US Budget Bill Passes With CISA Surveillance Intact (npr.org) 153
An anonymous reader writes: Early on Friday, the U.S. Senate approved the 2,000 page 'omnibus' budget bill that allocated $1.15 trillion in government funding. Later in the day, President Obama signed it into law. Because the budget bill was so important, many other pieces of unrelated legislation were tacked onto it, including the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, a bill notable for giving the government increased internet surveillance powers. Civil rights activists and tech experts largely consider it a "privacy disaster," and several lawmakers voted against the budget bill solely for CISA's inclusion. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) said, "Unfortunately, this misguided cyber legislation does little to protect Americans' security, and a great deal more to threaten our privacy than the flawed Senate version. Americans demand real solutions that will protect them from foreign hackers, not knee-jerk responses that allow companies to fork over huge amounts of their customers' private data with only cursory review." Corporations in the U.S. will now have "legal immunity when sharing consumers' private data about hacks and digital breaches."
The full omnibus is available online (PDF). The CISA provisions start on page 1,728.
War on Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe, if certain Slashdot posters are to be taken as the consensus, it's the Republicans and they want us to die.
Actually, I think they just don't actually give a shit any more.
Re: (Score:1)
More Democrats than Republicans voted for this Omnibus (As in, "Everything you want aboard the Omni-bus!") budget bill, in both the House and Senate.
But don't worry, Slashdot's nerds will always blame the Republicans, as usual.
Re: (Score:1)
More Democrats than Republicans voted for this Omnibus
I'll give you that, now answer me something. Who (from which party) inserted CISA into the budget bill?
Re:War on Privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Who (from which party) inserted CISA into the budget bill?
Apparently, it was House speaker Paul Ryan (R). [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Whoops, fixing the link. [gizmodo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That's not quite accurate. Paul Ryan presented the whole budget omibus bill after long negotiations that would ensure enough votes for passage. Lots of passages were likely added to the 2000-page omnibus bill at the request of various people to secure their votes. Who exactly wanted the CISA thing added is unclear, but clearly Paul Ryan was okay with it ending up in the final version.
But saying he was primarily responsible to requesting it to be put in there on the first place? We don't really know th
Re: (Score:1)
Politicians don't care what you want because you're not the one giving them campaign money. Until we have real meaningful campaign finance reform we're never going to have politicians that care what we think.
Politicians claim that they do not give donors special considerations, so we should call their bluff. Instead of a book full of complicated campaign finance laws we just need a simple government agency that processes all campaign contributions and anonymizes them before giving them to the candidate of c
Re:War on Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Is privacy such an enemy of the state now that they have to push it through in the budget bill? Why is ramming this through such a high priority for the Senate? Privacy used to be a second class issue. It hurts to watch our interests be so blatantly ignored by our governing body.
I agree, which is why I strongly suggest that everyone interested in this take a minute to look at the omnibus vote records from the House [govtrack.us] and the one for the Senate [govtrack.us]. If your representatives voted different than you want, take a few minutes to reach out to them. A phone call, email, or even (gasp) a physical letter will let them know what you think.
Re:War on Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
I read a rather insightful comment elsewhere saying that our securocrats have simply redefined privacy.
Privacy is now defined as 'the state not currently looking at what information they hold on you'.
Rather chilling, I thought.
Re:War on Privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Is privacy such an enemy of the state now that they have to push it through in the budget bill?
Riders on sweeping bills like the one that keeps the Federal government's doors open are SOP for our government, and has been for a long time now. Very often things literally get sneaked into it, hoping it doesn't get noticed, considering the full text of the bill is thousands of pages. It's 'high priority' for the Senate because otherwise the Federal government literally shuts down due to no funding; people literally get sent home without pay, contractors don't get paid, services to citizens stop, etc.
..enemy of the state..
