Why CISPA Is a Really Bad Bill 142
We've heard recently of CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a bill currently making its way through Congress that many are calling the latest incarnation of SOPA. Reader SolKeshNaranek points out an article at Techdirt explaining exactly why this bill is bad, and how its backers are trying to deflect criticism by using language that's different and rather vague. Quoting:
"The bill defines 'cybersecurity systems' and 'cyber threat information' as anything to do with protecting a network from: '(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.' It's easy to see how that definition could be interpreted to include things that go way beyond network security — specifically, copyright policing systems at virtually any point along a network could easily qualify."
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why must we have overbearing, obsequious legislators whose only goals seem to be to annoy, obfuscate, and make dirty money? The power to expel a Congressman should extend to anyone in the US with at least a given number of supporters.
____________
Please.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what's worse? Some normal people actually support it. They don't even care about collateral damage. They want the so-called "criminals" stopped no matter what. Basically, as long as the copyright infringers are punished, it doesn't matter to them how many innocent people are also unfairly punished (sometimes having their internet shut off, for instance) or accused.
Some people just love collective punishment. Makes me sick.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. And we call those people 'masochists.'
Re: (Score:2)
You must mean sadists. True masochists aren't really into collective punishments. They're more like Ben from Monty Python's Life of Brian, and get upset if somebody gets punished more than they do [montypython.net].
<mutter>Lucky Bastard.</mutter>
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that what these "criminals" are doing shouldn't be criminal. The real crimes are happening because the criminals have changed the laws to do their bidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the requirements and restrictions on running for Congress?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Requirement: A million dollars.
Disqualification: Openly admitting that you don't believe in fairy tales.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good points.
Also you can't be a federal employee and run for partisan public office. I guess politicians don't want people that actually know how their policies work competing with them.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly how many federal employees do you know that have a million dollars to blow on a political campaign?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fairy Tales ... Like "We're from the government and we're here to help"?
Or "This High Speed Rail project will only cost 38 Billion"?
Or "Republicans want you to get pregnant, have cancer, and eat puppies"?
Or "Democrats want you to smoke pot, have gay sex and molest children"?
The problem is, lots of people want to believe in fairy tales, including people who claim they don't. People are not rational, including the ones that claim to be. Get over it.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fairy Tales, aka sky daddies.
you don't *have* to be christian (in the public's eye) but it sure helps. a lot.
otoh, if you openly admit you don't believe in sky daddies and the like, you'll never get anywhere in american public office. (heck, even in business, its a show-stopper).
also, if you appear too intelligent, that's a major turn-off to the american voting public. it makes me ashamed of my own country, when I think of that, but we all know about the anti-intellectualism that is on the rise.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me the anti-intellectual feelings only come about when a politician says since they are smarter than you they are going to force you to live like they want.
Take salt for example. Probably a good idea to limit the intake. But I don't want someone forcing businesses not to use it.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, i've seen that kind of thing, and I was avoiding it on purpose. Because, most people who pledge to never vote for a "Christian" or any other person of faith, will do exactly that come Nov. this year. Many of those will vote for Obama, and do so gladly because ... well Obama is their kind of person of faith.
I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.
Me, I'm not a "Christian". I am a Libertarian, and I don't have a problem with people of faith (or lack their of) politically. My point, Atheists will mock religious people and how they vote, but then often vote for exactly the person they just mocked (like Obama). They compromise their own values in doing so.
Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?
Re: (Score:1)
>I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.
What are the alternatives? Even Ron-let's-eat-children-Paul stands firmly behind banning abortions. On the state level, obviously. God forbid they are banned on the Federal level.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a creationist.
Re: (Score:3)
Scott Adams?
Perhaps you meant Douglas Adams, who died a few years ago.
Scott Adams, while witty enough in his Dilbert cartoons, is no substitute. Among other things, he believes in non-causal phenomena.
Now Dan Dennett [wikimedia.org] or Robert Sapolski [wikimedia.org] or Sam Harris [wikimedia.org] would likely be good presidential material, at least from the governance of people perspective (if you could arm-twist them into submitting to such an ordeal). Alas, they are far too rational to be acceptable to the electorate, especially if pitted against the usual rab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1- People can have faith and not be bigots. You don't seem to make a difference between an Obama christian and a Santorum christian ? Or, to stay on the supposedly same side of the spectrum, a Reagan christian and a Santorum christian ?
