (http://internetdefenseleague.org/ http://internetdefenseleague.org/) is deliberately misrepresenting this issue? (not trolling, honest question)

tptacek 14y ago
I think there are multiple points in the "CISPAISBACK.ORG" site that are misleading, and from what I understand of the bill (having read multiple drafts and also survived approximately 900 different HN debates on it), the infographic at the bottom of the page that purports to explain the bill language is in some ways directly false: * The bill does not cover "intellectual property" * The bill does not pertain to Photoshop and Nickelback albums * The bill does not give you no legal recourse if your information is abused; you can sue the government, under liability established explicitly in CISPA * The bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the objectives of SOPA
- zizee 14y ago
  Reading the bill it does seem like the purpose of the bill is less about private companies sharing any old information with government agencies and more about making it easier for businesses to share information with government agencies when they have been victims of "cyberattacks". Also, this section does suggest that the bill is not about making it easier for the government to request information about specific people: (3) ANTI-TASKING RESTRICTION- 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; But I am not a lawyer, so am not an expert at interpreting such things. If this is being misrepresented by the people over at The Internet Defence League, it would be very disappointing. I don't like spin and I don't like being manipulated.
diminoten 14y ago
I do, actually, think that are organizations like the IDL and the EFF are misrepresenting this for attention, as it will ostensibly boost their donations. To be fair, I also think this is the nature of the beast, and almost all advocacy groups do exactly this. I just think these groups, in this specific case, are doing it rather... severely, due to the tendency of the Internet community to react so viscerally towards any legislation that's in any way related to the Internet. When the government uses the word 'cyber' in their legislation proposals, Internet people tend to get nervous. They're playing on a lot of very legitimate fears that Washington doesn't understand the Internet and seeks to cause harm to its openness. Fears which I hold, to be clear, but not fears which are warranted in this particular case. They'd gain back a lot of my respect if they prominently focused on the bill's text rather than summaries without citations, and offered explicit amendments which would satisfy their issues. Of course the problem with this is that a great deal of what they're saying isn't citable (it's hard to cite factually dubious statements), and their complaints about the bill are nebulous and nonspecific, so I understand why their rhetoric is not focused on the bill's content (examples of this "the content of the bill doesn't matter, it's the precedent" argument can even be found in this very thread).

by zizee 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

I think there are multiple points in the "CISPAISBACK.ORG" site that are misleading, and from what I understand of the bill (having read multiple drafts and also survived approximately 900 different HN debates on it), the infographic at the bottom of the page that purports to explain the bill language is in some ways directly false: * The bill does not cover "intellectual property" * The bill does not pertain to Photoshop and Nickelback albums * The bill does not give you no legal recourse if your information is abused; you can sue the government, under liability established explicitly in CISPA * The bill has nothing whatsoever to do with the objectives of SOPA

zizee 14y ago
Reading the bill it does seem like the purpose of the bill is less about private companies sharing any old information with government agencies and more about making it easier for businesses to share information with government agencies when they have been victims of "cyberattacks". Also, this section does suggest that the bill is not about making it easier for the government to request information about specific people: (3) ANTI-TASKING RESTRICTION- 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; But I am not a lawyer, so am not an expert at interpreting such things. If this is being misrepresented by the people over at The Internet Defence League, it would be very disappointing. I don't like spin and I don't like being manipulated.

diminoten 14y ago

I do, actually, think that are organizations like the IDL and the EFF are misrepresenting this for attention, as it will ostensibly boost their donations. To be fair, I also think this is the nature of the beast, and almost all advocacy groups do exactly this. I just think these groups, in this specific case, are doing it rather... severely, due to the tendency of the Internet community to react so viscerally towards any legislation that's in any way related to the Internet. When the government uses the word 'cyber' in their legislation proposals, Internet people tend to get nervous. They're playing on a lot of very legitimate fears that Washington doesn't understand the Internet and seeks to cause harm to its openness. Fears which I hold, to be clear, but not fears which are warranted in this particular case. They'd gain back a lot of my respect if they prominently focused on the bill's text rather than summaries without citations, and offered explicit amendments which would satisfy their issues. Of course the problem with this is that a great deal of what they're saying isn't citable (it's hard to cite factually dubious statements), and their complaints about the bill are nebulous and nonspecific, so I understand why their rhetoric is not focused on the bill's content (examples of this "the content of the bill doesn't matter, it's the precedent" argument can even be found in this very thread).