7 ms·

First of all, this article doesn't have a single criticism of this? It is really scary to me that our lawmakers are enacting legislation for topics they have a

First of all, this article doesn't have a single criticism of this? It is really scary to me that our lawmakers are enacting legislation for topics they have absolutely no personal experience with. Their decisions are based on what can only amount to 100 hours, optimistically, of information sessions given by people representing multinationals with agendas. All I want to know is what the hell constitutes a "malicious cyber activity". Is that as innocuous as U.S. v Auernheimer?

GabrielF00 12y ago
No lawmakers voted on anything. It's an executive order.
- nickysielicki 12y ago
  I know. I'm just saying in general.
  - GabrielF00 12y ago
    I understand your comment, and I agree that there have been plenty of examples of lawmakers misunderstanding technology, but this isn't really an issue that's unique to technology. Lawmakers vote on bills on dozens of extremely complex subjects, ranging from agriculture to foreign policy. No single person could have a deep understanding of all the issues that come up in Congress. I don't think that cybersecurity is any more complicated than health care economics or agricultural subsidies. It's just the nature of trying to govern an incredibly complicated country.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Lawmakers voted on 50 U.S.C. 1702, which is what gives the President the ability to issue this executive order. The President can't just make up powers. He's been delegated a whole mess of them by congress, contingent on the declaration of a national emergency.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > No lawmakers voted on anything. It's an executive order. How do you think that all the laws that the President cites at the top of the order that provide the authority under which the order is issued were passed? [0] [0] "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, [...]" -- https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/execu...
tekacs 12y ago
This article is by the BBC. Most of us Brits consider it a national treasure for providing relatively unbiased and often deadpan reporting on news topics. :) That's not to say that there couldn't have been criticism if another source provided them with some, but the BBC tend not to provide their own 'opinion' as a criticism (think Wikipedia).
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Also, BBC seems to be a great channel to where both the UK gov and the US gov can send their propaganda pieces.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    It leans heavily left but prints propaganda for the right wing UK gov and the (right wing compared to UK) US gov?
- toxican 12y ago
  Seriously, that's really refreshing. There's a lot of bias bullshit in the US, so I love getting foreign perspectives because there's no reason to be bias .
  - amsheehan 12y ago
    If that's true, why does propaganda exist?
  - balabaster 12y ago
    It's actually quite refreshing to listen to British news after being bombarded with the hyperbole of U.S. news. But don't be naive, the propaganda is still there, it's just far more subtle and much more refined.
  - canvia 12y ago
    Every news source is biased. Your job is to understand what that bias is and compensate. By following multiple news sources with different bias you can discern somewhat the truth of matters is as it lies somewhere in the center. Some outlets are more predictably and openly biased towards one direction.
jacquesm 12y ago
If you're new to European news then I can imagine your incredulity but state news agencies typically report the news, they don't interpret it. Of course this varies from country to country with some countries being quite far from neutral in their reporting but the 'beeb' is pretty good at this. If you want to get away from such bias the best trick that I've found is to go to the news sites of three different countries not directly implicated in the news item and figure out the common elements. Everything else is likely bias or interpretation.
- balabaster 12y ago
  Yep, typically you have to go to CBC, CNN, Al Jazeera and BBC and correlate it all yourself. It can be a lot of work. At least the BBC typically gives you enough facts that you can just about read between the lines yourself. American news in contrast picks up on a specific point or perspective, sensationalises the shit out of it and sweeps all the details that don't support their narrative under the rug. It can make for hilarious or completely frustrating watching depending on your mood or perspective at the time. It does tend to rile you up in a completely irrational fashion though, very un-British.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> First of all, this article doesn't have a single criticism of this? In some places, there is still a distinction between: (1) Reporting on the news, (2) Reporting on reactions to the news, and (3) Providing an outlet's own commentary/opinion on the news. Its true that a number of popular news outlets try to pass off (2) and even (3) as (1), and that if you are used to that an article that sets out to do (1) and ends up only doing (1) may be confusing.
kndyry 12y ago
On the contrary, I believe they have criticized it but not in a way that's especially overt. Specifically, I would consider their choice of images intentional. If you'll indulge me: Image 1: [CC on keyboard] - Followed by text about "foreign hackers", "The US Treasury" and "economic ... security challenges." Image 2: [Anonymous] - Proceeded by text about "individuals or entities that pose a cyber threat", both of which the image presumably represents. Image 3: [Switch Rack] - Proceeded by assurances regarding the use of this power, followed by FUD and vague threats justifying it. The final image is critical. It simultaneously represents the Internet, what is an obvious mess and, to those in the know, extremely poor cable management. Each of these associations imply something damning about the order. I would absolutely expect a BBC reporter to have so carefully crafted such implications.
- mryan 12y ago
  Respectfully, I think you are overthinking this. One could use the same logic to make the argument that this article strongly supports the sanctions: 1: [CC on keyboard] "Hackers are trying to steal your money. We need these sanctions to protect you" 2: [Anonymous] "Look at the scary hacker. Don't you know kids these days can do anything with your computer?" 3: [Switch Rack] "See how complicated the internet is? Don't think about it too much, just let us protect you" Personally I consider it more likely that those were the first results on the stock image site when the reporter searched for "internet, security, hackers" :-)

