5 ms·

So getting an internet connection from a company that has opted in means I have no protection against searches and seizures (almost arbitrarily based on an indi

So getting an internet connection from a company that has opted in means I have no protection against searches and seizures (almost arbitrarily based on an individual's web habbits). So what if it's written specifically? People often don't have much of a choice when it comes to their ISPs, and wouldn't be able to just choose another one that doesn't opt in. In the modern world, where people use the internet for every facet of their life, this essentially means law enforcement gets to know every detail about you, without the need for any reasonable suspicion. I really don't understand how this isn't a violation of the 4th Amendment. Our rights as citizens and as people are being removed by bills like this, and by law enforcement and large service platform based businesses redefining what personal information is ours to control and own.

andylei 14y ago
> So getting an internet connection from a company that has opted in means I have no protection against searches and seizures (almost arbitrarily based on an individual's web habbits) no, that's not anywhere in the bill. did you read the bill?
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  I'd argue that it is. He's on "Hacker News". It would be perfectly reasonable for an automated system that is designed to look for security-related activity to report that fact. The bill, as it is written, says any action his ISP now takes, or anyone that they share his information with (which would then be allowed to do, with anyone in the poorly defined "cybersecurity club"), is fully acceptable as long as it was "in good faith." And who could argue that? Hacker News is benign, but it's an honest mistake.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    How does the bill's definition of an attack include sites with "hacker" in the name?
    - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
      CISPA contains no definition of "attack", nor does it limit itself to "actual attacks", or anything resembling that language. Furthermore, if it did, it doesn't matter. Bad actors are allowed to be wrong, with impunity, if they promise that it was "in good faith".
      - tptacek 14y ago
        4) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘cyber threat information’ means information directly pertaining to— ‘‘(i) a vulnerability of a system or net- work of a government or private entity; ‘‘(ii) a threat to the integrity, con- fidentiality, 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 de- grade, disrupt, or destroy a system or net- work of a government or private entity; or ‘‘(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized ac- cess to a system or network of a govern- ment or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, proc- essed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity You're right that I phrased this more casually than the bill does, which harms my point but I believe still leaves it standing.
        lawnchair_larry 14y ago
        > You're right that I phrased this more casually Did you think that I was suggesting you were merely phrasing it casually, or is that a subtle argument technique? ;)
        tptacek 14y ago
        No, I was owning up to the fact that by saying CISPA only pertained to "attacks", I was making it easier to accept my premise. You were right to point out that the language in the bill is more subtle than that.

andylei 14y ago

> So getting an internet connection from a company that has opted in means I have no protection against searches and seizures (almost arbitrarily based on an individual's web habbits) no, that's not anywhere in the bill. did you read the bill?

lawnchair_larry 14y ago
I'd argue that it is. He's on "Hacker News". It would be perfectly reasonable for an automated system that is designed to look for security-related activity to report that fact. The bill, as it is written, says any action his ISP now takes, or anyone that they share his information with (which would then be allowed to do, with anyone in the poorly defined "cybersecurity club"), is fully acceptable as long as it was "in good faith." And who could argue that? Hacker News is benign, but it's an honest mistake.
- tptacek 14y ago
  How does the bill's definition of an attack include sites with "hacker" in the name?
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    CISPA contains no definition of "attack", nor does it limit itself to "actual attacks", or anything resembling that language. Furthermore, if it did, it doesn't matter. Bad actors are allowed to be wrong, with impunity, if they promise that it was "in good faith".
    - tptacek 14y ago
      4) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘cyber threat information’ means information directly pertaining to— ‘‘(i) a vulnerability of a system or net- work of a government or private entity; ‘‘(ii) a threat to the integrity, con- fidentiality, 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 de- grade, disrupt, or destroy a system or net- work of a government or private entity; or ‘‘(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized ac- cess to a system or network of a govern- ment or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, proc- essed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity You're right that I phrased this more casually than the bill does, which harms my point but I believe still leaves it standing.
      - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
        > You're right that I phrased this more casually Did you think that I was suggesting you were merely phrasing it casually, or is that a subtle argument technique? ;)
        tptacek 14y ago
        No, I was owning up to the fact that by saying CISPA only pertained to "attacks", I was making it easier to accept my premise. You were right to point out that the language in the bill is more subtle than that.