5 ms·

IANAL; I think the term "consumer" is from the relationship with the providers. The people being protected are specifically the ones that use the service. Cong

by pfraze 14y ago

IANAL; I think the term "consumer" is from the relationship with the providers. The people being protected are specifically the ones that use the service. Congress is a black box to us. I've read the text of CISPA, and I don't think it's unreasonable, but you have to trust the people using it, and we don't. That pretty much ends the conversation. My friend has been working as a PA in a law office that's involved in health-care legislation. We recently had a fight about Internet regulation-- copyright. He took the position that we should write good legislation before somebody else skews it in their favor. I agreed, but I thought it was premature. You write the legislation now and you risk things like nation-wide lock-in to IE6. Software takes time, and the Web's immature. Right now, it's very noisy, it's not private, it's socially chaotic, and it's not quite secure enough - online elections, anybody? That said, the things that IT touches tend to become more open in the long run, and eventually that'll include Congress. I don't know if CISPA is a good bill, but I don't think it helps to make a cause against it either. If we care this much, we need to participate in the writing of the laws. If we can't do that, then the Web isn't ready yet, and Congress stays a black box. EDIT: brevity

ataggart 14y ago
>I don't think it's unreasonable. Given that laws mean whatever those in power say they mean, the test is not whether you find the text reasonable, but rather whether they can find the text to mean something you would find unreasonable.
- pfraze 14y ago
  Yes, but we live with that all the time, don't we? At a certain point, we have to just trust that it will be used as intended, and then trust that we can improve the law later if it's abused.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  So you are saying we should reject out of hand any and all bills that could possibly be interpreted to mean something we haven't thought of? Sorry for the snark, but my point is laws are always like that, and there needs to be some trust somewhere. (The system is supposed to be structured that you may trust the system, if not the books- checks and balances and whatnot) If you have nothing you can trust, you're up a crick without a paddle.
rayiner 14y ago
> Congress is a black box to us. I've read the text of CISPA, and I don't think it's unreasonable, but you have to trust the people using it, and we don't. That pretty much ends the conversation. Then you're totally and utterly screwed. Ordered civilization is built on trusting our civil institutions. Not necessarily individual people, but the institutions as a whole. Once that trust is evaporated, the civilization is done for. You become Bangladesh instead of America. I don't think we're there yet. I think the impression is built more on fearing what you don't understand. But if you think we are there, that you can't trust our institutions in their capacity as institutions, then it's time to move because there is no coming back from that.
- Zigurd 14y ago
  Trust in institutions, like many other quality of life metrics in the US, is slipping. It isn't 3rd world quality yet, but it's slipping down to the bottom of developed-world standards the way that health care, education, infrastructure, etc. are slipping. As for fearing what we don't understand, perhaps it's more rejection of what we do understand. "Reasonable" laws get abused and turned against the people. As for trust, what's wrong with writing the laws to assume less trust of institutions?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > As for trust, what's wrong with writing the laws to assume less trust of institutions? No law that has any utility can be written in a way where you can assume you don't trust the institution enforcing it. It's like writing an OS kernel assuming you can't trust ring 0 code.
    - Zigurd 14y ago
      That's a poor analogy. We implement trading systems without fundamental trust all the time. Letters of credit, escrow, etc. enable us to engage in commerce without forming trust relationships. Why should a legal system ask for, or deserve, more trust than a trade counterparty? More concretely, why shouldn't judges, prosecutors, and police be bonded?
saraid216 14y ago
> I agreed, but I thought it was premature. You write the legislation now and you risk things like nation-wide lock-in to IE6. I have been tossing around the notion that a lot of laws should have a built-in trial period. I haven't been able to figure out how it could work, or grasp the consequences, but a way to automatically turn off a law unless it's converted into being permanent might be nice.

by pfraze 14y ago

ataggart 14y ago

>I don't think it's unreasonable. Given that laws mean whatever those in power say they mean, the test is not whether you find the text reasonable, but rather whether they can find the text to mean something you would find unreasonable.

pfraze 14y ago
Yes, but we live with that all the time, don't we? At a certain point, we have to just trust that it will be used as intended, and then trust that we can improve the law later if it's abused.
sliverstorm 14y ago
So you are saying we should reject out of hand any and all bills that could possibly be interpreted to mean something we haven't thought of? Sorry for the snark, but my point is laws are always like that, and there needs to be some trust somewhere. (The system is supposed to be structured that you may trust the system, if not the books- checks and balances and whatnot) If you have nothing you can trust, you're up a crick without a paddle.

rayiner 14y ago

> Congress is a black box to us. I've read the text of CISPA, and I don't think it's unreasonable, but you have to trust the people using it, and we don't. That pretty much ends the conversation. Then you're totally and utterly screwed. Ordered civilization is built on trusting our civil institutions. Not necessarily individual people, but the institutions as a whole. Once that trust is evaporated, the civilization is done for. You become Bangladesh instead of America. I don't think we're there yet. I think the impression is built more on fearing what you don't understand. But if you think we are there, that you can't trust our institutions in their capacity as institutions, then it's time to move because there is no coming back from that.

Zigurd 14y ago
Trust in institutions, like many other quality of life metrics in the US, is slipping. It isn't 3rd world quality yet, but it's slipping down to the bottom of developed-world standards the way that health care, education, infrastructure, etc. are slipping. As for fearing what we don't understand, perhaps it's more rejection of what we do understand. "Reasonable" laws get abused and turned against the people. As for trust, what's wrong with writing the laws to assume less trust of institutions?
- rayiner 14y ago
  > As for trust, what's wrong with writing the laws to assume less trust of institutions? No law that has any utility can be written in a way where you can assume you don't trust the institution enforcing it. It's like writing an OS kernel assuming you can't trust ring 0 code.
  - Zigurd 14y ago
    That's a poor analogy. We implement trading systems without fundamental trust all the time. Letters of credit, escrow, etc. enable us to engage in commerce without forming trust relationships. Why should a legal system ask for, or deserve, more trust than a trade counterparty? More concretely, why shouldn't judges, prosecutors, and police be bonded?

saraid216 14y ago

> I agreed, but I thought it was premature. You write the legislation now and you risk things like nation-wide lock-in to IE6. I have been tossing around the notion that a lot of laws should have a built-in trial period. I haven't been able to figure out how it could work, or grasp the consequences, but a way to automatically turn off a law unless it's converted into being permanent might be nice.