US Senate Passes the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act 74-21 (dailydot.com) 157
blottsie writes with news that the U.S. Senate voted 74-21 in favor of CISA, a controversial cybersecurity bill. All five amendments submitted in an attempt to bolster privacy failed to pass. From The Guardian's coverage:
Try asking the bill’s sponsors how the bill will prevent cyberattacks or force companies and governments to improve their defenses. They can’t answer. They will use buzzwords like “info-sharing” yet will conveniently ignore the fact that companies and the government can already share information with each other as is. There were barely any actual cybersecurity experts who were for the bill. A large group of respected computer scientists and engineers were against it. So were cyberlaw professors. Civil liberties groups uniformly opposed (and were appalled by) the bill. So did consumer groups. So did the vast majority of giant tech companies. Yet it still sailed through the Senate, mostly because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that they’re crafting legislation about.
'Murricaaa (Score:1)
Re: 'Murricaaa (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
kusottare - shitdrip
chikusho - SHIT!
baka - idiot
aho - idiot
Just off the top of my head, also in terms of dealing with true idiots "baka" is about the least insulting word you can use. Far more damaging is referring to someone as one of various animals like "Mr Pig" is far more insulting to someone that being called an utter moron in english.
Blaming ignorance is more credit than they deserve (Score:5, Interesting)
Blaming ignorance is more credit than they deserve. Willful ignorance is a choice of action, whereas ignorance is sometime forgivable. If they listened to any of the concerned parties they certainly didn't show it here.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They voted for government and against people.
Re: (Score:3)
They had to. Concentrating this last little bit of wealth is going to be the hardest part so far and they need to be ready when it starts cutting into the bread-and-circuses fund. Expect much more of this in the near future.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Blaming ignorance is more credit than they des (Score:5, Insightful)
Disagree, I think it's completely relevant and on topic. The people writing these bills have absolutely no idea how the technology works, but are quite comfortable throwing away our privacy rights based on that. They are technophobic imbeciles who are driven by fear, and that's a scary thing because they have a lot of power. This is the perfect example because apparently NOBODY except the lawmakers wants this legislation, yet they don't care and vote based on their fear. It's very important that people realize the current set of lawmakers are almost entirely out of touch with modern technology, and that can have a massive stifling effect on our economy which a large portion of is based on this tech. We need young, new blood in these seats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Blaming ignorance is more credit than they dese (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly, I find it hard to believe ignorance has much to do with it at all. There are some big name companies on the record as completely supporting FISA, including Xerox. (Funny how Xerox also seems to have most of the contracts with local govt. for maintaining speed cameras.... Just maybe, they stand to profit any time government takes on some additional responsibility concerning technology? Hmm....)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ignorance, it's corruption. But it looks like nobody wants to see that elephant in the room. This will not effect the elections...
Re: (Score:3)
You say that like it can't be both. It most definitely is both.
Re: (Score:1)
they did listen to the 'concerned parties' who paid for their reelection campaign. This is just another sign that all of them need to be fired.
No, it is a sign that the Corporations need to be fired
And "Corporations are people my friend"
incorrect final sentence (Score:5, Interesting)
Senators don't pass bills they know nothing about, they pass bills they see as having some sort of benefit. Benefits might be popularity, might be to appease donator, might be something darker. What benefit did they get from passing this and from whom? Who encouraged them to pass it?
Re:incorrect final sentence (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! The Senators who passed it very likely knew exactly what they are doing - appeasing their largest donors and extending the power of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's a benefit to not being in the minority too. So a totally ignorant member of Congress, merely told that "some computer bill is winning the vote 70-24" would probably vote for it. Cause odds are*, if over 2/3 of people in the Senate want it, it's a good law.
*There are spectacular counter-examples. But those tend to be "nobody go fired for buying IBM" moments.
Re:incorrect final sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
correction, senators dont pass bills that dont help them politically. they dont really care what is in the bill as long as its politically worth it to them
In a representative democracy the people elect representatives to enact laws on their behalf. At least theoretically. In practice, once elected, representatives don't have any obligation other than to enact laws to benefit themselves. If you need legislation in your favor there is a price to pay.