2- There's a wide gap between being an atheist, and insisting on a atheist president.
3- as a libertarian, which libertarian candidate will you vote for this coming election ? Or will you "compromise your values", too ? Or give up and not vote at all ?
4- I'm not sure libertari
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the Netherlands, where I live, we have a great diversity of parties. Some of those have a strong religious background, others haven't got that at all. It doesn't always make it easier to get things done if a multitude of parties are involved, but at least there's a much broader choice for the voters.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, i've seen that kind of thing, and I was avoiding it on purpose. Because, most people who pledge to never vote for a "Christian" or any other person of faith, will do exactly that come Nov. this year. Many of those will vote for Obama, and do so gladly because ... well Obama is their kind of person of faith.
I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.
Me, I'm not a "Christian". I am a Libertarian, and I don't have a problem with people of faith (or lack their of) politically. My point, Atheists will mock religious people and how they vote, but then often vote for exactly the person they just mocked (like Obama). They compromise their own values in doing so.
Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?
To expand on your point... I have not believed in magical, invisible flying friends since I was about seven years old. That said, what choices do I or anyone else have? There sure aren't any admitted atheists on the ballot. So do I vote for the social justice candidate Obama, who wants to share the wealth or the whacked out Mormon candidate who not only believes in Flying Friends but believes he is destined to become one. The only other choice is to abstain and not vote at all. That leaves the choice entire
Re: (Score:3)
Requirement: A million dollars.
Disqualification: Openly admitting that you don't believe in fairy tales.
It'll likely cost more than a million dollars to successfully run for congress. In 2010, the average successful campaign for a house seat cost nearly 1.5 million. For the senate it was 9 million. ( data from: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/stats.php?display=A&type=W&cycle=2010 [opensecrets.org] )
Re: (Score:3)
Disqualification: Openly admitting you believe in Muslim fairy tales instead of Christian ones.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Problem is: with whom do we replace them?
For every Congressman you could hypothetically shitcan at a moment's notice, there are a dozen more equally corrupt politicians at the state level ready to take their place. And for every Governor, Mayor etc that gets the axe (or gets promoted into a recently vacated congressional seat) there will always be a Secretary of State, greasy lawyer, corrupt CEO, Community Organizer, or some guy named Moonbeam.
The whole process is rotten to the core, and attracts like minded people into it's ranks. I see two possible outcomes, (1) some paradigm will shift and the process will slowly gravitate back towards honesty and intelligence with law-makers genuinely giving a crap about their constituents... or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get ... interesting.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if we could shitcan them on the spot, then the bad ones won't bother running.
Biggest reason they are corrupt as they are right now is that they have no reason to fear the voters. All they have to do is lie through their teeth during campaign season, then once they're safely in office and the only ones who can get rid of them are their fellow politicians, the wolves can safely take off their wool cloaks.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
one step forward would be: remove money from the equation.
SERIOUSLY police the income of the bastards. don't allow them to live any better than they were before taking public office. and the same for afterwards! I'm serious about this; the money IS the corruption.
I fully believe there are people who do good things because they believe its the 'right thing to do'. but those people never make it to office (for lots of reasons). and the ones who are in office are the sociopathic types (generally, its true, with few exceptions).
remove all profit motive and ensure that even after office, there won't be any funny business. yes, that's hard to implement and the details are hard. but I bet it would take the 'bad element' out of our government, our police, our courts and we'd be able to restore trust in our 'leaders' again.
"he was playin' real good. for free."
there's none of that left in public office. that's the problem. they are all in it for the power, money, influence. remove that motive and you filter out all the badies. and then things will improve.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just that the bad ones make it, it's that the good ones don't.
Those "reasons" have a lot to do with the corporate run media among others making sure not to let anyone in that would derail the gravy train.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, only congress can appropriate money out of the treasury, and the treasury pays the salary of government employees, even congress people.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding?
"Here's a new, beautiful 18 year old secretary for you. To help you in your important work. She's up for any work task! *nudge nudge, wink wink*
Oh, no worries, we'll of course pay for her salary.
