15 ms·

The Internet absolutely does need more regulation. I disagree in principle that regulation is bad, but I also think that simply saying "quit regulating" is myop

The Internet absolutely does need more regulation. I disagree in principle that regulation is bad, but I also think that simply saying "quit regulating" is myopic. Regulations exist, and refusing to touch them because we're afraid of "more regulation" just leaves them dysfunctional. For example, right now due to the lack of clear regulations concerning digital storage, a lot of law enforcement agencies believe that they can legally access people's personal email without a warrant. This should be corrected with a clear law that says you need a warrant, since the 4th amendment's talk of being secure in "papers" is too vague. There's good regulation and bad regulation. "Less regulation" is a good sound byte, not a good strategy.

ryanSrich 14y ago
> For example, right now due to the lack of clear regulations concerning digital storage, a lot of law enforcement agencies believe that they can legally access people's personal email without a warrant. CISPA has no intention of stopping this. Quite the opposite really. The vague wording and hush hush push to get this passed gives rise to the idea that CISPA is a tool to force more of this kind of behavior not stop it. >The Internet absolutely does need more regulation Really? That's a scary thought.
- lukeschlather 14y ago
  If you just want less regulation, CISPA is your bill. It dramatically reduces the amount of regulations governing how law enforcement can get private data people store on computers via the Internet ("the cloud.")
onemorepassword 14y ago
There are already regulations in place to protect people against unwarranted searches. There's nothing in those laws that even suggests "this doesn't apply to personal email". This is just scaremongering combined with a deliberate abuse of power on order to trick a compliant public into even more repressive laws. This is not about less or more regulation, this is about burying new regulation removing people's rights hidden unnecessary fake regulation. Useful new regulation regarding the internet is very, very rare. 99% of it is a cover for something else. And of course the biggest giveaway is that internet should have lead to less regulation, because all kinds of physical restrictions no longer apply or are impossible to enforce. But we don't see proposals for that, now do we?
- tptacek 14y ago
  What is repressive about enabling Yahoo to share Netflow information with Verizon and the USG during a sustained denial of service attack?
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    I don't recall seeing a definition of a "attack" when I skimmed the bill. Since every website is always under "attack", what's to stop a company from handing over everything, all the time?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- pavedwalden 14y ago
  My understanding of the situation is that the government has taken the position that warrants are only needed for e-mail that has been stored for less than 180 days. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/when-will-our-email-betray-us-email-privacy-primer-light-petraeus-saga https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/when-will-our-email-be...

ryanSrich 14y ago

> For example, right now due to the lack of clear regulations concerning digital storage, a lot of law enforcement agencies believe that they can legally access people's personal email without a warrant. CISPA has no intention of stopping this. Quite the opposite really. The vague wording and hush hush push to get this passed gives rise to the idea that CISPA is a tool to force more of this kind of behavior not stop it. >The Internet absolutely does need more regulation Really? That's a scary thought.

lukeschlather 14y ago
If you just want less regulation, CISPA is your bill. It dramatically reduces the amount of regulations governing how law enforcement can get private data people store on computers via the Internet ("the cloud.")

onemorepassword 14y ago

There are already regulations in place to protect people against unwarranted searches. There's nothing in those laws that even suggests "this doesn't apply to personal email". This is just scaremongering combined with a deliberate abuse of power on order to trick a compliant public into even more repressive laws. This is not about less or more regulation, this is about burying new regulation removing people's rights hidden unnecessary fake regulation. Useful new regulation regarding the internet is very, very rare. 99% of it is a cover for something else. And of course the biggest giveaway is that internet should have lead to less regulation, because all kinds of physical restrictions no longer apply or are impossible to enforce. But we don't see proposals for that, now do we?

tptacek 14y ago
What is repressive about enabling Yahoo to share Netflow information with Verizon and the USG during a sustained denial of service attack?
- nitrogen 14y ago
  I don't recall seeing a definition of a "attack" when I skimmed the bill. Since every website is always under "attack", what's to stop a company from handing over everything, all the time?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
pavedwalden 14y ago
My understanding of the situation is that the government has taken the position that warrants are only needed for e-mail that has been stored for less than 180 days. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/when-will-our-email-betray-us-email-privacy-primer-light-petraeus-saga https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/when-will-our-email-be...