Re: (Score:1)
If people realized that the US is supposed to be a constitutional republic things might be different.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering the bill's purpose is to get information about the people voting for them, the purpose is crystal clear. Information is power, and they just grabbed a lot of it.
You have to ask who encouraged it? (Score:5, Interesting)
The phrase 'deep state' was invented to refer to the intelligence community in Turkey that used to have enormous influence in the running of that country. However it is a term which present experience shows it may be more applicable to the US than is nice to think about.
Corruption, thy name (Score:1)
is 'American Politician'.
Re: (Score:3)
Sheep. You're all Sheep. (yes I know) (Score:1, Insightful)
Baaaa!
Seriously, I know there's that guy who posts that on every thread, but today it's true.
You're all sheep.
And you don't live in a Democracy.
You don't even live in a Democratic Republic.
In a Democratic Republic you have Rights.
You only have serfdom.
And no privacy.
Re: (Score:1)
Good luck getting this through congress (Score:1)
They can't even pass a budget.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Another nail in the coffin of privacy, but a great boost to aid the move in the EU to ban the transfer of data to US companies outright. Since privacy legislation is much more stringent in the EU, that should help a sizeable portion of the Earth's inhabitants. And as a bonus it will reduce the unassailable positions now occupied by Google, Amazon etc. and stimulate EU companies to create alternatives. As each ones home market is too small to dominate the rest, that should give us a bit more choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Over time the leadership of the US based cloud provider might, have to, did, would, was asked to share all data with the US gov as a default request.
Legally and fully protected your data is collected.
5 eye nations get a look. Other 3rd party nations the US really likes get a free look too. Some might be competitors.
Most nations are going to be very aware of who gets their
Re: (Score:2)
They'll be a trade deal sooner or later to allow businesses to sue countries over privacy protection (and any other pesky laws that pro
Re: (Score:3)
Should be
They'll be a trade deal sooner or later to allow businesses to sue countries over privacy protection (and any other pesky laws that protect citizens). Can't have sovereign nations passing laws that are bad for business, especially businesses that pay lip service to pretending to be American.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How Each Critter Voted (Score:5, Informative)
Senate Web Page - Here is a clue (Score:2)
Senate.Gov. The United States Senate
Request unable to be completed.
The submitted https request was not able to be completed at this time.
Please retry your request using http. This may require disabling some browser based plug-ins.
http://www.senate.gov/ [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How Each Critter Voted (Score:5, Informative)
That's false. The majority of the NO votes were Democrats, and the majority of the YES votes were Republicans. And NONE of the current GOP Senators running for president voted against it. Not Cruz, Rubio, Graham or that champion of liberty, Rand Paul could be bothered to vote against this bill.
Bernie Sanders voted against it, because he's not full of shit like Rand Paul.
Re: (Score:2)
Paul had voted against some earlier thing. Instead of showing up to oppose, though, he didn't show at all for this vote. While I think the official story is that he's opposed, the lack of the Nay is meaningful, and shouldn't be overlooked in the future.
Re:How Each Critter Voted (Score:4, Insightful)
He also did the *mostly* meaningless charade that is the filibuster earlier this year. As I said then, I'm not impressed. I kind of, sort of, appreciated his dad. I voted for him knowing that he'd not win. To be honest, I'm not sure that I'd have voted for him if he'd an actual shot at winning. He's kind of a fruitcake. He has some great ideas and some terrible ideas. I'm not entirely sure which would be enacted. But, I generally throw my vote away on a third party. I don't expect them to win. I expect the number crunchers to notice that more and more of us are disenfranchised with the two-party oligarchy and are unwilling to vote for them. Eventually, I hope, this number will increase and we'll get more notice. So far, so good. The number's actually been rising steadily but at a very small rate. By extrapolating, by the time I'm on my third lifetime - there will be an actual third party that is viable and a more representative democracy. I need sleep. Insert paragraph breaks, proper punctuation, and spelling corrections as needed. If it doesn't make sense just assume I'm a lunatic.
Re: (Score:3)
...If it doesn't make sense just assume I'm a lunatic.
TL;DR Summary: Voted for Rand Paul, therefore a lunatic.
