4 ms·
Anything can be roped into "actual attack." Remember the actual language of the bill, since you read it: "theft of intellectual property." What the hell does th
by homosaur 14y ago
Anything can be roped into "actual attack." Remember the actual language of the bill, since you read it: "theft of intellectual property." What the hell does that mean?
Of course there is no oversight aside from the people who are making requests, so the idea that a company would actually be penalized for releasing info "unreleated to cyberthreats" is laughable at best.
- tptacek 14y agoLike I said upthread, CISPA goes further in trying to actually define what a "cyberattack" is than any other bill I've read. How would you modify the definitions in the bill?
- homosaur 14y agoYou and I have discussed DHS related things before, and I think we simply have differing views on this entire thing. I simply don't want any more power going to the most demonstrably incompetent branch of government in the history of the US (including, of course, everything historically that came out of the 1947 act that this is a rider to). I do agree with you that the definitions of cybercrime and attacks in CISPA would be a start for the framework for coherent legislation. I just don't think that DHS should continue to be added onto piecemeal until they control 100% of all law enforcement activities as well, since let's face it, that's the eventual goal.
- lawnchair_larry 14y agoTo add, it doesn't even say "actual attack", it basically says anything related to security and "acting in good faith."
- tptacek 14y agoI agree that "good faith" is crappy language.