As mentioned, I only just now read the bill, and you appear to be much more educated on it than I, and from reading your comments, you seem very even-keeled on

As mentioned, I only just now read the bill, and you appear to be much more educated on it than I, and from reading your comments, you seem very even-keeled on your defense of the bill. I am generally supportive of the purpose and goals of the bill. It's been hard for me to get clarification on what some of the vagueries and broad language of the bill could actually mean legally due to most articles I read having a strong bias one way or the other. I'm supportive of information sharing in order to combat and better protect against cyber threats, but if that information sharing is covered by a liability shield (which it almost certainly has to be), it seems like even a benevolent company may err on the side of sharing more information than needed with the government. As the bill details little about oversight of who gets access to the data and how it will be used, a skeptical and cynical look at this information being in the hands of the government could suggest that this information would be used for profiling or information gathering on US citizens. I think the broader argument could be "what expectation of privacy do we have on the internet?". I'm not sure where I fall on that issue, but I do wish it was clearer, not necessarily for me, but moreso for folks like my parents that don't truly understand what it means to send information across the internet (encrypted or unencrypted).