Re: (Score:2)
In my defense, albeit a poor defense, I didn't expect him to win. I don't think I'd actually have voted for him if I'd expected him to win assuming there were better candidates at the time. Also, I'm assuming either I mistyped or you mistook something. Not Rand Paul - I can't (and wouldn't) vote for him. His dad, Ron Paul, was the one meant to be discussed.
Hmm... I expanded what I wrote and looked. You misread or I wasn't clear enough.
I kind of, sort of, appreciated his dad. I voted for him knowing that he'd not win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How strange this world is, eh? I'm a registered Libertarian, running for office in 2016 (you can't vote for me, I think I'm the only Mainer here), and I support a tried and true Socialist instead of the person claiming to represent Libertarian ideals who is Rand Paul.
For the curious, my political ideology takes second place - if elected. My job will be to represent my constituents, regardless of my personal feelings. Fortunately, they generally seem to align with my own or I'd not take the job. I'd not be q
Re: (Score:2)
They can not. I'm up above Farmington. I'm in a different district. However, the Sun Journal will surely cover it. The KJ will and the PPH will. I'm just outside of Rangeley, about 25 miles out, technically. Well, if you want technical, I am not home but you get the idea.
To the other AC - you can't vote for me, legally. But if you want an absentee ballot... (No, I'm kidding...) The email address is real - and checked sometimes. I'll be back in the state in a short bit (I need to go check on some property fi
Thank you Dianne Feinstein (Score:2, Interesting)
Another fine piece of legislation co-authored by Dianne Feinstein. What the hell is wrong with California that they have kept this cunt in office for over 20 years?
Re: (Score:1)
Another fine piece of legislation co-authored by Dianne Feinstein. What the hell is wrong with California that they have kept this cunt in office for over 20 years?
You do realize your less than clever use of cunt undermines your otherwise stellar argument, don't you faggot??
Now they're not even hiding. (Score:5, Insightful)
well, there was really no point in the government continuing to pretend it wasn't happening.
This legislation just codifies it.
Re: (Score:2)
Following the "Ho-hum" reaction to the Snowden revelations, including but not limited to, pervasive evidence the US was spying on its own citizens...
Was it really "Ho-hum" or was it all carefully presented and hidden away to give that impression?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Created equal" says nothing at all about what happens afterward. And that phrase was used by a group that went on to codify slavery in its constitution. Don't take the words so seriously, they were never meant to apply to everyone.
They know damned well what they're doing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet it still sailed through the Senate, mostly because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that theyâ(TM)re crafting legislation about.
Bullshit. They know damned well what they're doing: They're legalizing more and more surveillance and privacy violation of U.S. citizens, because they can. Them, them, fuck them.
Re: (Score:2)
Right? It's not like all the sane and normal groups opposing this just FORGOT to mention why it was a bad idea.
Of course they knew what they were voting for.
Re: (Score:1)
Correct, because they can and because, as I said already (and was modded in a weird way) Government = Evil [slashdot.org]
Welcome to shitocracy (Score:3)
The sets of ignorant Congressmen, stupid Congressmen, and evil Congressmen are all large. The union of all three encompasses almost the entire membership.
It wouldn't be quite so bad if only any one of those sets were problematic and we could concentrate all efforts on obliterating it. As it is, our only roles are Sisyphus, Don Quixote, or the ostrich with its head in the sand.
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, it could just be plain old sadomasochism...
Maximum evil (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual vote tally [govtrack.us] shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill (74 for, 21 against, 5 abstain).
If anyone believes that voting for R (or D) is worse than the other side, or how it's the "lessor of two evils", feel free to explain this.
There are a finite number of votes in any term. When our representatives vote against the interests of the people in all votes, there is no more damage that they can do. There can be no "lesser" evil - they're both at "maximum evil".
I took a look at the text of the recent Iowa poll [google.com], the one that puts Carson ahead of Trump that everyone is talking about. I couldn't see any obvious bias (a good thing), but this question stood out:
Which do you think is the bigger risk for the future of the country?
74 To elect a president who has not held office so does not know the processes and procedures of governing
101 To elect the same sort of person who has served as president for many decades who will likely continue to do things the way they have been done with the same effect
25 Not sure
The numbers are total Dem+Rep respondents in the poll.