Signed MPAA.
PS: Are boys more your thing, maybe? Want to babysit these two kids for us next week?"
or "Here's a bag of white entertainment products for you, sir!"
Money is only important for what it can buy. Remove money, and they'll just get given the perks directly. And unless you put all of them under 24/7 surveillance, and put the ones doing surveillance under surveillance... Then you WILL have corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
You probably meant get the money out of campaigns.
no, but I'd also like to get rid of campaigns as we know them. we have the internet now. the old ways are not working and we should try new ones. the old assumptions (that travel was slow, communication was slow and no effective way to 'poll the people' about issues) are all wrong, today. but we still have a so-called representative government that is not even close to being the voice of the people. not even close.
no, its not campain money, its ALL mon
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's naïve.
In Canada there is currently an investigation into vote fraud that went like this:
The alleged guilty political party organized a massive amount of robo-phone-calls, claiming to be coming from *another* political party, at dinner time and in the evening, with the purpose of getting the voters pissed of at that *other* party, so that they would change their vote.
How can you "no
Re: (Score:1)
You know, now that I think about it ... that just might work. Maybe make it a 2/3 majority requirement. If any politician's approval rating gets below ~33%, and you get X number of petition signatures for their removal... hold a "special election" and kick em out
I think it answers GratefulNet's question too: Money
Any turd politician who can run a good campaign for a few months would show their true colors in office, get the boot, and be out the umpteen millions they spent on campaigning. Big busines
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The answer is to get rid of FPPS voting, which ensures that two nearly equally corrupt parties bubble to the top. Just about any other voting system gives a better way to get rid of corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps if the people have the option to issue fines when they throw the bums out. To make things fair, the fines may go up to the total amount they spent when running for office. They will be barred from holding any political office until they pay off the fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole process is rotten to the core,
You mean the "whole process" whereby we actually have a say in who our leaders are?
As opposed to what alternative process? The one where we have a benevolent dictator for life?
Re: (Score:1)
If you can find a dictator that actually manages to stay benevolent for life, I'd take it over an elected pack of corrupt bureaucrats any day.
But since there's no such thing as a benevolent politician, I'll settle for a pack of infighting thugs that keep each other from making any progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get ... interesting.
If/when that happens, the first place I'm going is to Hollywood. There will be significantly less wealthy residents when I leave.
Re: (Score:1)
I was actually referring to the current Governor of California.
Hint: It's not Ahnold anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
The "things get interesting" step is a really horrible option. Rapid changes have the potential to bring up even worse leaders than a corrupt democracy. Instability and a gap at the top have all the same attractions to evil bastards that an election does, except the skills needed are a willingness to shoot people, instead of ability to smile for a camera.
If there's even the slightest chance of stable, gradual change instead of a revolution, fight for the gradual change. Fight as though the revolution were a
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
to take the devil's advocate/opposite view: if you can kick someone out of office instantly (or nearly) then won't they all be just living for the short term and never long? isn't this even worse than what we have now?
companies are evil, like that. investors often are, too. they want short term this and short term that. very reactive but not long-thinking.
what we have now is totally broken. but your proposal won't work, either.
I'm not sure the current structure is at all correct. rather than making small tweaks, it seems to me we need huge changes. as huge as going from linked linear lists to 2d or 3d trees.
tiered review and rotating officials with some feedback system might be nice to try. lots of watchers watching the watchers. self policing system that ensures stability (think: negative feedback amplifiers, to use a tech analogy).
there is no way the current system self-fixes. no self policing and power goes unchecked. truly, the people and their good is not being looked after. I think a lot of people agree that our system needs an overhaul, not a tune-up.
Re: (Score:1)
How about we over a simple corruption vote, such that the populace votes, and if more than 2/3 support it, the politician is not only removed from office, but their assets are forfeit, and they are incarcerated as a felon (the vote being a substitute for a trial). The forfeit assets would at least partially offset the costs of imprisoning the politician.
The idea being that politicians could literally lose their reputation, their money, their vote (in most states), their 2nd amendment rights (in most states)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and thus bringing Big Media's power into a whole new dimension.