Yes, apparently, it is, now. Look at how the younger generation views the concept of 'privacy': they 'share' every gods-be-damned little thing on social media platforms, never really giving a single thought to who or how many people are actually able to access and use that data however they wish, and they're convinced that anyone who values 'privacy' and goes out of their way to keep their lives private are either 'too old to understand' or that they're criminals/terrorists/predators and 'have something to hide'. This (in my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, please) is due to the younger generation having been indoctrinated, from birth, to believe 'privacy is bad and selfish', and 'good people share', and Corporate America and our own government is behind it. Three-letter agencies love being able to see everything all the time, and if they had their fondest wishes, I wouldn't at all be surprised if they'd have us required to have cameras and microphones in our homes and in our vehicles, 'for our own safety', naturally, but so far pesky things like the rule of law, the Constitution, and the concept of basic human rights has kept them from doing things like that.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not quite sure where the idea came from, maybe the Brits, but South Africa has a brilliant article in our constitution that a bill dealing with the appropriation of fund or taxation can only deal with that and no other item.
Somewhere we learned that lesson that the US government doesn't want to have to learn.
Re: (Score:2)
Millennials
Well there's that too I've noticed, but if you ask them if they worry about people they don't know seeing everything they post about their lives, where they are at particular times, and all the photos of them that are tagged with their names, they look at you like you're nuts; they just don't get it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:War on Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this bill was making it's way through the legislative process and then the Eric Snowden disclosure happened.
And? The concurrency of the two unrelated things is rather irrelevant. The Snowden disclosure happened because (A) The government was engaged in illegal activity, and (B) Snowden decided to be a whistleblower.
Which would have been a protected action, were he an employee, but instead head was a 1099 contractor, like all the Uber drivers.
How many high profile network break-ins have happened since then?
Lots. They're generally not announced to the public, unless they involve credit cards or medical records.
Juniper Networks just announced yesterday a major compromise.
No, they announced a software patch for a problem that could have been used to compromised the security of VPN communications, but there's no evidence that it was ever used to do so, and some evidence that the change was made to the system by the employee of a government agency to allow them to eavesdrop on VPN conversations.
OPM was hacked and information for 20Million current and former employees and their spouses and children were compromised.
The agency should not have been keeping records on their spouses and children, since they were not employees, but even so, the compromised information was mishandled by the OPM. This was not a demonstration of skill on the part of the people who penetrated the system, it was a demonstration of incompetence on the people who were tasked with ensuring the system could not be penetrated.
This legislation has been needed for years. It is about time congress passed it.
This legislation was never needed. It's only utility is for making information collection for government agencies an unfunded mandate that has to be paid for by the companies whose systems the information is transiting.
The purpose of doing this is to make the companies adding strong privacy features to their software, particularly mobile phone and tablet software, among others, responsible for, and punishable for not, revealing said information, on demand, and without warrant.
In other words, it's an attempt to force companies to include back doors, or face fines when demands for information simply can not be accomodated to the governments satisfaction, for technological and mathematical reasons.
BTW: You have your dates wrong: the Snowden disclosure occurred in 2013; the bill was first introduced to to the Senate Intelligence Committe over a hear later, in 2013, during the 113th congress.
It's a really asinine piece of legislation. Paul Ryan (R, WI) should be removed from office over this nasty piece of crap, let alone the way he got it shoved through.
Re: War on Privacy (Score:4, Informative)
The bill offers immunity to PRISM partners and telcos/ISPs who collaborate with the government to spy on US citizens. Snowden's leaks raised the possibility that citizens would sue the private collaborators for betraying private data to the government without judicial oversight. Now, that can't happen, because in the middle of a 2,000 page amendment to a budget bill the government has promised immunity to those who help the government spy on its citizens without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unlimited access to blackmail. There are still details about citizen's lives that are not collected through these apparatuses, but to be honest, they aren't details that these people are interested in.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly do not have any idea why OPM had the data it had. It has been discussed here plenty of times so I won't waste time being redundant. It is so much a bigger deal than what you think. Epic does not begin to hint at the implications.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As some whose entire (fingerprints, history, and the information of my family and friends... they got it all) information is out in the wild from the OPM hack, and someone that had to deal with illegal government requests from Qwest (don't ever refuse if you know what's good for you), I'd like to point out how piss-poor OPM security measures were (it took years of threatening lawsuits just to get "on file" listed in place of SS on SBU forms that travel within and outside my agency) and how this will actuall
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I read the bill. Disclosure of security threats is completely VOLUNTARY for individuals, private companies, local/state governments, utilities, etc. ("non-Federal entities"). There is no mandate. There are no demands for back doors. There is no provision for unfettered sharing of network traffic, only a mechanism for voluntary sharing of information about detected threats. Even then, they must be careful to strip away any unrelated personal information.