This is interesting because it shows that Americans (in Iowa, at least) are waking up to the realization that electing career politicians is not in their best interests.
With respect to Democrat readers, your only viable candidate on that side (Hillary Clinton) is a weak contender, while the Republican side appears to have both Trump and Carson as strong candidates.
With respect to the Republican readers, neither of your strong candidates is a career politican. One doesn't need to sell his influence to moneyed interests.
This may be the beginning of the end for career politicians and national parties.
Re: (Score:1)
With respect to Democrat readers, your only viable candidate on that side (Hillary Clinton) is a weak contender, while the Republican side appears to have both Trump and Carson as strong candidates.
Don't count out the Bern yet. He's already tracking better than Obama was 8 years ago (compared to Hillary)
And while Hillary is definitely a career politico, she's never actually won an election for anything in her life.
Bernie Sanders isn't effective (Score:3)
With respect to Democrat readers, your only viable candidate on that side (Hillary Clinton) is a weak contender, while the Republican side appears to have both Trump and Carson as strong candidates.
Don't count out the Bern yet. He's already tracking better than Obama was 8 years ago (compared to Hillary)
And while Hillary is definitely a career politico, she's never actually won an election for anything in her life.
I stay away from the "the other side will do *this* when elected" rhetoric, and try to confine myself to analysis of present situation and past performance. Please bear that in mind when replying - I'm not being a partisan echo chamber.
Money is a pretty good indicator [pbs.org] of who will win an election in this country. With a 95% success rate, it's a pretty-good rule of thumb to use.
Bernie doesn't have his own money, so he has to rely on donations. Donations come from moneyed interests in return for political favo
Re:Bernie Sanders isn't effective (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you haven't been paying much attention to the primary races, and I certainly can't blame you for that. I seldom have until this year. But when it comes to money, Bernie is doing just fine thanks to large numbers of small donations. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics... [go.com]
As for being able to win in the general election, hypothetical polls show that Bernie does just as well as Hillary in match-ups against likely republican candidates. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-th... [nbcnews.com]
For once we have a chance to vote for something other than one of two lizards, and there is a real chance he can win. Lets not let that chance go to waste ;)
Re: (Score:2)
He also says things which are easy to (unfairly) attack, such as sticking with the term "Democratic Socialism". Socialism is closely aligned in the public's mind with Communism, the USSR and cold war, and to a lesser extend the Fascism of WWII Italy.
Those terms aren't nearly as toxic as they've been in the past. When was the last time this country fought "commies?"
WWII Italy? How many voters today are really influenced by something from the 40s and 50s?
Musolini died in 45
McCarthyism and all the "Red scare" stuff lasted well into the 50s (speaking of which, woo woo Fallout 4)
Cuban Missile Crisis was in the 60s
The wall fell in 89.
The 90s, 00s and teens have been pretty quiet on the "commies" front. Mostly just Putin riding around on horseback shirtle
Re: (Score:2)
Those terms aren't nearly as toxic as they've been in the past. When was the last time this country fought "commies?"
The Cold War wasn't that long ago. Anyone over the age of 50 will remember their elementary school drills, teaching us to dive under our desks, or put hour heads between our legs, and kissing our asses goodbye. And, while that was useless, Romney was correct when Obama chided him for choosing Russia as a threat.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And while Hillary is definitely a career politico, she's never actually won an election for anything in her life.
I'm surprised at how many people have been parroting this idiotic statement lately. You know Hillary served two terms as a senator, right? Did you think she did that by losing the election twice? Use your brain.
Let's remember 2008 (Score:4, Interesting)
She might win the nomination... there's certainly a good chance. But she's hardly a shoe-in.
Everyone just kinda assumed she win the nom 8 years ago, and that didn't really pan out for her, did it? And she hadn't even committed any felonies then.
If you're good at remembering things, let your mind wander back to the summer of 2008.
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both strong candidates [realclearpolitics.com] with roughly equal support.
Hillary and Barack had a meeting [prisonplanet.com], and soon after Hillary withdrew from the campaign. The Wikipedia article states that she won the popular vote but lost the nomination, but I seem to remember that her campaign lost a lot of steam after that meeting, and before the nomination.