If you really believe that will cut down on corruption, I got a very nice bridge to sell you.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of politicians are already taking bribes and thinking in the short term. (that's why stuff like this happens) They are also stashing away favors and other goodies for the long term to ensure that someone will give them a job on some company board in the future. Like others said, they only pretend to care about us during election time. Immediately after that, we are effectively powerless again until the next election. If I call or write my grievances to a politician, they will just give me a politely worded "fuck you" response if I even get one at all.
If you fuck up badly enough on your job, you will probably get fired on the spot. If you fuck up enough times, you will eventually get fired. If you steal from your job or use company resources for your own gain, you will probably get fired if caught. Politicians steal from us all the time and we have no way to stop them. They fuck up all the time or even actively work against us and their incompetence and greed makes everyone suffer. Politicians don't have to live with that fear and they can do a lot more damage to society than practically everyone else. Not having a fail-safe system in place to remove them if they step out of line is absolutely insane. Getting one warning before being sacked is more than generous for those in public office. Finding a temporary replacement to serve out the remainder of the term is fairly simple.
.... Democracy (Score:1)
I find tyranny a bit harder to swallow when it's "for the People"
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with Democracy is that it leads to mob rule and tyranny of the majority; two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.
The whole point of a Republic is to have statesmen (not politicians) make decisions for their constituents (people), but under the limitations of the governance system they are placed. Right now, the Constitution means whatever people want it to mean, which allows slimy politicians to create and keep resubmitting laws over and over again until they get one passed, and usually i
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Politicians are not sufficiently enthralled to corporations by having to fund expensive campaigns every few years. Let's make them have to fund a permanent campaign, that way they'll be.. less enthralled ?
Re: (Score:2)
I know. It's like having an army of demons dedicated to making your life hell; they get up every day, review the previous day's minutes, then ask themselves how they can top it.
Re: (Score:2)
The power to expel a Congressman should extend to anyone in the US with at least a given number of supporters.
It does. You just might need a LOT of supporters.
its bad (Score:2)
CISPA is bad... mkay
Most bills are bad (Score:2)
Most laws are designed to increase the power of the federal government and reduce the honest citizens rights.
Laws don't apply to the criminals.
List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (Score:5, Informative)
http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-2011 [house.gov]
AT&T
Boeing
BSA
Business Roundtable
CSC
COMPTEL
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association
Edison Electric
EMC
Exelon
Facebook
The Financial Services Roundtable
IBM
Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
Information Technology Industry Council
Intel
Internet Security Alliance
Lockheed Martin
Microsoft
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
NDIA
Oracle
Symantec
TechAmerica
US Chamber of Commerce
US Telecom - The Broadband Association
Verizon
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, there are several tech companies in there. Seems like they didn't hear it the last time we got upset about suppporting this kind of crap. Of course, their support may pre-date this rider, and they just don't realize yet what they're now suporting. Seems like the /. hordes might remedy that.
Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (Score:4, Insightful)
I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.
go figure!
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.
IBM, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Oracle?
Re: (Score:3)
IBM,
IBM, as in 'nobody ever got fired for abusing a monopoly' IBM?
Intel,
Intel, as in the company responsible for price fixing, dumping, and bribing companies not to use its competitor's products?
Lockheed Martin,
You mean a big part of the military industrial complex?
Oracle?
Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.
IBM, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Oracle?
IBM, as in 'nobody ever got fired for abusing a monopoly' IBM? ... You mean a big part of the military industrial complex?
Intel, as in the company responsible for price fixing, dumping, and bribing companies not to use its competitor's products?
Lockheed Martin
Oracle? Seriously?
IBM is not the IBM it once was. Lockheed Martin, as in the SR-71 Blackbird (Wikipedia: "Since 1976, it has held the world record for the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft ...").
As for the others, I didn't say I liked them, but I do respect them.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, I have nothing but disgust for Symantec. Once a great com
Re: (Score:2)
Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (Score:5, Informative)
That list is very, very short.
Compare it to the list of interests that supported SOPA. [opencongress.org]
Found only two matches: National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the US Chamber of Commerce. There were a few matches on the opposing side, but not many.
Now we know who the real players are in the game of controlling the government.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Chamber of Commerce is a useful resource in the same way as Rush Limbaugh is a useful resource;
You know anyone in that club is all about fucking over the common man in the USA for the benefit of the sponsors.