I'm a BIG believer in personal privacy and 4th Amendmen
Re:War on Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
There are countless avenues within U.S. gov't that he could have followed
Really? Name one whistleblower who followed one of those "countless avenues" to any effect, while not having G-men systematically wreck their lives.
Thomas Drake and friends tried, and suffered for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, quite the opposite is true. I was suggesting people calm down, that they think before responding, that they be careful about what they asked for, and that this was a rare thing with no need to go crazy in response. I was called a troll, an idiot, a traitor, and worse. So, no... I did not want this. I did not want it then. I do not want it now. I still stand by my statements made back then. "This is a statistical anomaly and it sucks but let's not lose our shit and end up doing stupid things just t
Nuremberg (Score:1)
I am disgusted by how many people happily accepted this situation where the government actively works against the public interest, all in the name of security, for your own good.
All the people responsible for this treachery, and the people working for them, deserve a fair trial.
Re:Nuremberg (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you read the act?
Have you?
Try that first before equating the United States with Nazi Germany
I find it interesting when people invoke Godwin in a dismissive tone as if people are crazy for drawing comparisons. Nazi Germany was allowed to occur because of a whole series of events and defects in human character which really do have parallels everywhere.
VPN (Score:2)
Get a VPN already, Slashdot offers a lifetime PureVPN membership for 69$, but the offer is only valid for the next 14 hours.
https://deals.slashdot.org/sal... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:VPN (Score:4, Informative)
I contacted them in the past. They log.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're in the USA and log, they're effectively agents for the state, now.
Re: (Score:2)
Use Private Internet Access and a server in a jurisdiction that doesn't log.
Re: (Score:3)
How about no? I say we rent a bus, park it out front of the capitol, and begin throwing people under it until such time as they rescind this "law."
Quietly ceding territory has never been a good long term strategy, and freedoms lost due to appeasements are rarely restored with ease.
Re: (Score:2)
In the very next sentence after you got that 5 years from, it says you can renew it for free.
Subscription term is for 5 years. At the conclusion of the 5-year term, customers may renew their subscriptions completely free-of-charge by contacting support@stackcommerce.com.
Re: (Score:2)
I would jump all over this if they listed anything about not keeping records.
The VPN I currently use makes a specific note about not keeping any records as a selling point, and they haven't given me any reason to believe otherwise so far.
Re:VPN (Score:4, Informative)
PIA [privateint...access.com] doesn't log IIRC, and they have good deals.
Here is an email guide [thesimplecomputer.info] to start with (there are no ideally private email providers, but many are better than gmail). Riseup and ProtonMail look interesting.
A note about using PGP email: This still leaves a trail that is rich in metadata (the who/when/where parts of the messages). Only the what is concealed, leaving much to be desired.
More interesting are new messaging apps which the EFF has rated. [eff.org] I think Signal, Ostel+Jitsi and RetroShare look the most promising. Ring [ring.cx] is a newcomer that uses OpenDHT and promises to be what Skype might have been.
For just increasing privacy a couple notches while browsing, add the following extensions (Firefox): Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere, Adblock Edge (not sure if AE is really needed with PB). Using a Firefox derivative like IceWeasel or PaleMoon won't likely include ad-based features that might compromise privacy (though Mozilla is said to have removed ads anyway).
As for browsing with Tor, you cannot beat Qubes OS with the Whonix package. This will help you blend in more and prevent exploits over Tor from accessing any personal data. A system with IOMMU hardware and BIOS is recommended.
After all these years, I2P is still progressing and growing. It marries technologies like onion routing and DHT and its 'I2P Bote' messenger may be the best in class, IMO. Of course, I2P is meant to route all kinds of traffic and even has bittorrent built-in. I'd also recommend running I2P in a Qubes domain, although it comes with TAILS if you're more comfortable booting with that.
Re: (Score:2)
"No logs" becomes moot if the original network or provider ip leaks or is recoverable every session.
With CISA entire private sector networks can become an part of "collect it all" portal for the US gov/mil at a telco or brand level.