The subtext that I read into that meeting was that the Dems felt that she was splitting the vote, and in return for her withdrawing gracefully and throwing support for Barack she would be the presumptive next nominee.
Then President Obama appointed her Secretary of State, which was also probably a result of that meeting. She got a high-prestige and highly visible position, and gets to practice being president for 8 years. (A good plan, really, and I don't begrudge that sort of deal making - it's how politics is done in this country.)
And now we're in the new cycle, and she's calling in that promise.
The problem is, she was a lackluster Secretary of State. If you assume that the E-mail and the Benghazi thing is unimportant, there's nothing that really stands out in her career.
She's a lukewarm candidate.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If anyone believes that voting for R (or D) is worse than the other side, or how it's the "lessor of two evils", feel free to explain this.
Of the 21 senators who voted against this bill, 14 were Democrats (15 if you count Sanders, who is in the senate as an Independent but presently running for the Democratic presidential nomination).
Or, to put it slightly differently: 14/44 (= 32%) of Democratic senators voted against this, versus 6/54 (= 11%) of Republican senators. Democrats were three times more likely to vote against this.
So, yes, voting for R is worse. It's unfortunate that neither party is *good* (ie voted strongly against this bill) on
Re: (Score:2)
So, what the numbers are saying is that if the senate where 100% Republican, this bill would have passed with a veto-proof majority. And if the senate where 100% Democrat, this bill would have passed with a veto-proof majority.
Some difference ;)
It seems to me voting for these same Democrats is just telling them it's okay to vote Yes for bills like this.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be the beginning of the end for career politicians and national parties.
Hardly. This is just another step along the downward spiral. Predictable even.
It seems to be progressing faster than I thought it would though. I didn't expect someone like Trump could actually be a viable presidential candidate until the 2030's.
Re: (Score:1)
Government = Evil [slashdot.org]
That is an axiom. Some do not understand it.
Re: (Score:3)
The actual vote tally [govtrack.us] shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill (74 for, 21 against, 5 abstain).
If anyone believes that voting for R (or D) is worse than the other side, or how it's the "lessor of two evils", feel free to explain this.
This is true...ish. A majority of both parties voted FOR the bill.
OTOH, Democrats were THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY to vote against it than Republicans. Of the 21 votes against, only 6 were Republicans. So in the binary system we have, if you care about things like this, your best move is to register as a Democrat. That way, you are still free to vote for the better candidate in November (regardless of which party they are in), but you can also push the better candidate(s) in the primary, in the party that is m
Let's lose the naivete, shall we? (Score:2)
because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that theyâ(TM)re crafting legislation about.
Rest assured that those they actually work for are well aware of the technology their minions are crafting legislation about.
Who voted NO? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a list of the 21 senators who voted AGAINST this CISA surveillance bill.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cardin (D-MD)
Coons (D-DE)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daines (R-MT)
Franken (D-MN)
Heller (R-NV)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Markey (D-MA)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warren (D-MA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Also, Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Ted Cruz (R-Canada) did not vote at all, because they are huge pussies. Remember that the next time you believe any of those turds are in favor of your liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they any worse than the D's and R's that voted for the bill?
Re:Who voted NO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because they showed cowardice. They wanted to be able to tell prospective voters that they're all for personal liberty, while not upsetting the powers that be. At least go on the record as standing for something so you can be held accountable. Have the courage of your convictions.
Remember, voting on bills is the only goddamn thing we pay senators to do. They get $174,000 per year to work about 100 days, and these sonsabitches can't even manage to be there to vote?
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. I know you would never have said that if it was the Ds not showing up.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Ted Cruz (R-Canada) did not vote at all, because they are huge
... or it could be because they are out campaigning for POTUS, rather than hanging around DC doing their jobs. Not that they couldn't be ducking to avoid taking a stand on a controversial issue, but I seriously doubt this issue will be seen as a big deal by the average Republican primary voter. Incompetence is usually a much more likely cause than malice.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet they'd have flown cross-country for a campaign dinner with Sheldon Adelson.
That's definitely true.
Re: (Score:2)
Ted Cruz (R-Canada)
I saw what you did there...
