Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Likes: 73
L
Hall of Famer
OP Offline
Hall of Famer
L
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Likes: 73
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/2...nline-protests/

Quote:

Legislators will vote this week on a controversial new cybersecurity bill that would allow the government and corporations to easily exchange private information, despite Internet protesters who see the proposal as a threat to online privacy and civil rights.
The bill, known as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), encourages information sharing between government and companies to protect against cyberattacks and for the purposes of homeland security. Unlike the much maligned SOPA and PIPA bills that were shot down in January, CISPA has the support of numerous industry heavyweights, including Facebook, Microsoft and Intel.
Still, privacy advocates believe it is far too vague -- with room for Big Brother-type abuses.

“CISPA is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications,” warned the Center for Democracy and Technology, and “is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military.”

The Electronic Freedom Foundation and Reporters Without Borders agree, the later noting that this bill sacrifices freedom of expression and the protection of online privacy “in the interests of national security or copyright.”

“[It] is threatening the rights of people in America, and effectively rights everywhere, because what happens in America tends to affect people all over the world,” Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the Internet, told the Guardian. “Even though the SOPA and PIPA acts were stopped by huge public outcry, it’s staggering how quickly the U.S. government has come back with a new, different, threat to the rights of its citizens,”CISPA is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. C.A. Ruppersberger, D-Md. They claim it’s meant to prohibit Washington from forcing private companies to hand over information and to help American businesses protect their computer networks and intellectual property from cyber attacks. And many of those businesses agree. “HR 3523 would impose no new obligations on us to share data with anyone,” wrote Joel Kaplan, vice president-U.S. Public Policy for Facebook. “And it ensures that if we do share data about specific cyber threats, we are able to continue to safeguard our users’ private information, just as we do today.”

But the Electronic Freedom Foundation begs to differ. “Kaplan assured users that Facebook has 'no intention' of sharing private user data with the government,” wrote Rainey Reitman, activism director with the not-for-profit watchdog group.

“But let’s be clear: Internet users don’t want promises from companies … we want strong laws that make such egregious privacy violations illegal.”





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/2.../#ixzz1syzZ30WT

Last edited by Lyuokdea; 04/24/12 02:13 PM.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Likes: 147
I'm more amazed that they can can turn around and get this thing out there and get the ball rolling so quickly, yet we've been without a budget for how many years?


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Quote:

I'm more amazed that they can can turn around and get this thing out there and get the ball rolling so quickly, yet we've been without a budget for how many years?




It's because no one gives them money to fix the budget. If companies were handing out millions of dollars to fix the budget, it would have been fixed yesterday.


[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Likes: 2
S
Legend
Offline
Legend
S
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Likes: 2
How does this affect me and every other regular person? I've seen a bunch of stuff on Facebook about people wanting to shoot it down, just wondering why as every description I've read has been vague at best.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,316
Likes: 429
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,316
Likes: 429
The amazing thing is that this is yet another horribly written piece of legislation, yet it is backed by members of both Parties.

Personally I don't want the federal government being able to say to my ISP: "We want to know every website that YTown visited in the past 6 months", and for them to be able to get that information. They'd probably be bored with my web selections, but that's beside the point. It's none of their business, and they ought to have to show probably cause that a crime is being committed, and get a warrant or other court order if they want to track anyone's online activities.

I understand that the President has said that he may veto this in its current form, and I would support him in that decision.

Here is the full title of the bill:

To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes. – H.R. 3523

And, as always, the devil is in the "and for other purposes" ........ and there are still damn few limits on those "other purposes".


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,316
Likes: 429
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,316
Likes: 429
Basically it would enable your ISP, any website you visit, and so on to collect your personal data and share it with the government ...... whether there is probable cause that a crime has been committed ...... or whether or not there is a warrant ......... or whether or not there is even any good reason to do so.

Imagine the chilling effect such activities could have on free speech. You could never post anything on line with any degree of anonymity. If you said "The President is a bozo", well, the President, through his administration, could get your personal information and do whatever he can with it.

In theory, a political entity could collect a "black book" of people who have vehemently disagreed with them online, and use that as a decision maker for who gets audited ..... or who wins a court case ....... or who gets a permit approved .........

I'm not saying that this stuff is likely ..... but it is possible. This is still a poorly written bill. It seeks to exclude under which circumstances the government can go after personal information rather than spelling out specifically the few, and extremely limited circumstances they should be allowed such access to personal information.

I don't have a problem with a bill that says "In order to stop *this crime*, the government will have the right to go after *this information*, only under *these limited circumstances*. The "and other purposes" is always a cue that the bill is badly written .... because it is so open ended that there are few limits to its power.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Likes: 2
S
Legend
Offline
Legend
S
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Likes: 2
Isn't that already kind of in place with the Patriot Act (sorta kinda)?

Thanks for filling me in though, I'm exactly like you, they would probably be bored wtih what I'm doing outside of stealing the occasional album, but it just doesn't smell right.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,316
Likes: 429
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,316
Likes: 429
Anything that opens up more and more avenues for the government to circumvent the legal system in order to collect information on people without any probable cause whatsoever is probably a bad idea.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Likes: 73
L
Hall of Famer
OP Offline
Hall of Famer
L
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Likes: 73


~Lyuokdea
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Likes: 280
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Likes: 280
Quote:

Anything that opens up more and more avenues for the government to circumvent the legal system in order to collect information on people without any probable cause whatsoever is probably a bad idea.



And that's the answer.. only take out the "probably"..


yebat' Putin
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,030
Likes: 134
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,030
Likes: 134
Thanks, YTown. I have been trying to limit my info which has allowed my "information required" personal stuff to be compromised (officially) three times. I cannot see much good my way with this as given. Is this ALL they have to do?


"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Likes: 83
T
Legend
Offline
Legend
T
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Likes: 83
Don't give them any ideas? Why don't the just install a video recorder in my eyeball and an audio recorder in my ear through some mandatory surgery.
I'd bet the technology exists.

DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... SOPA is Back (but worse) - Legislators to vote on controversial CISPA bill

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5