No more privacy protections, US court limitations, que
Re: (Score:3)
So far it appears that personal information will not be strippedout andthereis immunity for any collateral damage the passing of the PI may be responsible for and further useage of the PI for any reason (criminal investigation) by the receiving party is fair game even if unrelated to the original intent or if the PI was included by mistake or whatever. Gleaned my info from techdirt, so you may want to double check it.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of network break-ins are as result of companies or governments being asleep behind the wheel. There needs to be monitoring to find when break-ins happen.
Companies and governments asleep behind the wheel will now wake up and monitor their systems to find when break-ins happen ...because CISA exists?
I am waiting for a coherent example of who this helps or who in the past this would have helped. Which company has ever gotten in trouble for sharing in good faith information about threats they face with a government agency?
When break-ins happen companies need to be able to share signatures to look for break-ins on other networks.
What prevents people from sharing signatures today? Where are all of those lawsuits from use of existing managed security products?
My guess is there will be procedures that state that personal information not relevant to the break-in will need to be removed or destroyed from the information that is shared.
I vividl
Re: (Score:2)
"Senate Rejects All CISA Amendments Designed To Protect Privacy, Reiterating That It's A Surveillance Bill" (2015/10/27)
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
"removal of personal information"
"removed FOIA exemptions"
""tightened" the definition of cybersecurity threats"
"more difficult for Congress to learn whether or not CISA is being used for domestic
Why do you allow this travesty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Completely unrelated laws "riding" on other bills... There should be a law against that.
Re: Why do you allow this travesty? (Score:1)
Either the senate's rules should be changed to disallow riders, or we should reconsider the line item veto (43 states have it, according to Wikipedia). I think the former makes a ton more sense.
Re: (Score:1)
This.
Someone should ride that law onto one of these bills.
The irony would be incredible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We'll have to tack it onto the next budget.
I wish I were kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Many countries HAVE a law against that.
Re: (Score:1)
The US tried it, several ways. The problem is that the Congress is given authority to write bills however it wants (with a very few restrictions) by the Constitution. So no law or rule of Congress can prevent Congress from doing whatever it pleases with bills.
The Line-Item Veto was a different attempt to rein in the Congress, but that too was unconstitutional, because it expanded veto powers beyond the clearly spelled out limits.
If you want rules like one-topic-per-bill, or line item veto, then it has to
Re: (Score:2)
If you want rules like one-topic-per-bill, or line item veto, then it has to be a Constitutional Amendment. And not enough states, much less Congressmen, are willing to lose that much power.
The line-item veto gives an insane amount of power to the president's party. Think about how it can be gamed. Imagine this had gone a better way, and CISA was tacked on, then the GOP (this is imaginary) had further amended it to make CISA less crazy and that bill passed. Obama could then line-item veto the specific fixes to CISA leaving the original as the bill, because of the way bills evolve as a series of amendments amending amendments.
One topic per bill is what we need especially for budget bills. B
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck is wrong with having the bill, and amendments to the bill.
Vote on the amendments first - e.g. 'motion to strike CISA from this bill'
Then vote on the amended bill.
That's how it works in the UK, and it does work. Sure, bad laws get passed, but even worse laws get amended.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, these things should be broken down into essential parts and voted upon individually. Like *nix do one thing and do it well.
Re: (Score:3)
They allow it so that they can feign incompetence and that they were "forced" or "tricked" into passing the unpopular law that they've been itching to pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you combine this bill with the current preference for anyone on the No-Fly list being denied their 2nd Amendment Rights, that may be sooner than you think. Fairly soon, everyone will be on the list, and surveillance will be everywhere...so we'll end up like Britain.
Personal information is removed - read page 1740 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas I jump to a somewhat similar, but different conclusion: the population is finally apathetic enough about its own existence that we can begin double-blind human testing.
yes, the bill is unneeded but not THAT bad. Unless (Score:2)
Indeed, I wouldn't have voted for CISA, threat information is -already- shared without the immunity of CISA, so it's not needed. But it's also not that bad, if implemented as written. There are a few major companies that provide security services to other companies. Each has thousands of clients, and they already pool the relevant data to see trends.