Who to blame. (Score:3)
"...Yet it still sailed through the Senate, mostly because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that they’re crafting legislation about."
In what decade do you think we will find it relevant or important to elect lawmakers who are as competent with technology as they are bullshitting about hope and change?
In other words, I'm struggling as to who really to blame here, since we voters have been using that "lawmakers are old and ignorant" excuse for too damn long now.
Perhaps when we stop electing stupid people...
Re: (Score:3)
But the big issues of the day aren't about Government Surveillance, it is about the Kardashians and whether or not to Nay Nay (however it is spelled).
The problem isn't the politicians, it is the ignorant people who vote for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said to my kids "One day, you're going to look back at this and think, 'My GAWD!!! What were we thinking!!!" "
Re: (Score:3)
We've lost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try but no-one's gonna be allowed to disrupt the Hillary coronation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They'll always win if you don't fight.
Let's Setup Powerline Internet! (Score:1)
Because Privacy (Score:1)
More Treason (Score:1)
I wish George Washington were still alive. He would have taken a huge shit in each of these "senators" mouths, then condemned them to the firing line for ushering that "conspiracy from New York" and betraying all his hard work from freeing us from the enslavement of the British and the whole taxation without representation thing. This vote would be a prime example of taxation without representation.
Why? Because companies like Facebook (who you give your data freely too like morons) lobbied heavy behind clos
Re: (Score:1)
Please link to the bill in these stories (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't need a third party to read something for them this is a link to the actual bill [congress.gov]. The bill itself is a lot less reading than all of the articles on it.
I just gisted the bill, it looks like one of these fait accomplis that follow this disturbing pattern we see of aligning the laws of Echelon (5 eyes, sigint or whatever other names it is know by) countries within the bounds of their beleaguered constitutions. Almost a year ago to the day laws with the same intent were passed in Australia under the NSL 2014.
If I may share my interpretation the bill, the main purpose appears to be to align the legal structures for government agencies to share information. Its up for interpretation and the more eyes reading this the better. I'll need a good read to really get it.
Of specific interest was that the law is beating a pretty fast drum for the Federal agencies to comply with a 60-180 day time frame for them to develop policy. I'm going to guess that they want to allocate budget spending to implement the policy withing the next 12 months. Of particular concern in the US version the bill allows for Federal agencies to spy on state, local and individuals (sec 2.8).
If the pattern is followed we can expect the UK and Canada to be next as these legal frameworks have already been passed in Australia and NZ - both political parties supported it there as well.
Why the governments of our countries are so intent on harassing their population is anyone's guess. What would be really great is if these bills were posted to /. *before* they passed. At least then the outrage could be channeled into constructive action.
Re: (Score:3)
SEC. 106. Protection from liability. ...
(b) Sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators.â"No cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any court against any entity, and such action shall be promptly dismissed, for the sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators or defensive measures under section 104(c) ifâ"
In other words, whatever privacy arrangements you've established with 3rd parties are hereby null and void.
Later in the bill they do include verbiage about how the legislation does not
Closing the loop (Score:2)
What I find interest is the play not just to close off remaining piddly avenues for people to challenge misappropriation of private data it is blocking off even avenues for people to discover anything at all with partially redundant FOIA restrictions.
"Helmets" are our only hope (Score:2)
One thing though.. (Score:2)
Facebook was FOR the CISA bill (Google it)
So please, stop using Facebook or you're complicit in everything Zuckerberg does.
Don't forget his famous quote...
"They trust me â" dumb fucks," -Zuckerberg
http://gawker.com/5636765/face... [gawker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Information does want to be free, after all.
Re:Sharing is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.
Somehow Stewart Brand's original statement got morphed into "information wants to be free."
Re: (Score:2)
A VPN if installed correctly and of a good quality will save you from your everyday internet providers daily logging or apps/malware collecting your ip.
If a person is of note or interest to the security services or seen as using a VPN on a tracked site or detected?
"NSA’s Internet taps can find systems to hack, track VPNs and Word docs" (Aug 2, 2013)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com] Re
Re: (Score:1)
Corporate ogliarchy, same as it's been for your entire life. It's just more obvious now.