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook supporting CISPA seems like a conflict of interest here.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even under the table, but I was thinking more about the scrutiny on Facebook as an organization itself and what exactly Zuckerberg is doing with all of the information his company harvests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Eventually one will slip through and become law"
How do you motivate the obese, bewildered masses that only want their iPhones and snacks? Seriously I don't respect the general populace of this country any longer (if I ever did) they get what they deserve.
Consumer cattle led to slaughter.
Idiocracy was a documentary.
Round two (Score:2)
In my view the real power of SOPA was protection for those choosing to act in "good faith" as judge jury and executioner without the possibilty of civil recourse when this is abused.
No ISP is going to implement MPAA's wet dream if they know they will be successfully sued into oblivian the second it is switched on.
This is the same thing all over again.
Only the choice of words is different to appeal to the "security" boogyman this time around.
Re: (Score:2)
Shift the argument around. If, for the purposes of thwarting a DDOS, an ISP or service provider needed to take drastic actions that could impact innocent parties in the process, should they be given any protection under the law?
Likewise... when the security fails at a major bank (more likely, when it is exposed on a massive scale), what kind of timeline do you expect response in? Do you think Treasury agents on the ground looking for forensic evidence in order to build a case against the bad guys will pro
The end of global internet? (Score:2)
I love they way these people think. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like somewhere a bunch of congressmen and lobbyists got other and said:
"Wow, the internet has really been a force for global change. It empowers people to coordinate with each other and share information in a way never before possible. What can be do to put a stop to it?"
Re: (Score:2)
No fighting back? Bad sign (Score:2)
The corporate and government sectors are BOTH corrupt as hell.
Enough so that whenever they actually manage to agree on something, it's probably something bad for us small folks.
Rather how ex wives never like each other unless they both hate the husband.
Sony (Score:2)
Much ado about nothing (Score:2)
After going to thomas.loc.gov and reading the text of the proposed law, it seems that it really is pretty harmless.'
Once you get past the scary definitions, what you have is a law that requires the government and "cybersecurity providers" to not make public any otherwise confidential material relevant to a security breach.
Plus it allows the government to share information it may have about "cybersecurity threats" with outsiders.
The only really interesting bit in the whole thing is that it uses "entity" a
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is where they stick enforcing copyrights and patents into a bill that has nothing to do with it, and is otherwise a fairly decent bill.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't do that.
What it does is define a "cybersecurity system" as one that (among other things) protects copyrights and patents.
It does NOT give the feds any enforcement powers they didn't already have.
It does NOT give "entities" any enforcement powers they didn't already have.
It does NOT specify any criminal penalties for ANYTHING, and only implies crimi
For once, the extreme right is extremely right (Score:1)
Score: -1, Corrupted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They do. Unfortunately you only get mod points every 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
You all dont get it, this is the best bill ever. (Score:2)
This bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to include "(1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information" as "cyber threat intelligence". This is important because amending the National Security Act makes "cyber threat intelligence" a product of the intelligence community. This is important because US persons have protections under Title 50 when inclu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Which are the good laws? Laws good for you? What about laws good for other things, but not so good for you. What about laws which are good for me and bad for you? I make it a point to understand as much of the law as I have time for. There are always going to be laws, and they are always going to screw you if you don't take the time to understand them. Please go read something, spend a few hours on gov tracker if anything. I really recommend starting with the Titles, they make really good bed time reading.
Self-correcting bill? (Score:3)
So if this bill is passed, won't it, "degrade, disrupt, or destroy" the Internet? Won't it therefore become illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
So if this bill is passed, won't it, "degrade, disrupt, or destroy" the Internet? Won't it therefore become illegal?
Is it illegal for a policeman to shut someone? Sometimes it doesn't.
Is it illegal someone to shut the sheriff (even if not shooting the deputy)? Always.
Summary is misleading. (Score:2)
The official summary says this pertains to the protection of government intelligence information and the measures that are necessary to protect it. This is not about protecting movies from file sharers. The intelligence community is not thinking about movies. They're thinking about espionage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything sounds like that to the paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the government and companies that work with the intelligence community develop and use IP to gather manage and protect intelligence.