Although the new law probably is not required, it also doesn't actually much more than what already happens, and should be happening. It's not that bad, assu
Read Uk Spooks admissions (Score:2, Informative)
That's like the 'meta data is anonymous' claim, its false. There is no way to strip user info from that data, as AOL found when they released their user searches. But in this case its simply cover. Each record is individual and has an id in it to make it a trivial cross join to pull up the details.
Read the admission from the UK spooks, on their bulk anonymous surveillance, this is much closer to the truth of the situation:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/16/big_brother_born_ntac_gchq_mi5_mass_surveillan
Re: (Score:3)
The act clearly states on page 1740 that personal information needs to be removed from data that is shared. The act also states that any violation of this will require notification of the person if this is not followed.
Only information which is (A) personally identifiable, AND (B) not relevant to the investigation. Guess who decides relevance?
Meanwhile, we also know for a fact that it's rather easy to mine personal identifications out of aggregate "depersonalized" data, since there's a story on Slashdot every couple of weeks where someone has done it in order to get their Masters degree.
Re: (Score:1)
The night before my divorce was finalized, I had a bachelor party. It was huge and I was very drunk. They tell me that I had a good time.
Not that this matters. I just figured I'd add it to the list of absurdities that are being posted in this thread. I don't get why people are spinning this as a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I mean, we are demonstrably well past that point. This is more of a question of whether or not you get a reach-around with that mandatory cavity search you're receiving...or, well, whether they use regular lube, or the kind with mint in it (tingles).
Re: (Score:1)
If you scroll up the thread there are a few posts saying that this law is a good law, that it is a long time coming, and things of that nature. In other words, people spinning it as a good thing. It was not in reference to you, hopefully you didn't think it was. If it were in reference to you, I'd have just responded to you. ;-)
But no, there's a few posts where people seem to think this is a good thing. That it is a law that we should have. I have taken a gander at the text and some other information (linke
Re: (Score:2)
The act clearly states on page 1740 that personal information needs to be removed from data that is shared.
You misunderstand the context. This is for sharing of data already in possession of the government with non government consumers. The point many people find objectionable /w CISA is summary transport of their data to the government with no legal recourse... This does not address that. It only addresses retransmission outside of the government domain.
act also states that any violation of this will require notification of the person if this is not followed.
You mean this:
"any United States person whose personal information is known or determined to have been shared by a Federal entity"
This is a continuation of t
Re: (Score:2)
A protection might stay in place not to leak, talk about, keep in plain text, the data to a 3rd party and store in a correct way until the US gov needs the data.
ie the data is kept safe for the US gov and not talked about or findable in any way
Yay for big government (Score:2)
These all-in-one compromise bills are what it's best at. The people get the short straw every time. They pay for their own enslavement.
Don't buy USA, Don't use USA (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically any private data can be *sold* to NSA etc. for political, commercial and 'terrorist' surveillance as long as the company self declares it 'for cyber attack analysis'.
Ask yourselve a simple question, why would a vague minor 'cyber threat' data exchange get pushed through in a budget measure if it was so innocuous? Obviously it was what we thought it was, a cover to legalize all the bulk mass warrantless surveillance shit that is still going on.
And I say 'Sold', because several companies lobied for it, which suggest to me they've been promised money in exchange for the data. A hidden subsidy into US corps to buy their complicity in the surveillance.
And the solution? Well don't buy USA made kit. It kinda sucks and don't use USA services where possible. Americans don't have a lot of choice, but the rest of the world has.
In other news, we find out that UK has its own version of 'Parallel Construction', MI5 GCHQ not only spied on brits they briefed police in secret to arrest people and fake evidence trails. Now we know why they said "we briefed the police if people were innocent to let them go"... to explain all the meetings between spooks and police!
Re: (Score:2)
Having all data hosted in another nation that shares data with another gov in direct competition by default is not best practice.
Domestic brands and local staff will then get the wealth of their own nations spending regardless of staff skill, cpu costs, processing power, cooling costs.
Any "cloud" product is now a huge security risk for any other nation's data sets.
Thank you for including the link to the Bill (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one of any intelligence already does not "trust" the cloud.
I mean, who trusts their data to a machine that they do not have physical access to, but someone of unknown constitution does? That's like hacker 101.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the USA! (Score:3)
Land of the free-ish.
