Facebook Says It Has 'No Intention' To Abuse CISPA 103
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is supporting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), despite opposing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). SOPA and PIPA were about intellectual property, and allowed courts to remove DNS listings for any website hosting pirated content. CISPA is meanwhile about security, and makes it possible for companies to share user information with the U.S. government (and vice versa) if the parties believe it is needed for the greater cyber security good. That being said, CISPA has loopholes that allow it to be abused, especially when it comes to Intellectual Property and privacy. Facebook says it will not do that, and will instead work on closing these loopholes."
Because, Lord knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
...you can trust Facebook when it comes to privacy!
Re:Because, Lord knows... (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed,
intentions ain't worth nothing in law. Intentions can turn at any time. Rather just let not happen such a law in the first place.
So, shouldn't they OPPOSE CISPA? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't give your support to something that is broken, you oppose it and negotiate the bad parts out. How exactly by supporting this thing do they think they're going to get it changed? This is Bullshit. If I was Mr Zuckerberg I'd be careful what I wish for...
Re:Because, Lord knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
How is it "invading" someone's privacy when they willingly give away their personal information to you?
Facebook has changed the way they share your personal information several times since I joined up, sometimes doing something as blatant as default sharing information that was previously hidden.
My bank also has a lot of my personal information, but I don't expect them to one day just throw some of it up on their website.
I understand the relationship between a person and a bank vs a person and a social media website is completely different, but I wanted to use a really extreme example to make my point.
Needs to be modded up (Score:4, Insightful)
If I could mod TFS or TFA, they would definitely get a "+1 Funny"...
NDAA (Score:3, Insightful)
NDAA - Obama signed a statement saying he won't use the indefinite detention part of it. [huffingtonpost.com]
What's up with all these laws, that are getting passed and the people who are directly or indirectly responsible for passing them are all promising not to use the new powers they acquire?
Why don't they just own up to the truth - there is no reason to pass these privacy and freedom destroying laws if you have no reason to use them, you pass them because you are intending to use them (or you are intending for them to be used, even if it is not you directly who is going to use them).
When is it going to stop exactly and why would it stop?
Corporations have no "word" (Score:4, Insightful)
The only time a corporation can be trusted is when you have a contract (and, sometimes, not even then). Otherwise, no.
A man or woman can give you their word, and may (or may not) be believed. A corporation cannot, as whatever is said can be changed totally, not least when the people at the top change.
Re:Because, Lord knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed,
intentions ain't worth nothing in law. Intentions can turn at any time. Rather just let not happen such a law in the first place.
You are being generous. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions ... but you get there faster if there are no good intentions.
or, OR... (Score:4, Insightful)
How about not passing laws with known loopholes in them in the first place??!
Reason? Because a lot of the support for the laws while they were under debate demanded those loopholes. But they weren't going to abuse them. Really. Honest! They'll be removed as soon as the law is passed. We promise!
Re:Because, Lord knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
ACTA negotiations were conducted in secrecy and public knowledge of its negotiations was restricted under the guise of national security. So the precedence has been set that national security encompasses anything and everything any petty bureaucrat says it does.
If the US government, the administration, or even Facebook had a history of restraint, self-control or even good judgement when it comes to these matters, it would be one thing. But their failure to do so, especially that of the US government, is still a raw wound. Not only should they not be trusted in a theoretical sense as a best practice, they cannot be trusted in in a real, immediate and visceral sense,
For the record... (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook is offended that you would even suggest that they would have any intention of abusing CISPA. They are really, really hurt that you would think such a thing about them.
Further, they have released a statement saying that they are trying really really hard, and do you have any idea how it makes them feel when you don't trust them? Perhaps you have some trust issues which are preventing you and them from becoming closer, and until you deal with those this relationship cannot get to the next level, which is making social networking more user-friendly! It's always all about you, isn't it? Your privacy. Your rights. You, you, you. How do you think Facebook feels? Do you ever care about them for one minute?