GabrielF00 12y ago

No lawmakers voted on anything. It's an executive order.

nickysielicki 12y ago
I know. I'm just saying in general.
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  I understand your comment, and I agree that there have been plenty of examples of lawmakers misunderstanding technology, but this isn't really an issue that's unique to technology. Lawmakers vote on bills on dozens of extremely complex subjects, ranging from agriculture to foreign policy. No single person could have a deep understanding of all the issues that come up in Congress. I don't think that cybersecurity is any more complicated than health care economics or agricultural subsidies. It's just the nature of trying to govern an incredibly complicated country.
tptacek 12y ago
Lawmakers voted on 50 U.S.C. 1702, which is what gives the President the ability to issue this executive order. The President can't just make up powers. He's been delegated a whole mess of them by congress, contingent on the declaration of a national emergency.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> No lawmakers voted on anything. It's an executive order. How do you think that all the laws that the President cites at the top of the order that provide the authority under which the order is issued were passed? [0] [0] "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, [...]" -- https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/execu...

tekacs 12y ago

This article is by the BBC. Most of us Brits consider it a national treasure for providing relatively unbiased and often deadpan reporting on news topics. :) That's not to say that there couldn't have been criticism if another source provided them with some, but the BBC tend not to provide their own 'opinion' as a criticism (think Wikipedia).

higherpurpose 12y ago
Also, BBC seems to be a great channel to where both the UK gov and the US gov can send their propaganda pieces.
- DanBC 12y ago
  It leans heavily left but prints propaganda for the right wing UK gov and the (right wing compared to UK) US gov?
toxican 12y ago
Seriously, that's really refreshing. There's a lot of bias bullshit in the US, so I love getting foreign perspectives because there's no reason to be bias .
- amsheehan 12y ago
  If that's true, why does propaganda exist?
- balabaster 12y ago
  It's actually quite refreshing to listen to British news after being bombarded with the hyperbole of U.S. news. But don't be naive, the propaganda is still there, it's just far more subtle and much more refined.
- canvia 12y ago
  Every news source is biased. Your job is to understand what that bias is and compensate. By following multiple news sources with different bias you can discern somewhat the truth of matters is as it lies somewhere in the center. Some outlets are more predictably and openly biased towards one direction.

jacquesm 12y ago

If you're new to European news then I can imagine your incredulity but state news agencies typically report the news, they don't interpret it. Of course this varies from country to country with some countries being quite far from neutral in their reporting but the 'beeb' is pretty good at this. If you want to get away from such bias the best trick that I've found is to go to the news sites of three different countries not directly implicated in the news item and figure out the common elements. Everything else is likely bias or interpretation.

balabaster 12y ago
Yep, typically you have to go to CBC, CNN, Al Jazeera and BBC and correlate it all yourself. It can be a lot of work. At least the BBC typically gives you enough facts that you can just about read between the lines yourself. American news in contrast picks up on a specific point or perspective, sensationalises the shit out of it and sweeps all the details that don't support their narrative under the rug. It can make for hilarious or completely frustrating watching depending on your mood or perspective at the time. It does tend to rile you up in a completely irrational fashion though, very un-British.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> First of all, this article doesn't have a single criticism of this? In some places, there is still a distinction between: (1) Reporting on the news, (2) Reporting on reactions to the news, and (3) Providing an outlet's own commentary/opinion on the news. Its true that a number of popular news outlets try to pass off (2) and even (3) as (1), and that if you are used to that an article that sets out to do (1) and ends up only doing (1) may be confusing.

kndyry 12y ago

On the contrary, I believe they have criticized it but not in a way that's especially overt. Specifically, I would consider their choice of images intentional. If you'll indulge me: Image 1: [CC on keyboard] - Followed by text about "foreign hackers", "The US Treasury" and "economic ... security challenges." Image 2: [Anonymous] - Proceeded by text about "individuals or entities that pose a cyber threat", both of which the image presumably represents. Image 3: [Switch Rack] - Proceeded by assurances regarding the use of this power, followed by FUD and vague threats justifying it. The final image is critical. It simultaneously represents the Internet, what is an obvious mess and, to those in the know, extremely poor cable management. Each of these associations imply something damning about the order. I would absolutely expect a BBC reporter to have so carefully crafted such implications.

mryan 12y ago
Respectfully, I think you are overthinking this. One could use the same logic to make the argument that this article strongly supports the sanctions: 1: [CC on keyboard] "Hackers are trying to steal your money. We need these sanctions to protect you" 2: [Anonymous] "Look at the scary hacker. Don't you know kids these days can do anything with your computer?" 3: [Switch Rack] "See how complicated the internet is? Don't think about it too much, just let us protect you" Personally I consider it more likely that those were the first results on the stock image site when the reporter searched for "internet, security, hackers" :-)