Home of the "fuck you peon scum!"
relevant mentions of PI in bill ( Post 1 of ?) (Score:2)
Cut and paste line numbers (unfortunately) included.
1740 section E: . .. include procedures that require a Fed-5
eral entity, prior to the sharing of a cyber 6
threat indicatorâ" 7
(i) to review such cyber threat indi-8
cator to assess whether such cyber threat 9
indicator contains any information not di-10
rectly related to a cybersecurity threat that 11
such Federal entity knows at the time of 12
sharing to be personal information of a 13
specific individual or information that 14
identifies a specific individ
Re:relevant mentions of PI in bill ( Post 2 of ?) (Score:2)
Section 1741 F:
(F) include procedures for notifying, in a timely manner, any United States person whose
personal information is known or determined to have been shared by a Federal entity in viola-
tion of this title.
Re:relevant mentions of PI in bill ( Post 3 of ?) (Score:2)
1746 (2)
REMOVAL OF CERTAIN PERSONAL INFORMA-9
TION.â"A non-Federal entity sharing a cyber threat 10
indicator pursuant to this title shall, prior to such 11
sharingâ" 12
(A) review such cyber threat indicator to 13
assess whether such cyber threat indicator con-14
tains any information not directly related to a 15
cybersecurity threat that the non-Federal entity 16
knows at the time of sharing to be personal in-17
formation of a specific individual or information 18
that identifies a specific individual and
Re: (Score:2)
Section 1754:
(A) shall include guidance on the fol-1
lowing: 2
(i) Identification of types of informa-3
tion that would qualify as a cyber threat 4
indicator under this title that would be un-5
likely to include information thatâ" 6
(I) is not directly related to a 7
cybersecurity threat; and 8
(II) is personal information of a 9
specific individual or information that 10
identifies a specific individual. 11
(ii) Identification of types of informa-12
tion protected under otherwise applicable 13
privacy laws that ar
Re:relevant mentions of PI in bill ( Post 4 of ?) (Score:2)
1756 (3) (longish one)
consistent with the 12
need to protect information systems from 13
cybersecurity threats and mitigate cybersecurity 14
threatsâ" 15
(A) limit the effect on privacy and civil lib-16
erties of activities by the Federal Government 17
under this title; 18
(B) limit the receipt, retention, use, and 19
dissemination of cyber threat indicators con-20
taining personal information of specific individ-21
uals or information that identifies specific indi-22
viduals, including by establishingâ" 23
(
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah they hae that already. And all that info you cite would have to have been captured as a result of some cybersecurity threat. So how would that go down? You included all that info as data in a DDOS campaign against someone?
I am not arguing, I am asking.
Getting blocked by /. now (Score:2)
1768 c (ii)
in a manner that protects from 1
unauthorized use or disclosure any cyber 2
threat indicators that may containâ" 3
(I) personal information of a spe-4
cific individual; or 5
(II) information that identifies a 6
specific individual; and 7
(iii) in a manner that protects the 8
confidentiality of cyber threat indicators 9
containingâ" 10
(I) personal information of a spe-11
cific individual; or 12
(II) information that identifies a 13
specific individual.
I need the problem explained to me (Score:2)
OK so there are a few more mentions of PI in the bill reagarding he govt's duty to report to the public the number of times cyberthreat info was shared and how many times PI was shared but it doens't seem to be the privacy disaster it's being made out to be by some. Maybe I need the bill explained to me by someone who understands its implications better.
Still dont' get it (Score:1)
Sorry still dont' get what is so bad. It doesn't compel sharing. THe objection I read here:
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/c... [wired.com]
is that only info "known at the time it was shared to be innocent PI" must be stripped . This is supposedly some sort of gigantic loophole. Well it's a true fact (damn those!) that in a DDOS the vicitm has small chance of sorting out the innocent from the guilty, so they therefore can't share that information? Makes no sense.
The working assumption is the NSA will use this is some cynic
I guess watching Star Wars was more important (Score:2)
To the president that is. That or he liked the whole package, considered it "a job well done."
Re: (Score:2)
Another stellar year for the Party of Purple (Blue + Red).
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is a life-changing disappointment to me.
Introduce a bill repealing CISA (Score:1)