Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Facebook Google The Internet United States Apple

Google, Apple Lead Massive List of Companies Supporting CISPA 153

Posted by Soulskill from the wonder-if-they-know-that dept.
redletterdave writes "TechNet, the trade association representing and led by dozens of prominent technology companies including Google, Apple and Facebook, has formally come out in support of CISPA, sending a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives. The letter said: 'We commend the committee for providing liability protections to companies participating in voluntary information-sharing and applaud the committee's efforts to work with a wide range of stakeholders to address issues such as strengthening privacy protections. As the legislative process unfolds, we look forward to continuing the dialogue with you and your colleagues on further privacy protections, including discussions on the role of a civilian interface for information sharing.'" The White House won't support the bill in its current form, but they plan to work with legislators on a compromise. The current text of the bill is available online.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google, Apple Lead Massive List of Companies Supporting CISPA More

Google, Apple Lead Massive List of Companies Supporting CISPA

Comments Filter:

  • Google hates privacy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drinkydoh ( 2658743 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:25PM (#43434391)
    I'm not surprised to see Google as the main supporter of CISPA. They have a long track record of privacy violations and lessening privacy of internet users. They are, like we all know, worlds largest advertising house.

    Google has also been heavily pushing it's real-name policy. They are trying to convert YouTube users to using their real names instead of nicknames. They want to (but don't succeed) have people use their social network Google+, and they want to link everyones searches directly to the real names. Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.

    The Internet as we know it is coming to an end. Everyone sees this but doesn't act. They just let Google steal all of their privacy. Google and CISPA must be stopped and it's your only time to act!

    • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Informative)

      by White Flame ( 1074973 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:38PM (#43434489)

      Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.

      The least you could do (besides an adblocker, assuming you haven't already got one and are whitelisting slashdot) is disable all cookies, enabling exceptions for sites you want. It's scary seeing how many cookies from how many different sites a single page tries to set nowadays. By disabling all by default, I end up enabling only the one(s) required for login, and it leaves all the other tracking cookies blocked. Sure, there are non-cookie ways to track, especially by IP and browser version/feature fingerprint, but Google no longer remembers my searches with just blocked cookies.

      • It's the infromation sharing (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "We commend the committee for providing liability protections to companies participating in voluntary information-sharing and applaud the committee's efforts to work with a wide range of stakeholders to address issues such as strengthening privacy protections," Ramsey said

        It's the information sharing - and possibly getting it wrong - that has folks really worried.

        It's not so much that Google knows where you have been browsing (extremely creepy and worrying as that is), it's also that they can share the information with Facebook and vice versa. And they can that with 2 companies and they their information with 2 other companies and so on and so on and so on and with government.

        And as we have seen with the stupidity and incompetence of government and the private sector, indiv

      • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bigby ( 659157 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:59PM (#43434653)

        The GP is an ad itself. No need to reply to it. Notice the new ID and the posting at the same time article was posted.

        • It also has a username similar to an existing one, drinkypoo (153816). Suspicious.

          • It also has a username similar to an existing one, drinkypoo (153816). Suspicious.

            Next up: Sponge Doh (2661337)

        • Yep, and frankly, it doesn't matter which way you turn, these guys have you surrounded. Look at this list of conspirators...

          Technet Executive Council Members

          MEMBERS

          Bruce Aust Executive Vice President, NASDAQ OMX Group

          James Bidzos Chairman & CEO, VeriSign

          Safra A. Catz President, Oracle Corporation

          John Chambers Chairman & CEO, Cisco

          Ian Clark CEO, Genentech

          Weili Dai Co-Founder, Marvell

          John Doerr Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers

          Joseph A. Grundfest Professor of Law and Business, Stanford University

          Henry Gomez Executive Vice President & Chief Communications Officer, HP

          Tim Healy CEO, EnerNOC

          Ajit Manocha CEO, GlobalFoundries

          Marissa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo!

          John McAdam President & CEO, F5 Networks

          Kim Polese Chairman, ClearStreet, Inc

          Eric Schmidt Chairman, Google

          Brad Smith General Counsel and SVP, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft

          KR Sridhar Co-Founder & CEO, Bloom Energy

          Joseph M. Tucci Chairman, President & CEO, EMC Corporation

          http://www.technet.org/leaders/executive-council/ [technet.org]

      • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Informative)

        by Synerg1y ( 2169962 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:14PM (#43434751)

        Took me under 5 seconds to put "firefox prevent google tracking" into my google toolbar and that brings up:

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/remove-google-tracking/ [mozilla.org]

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/gdc/ [mozilla.org]

        and a hella comprehensive guide for thick tin-foil hats:

        http://www.leavegooglebehind.com/how-tos/how-to-build-a-firefox-privacy-arsenal/ [leavegooglebehind.com]

      • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:4, Informative)

        by Ash Vince ( 602485 ) * on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:46PM (#43435015) Journal

        Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.

        The least you could do (besides an adblocker, assuming you haven't already got one and are whitelisting slashdot) is disable all cookies, enabling exceptions for sites you want.

        Of course the other alternative is to contribute a small amount to the costs of running a website like slashdot by becoming a subscriber. Then you can see no ads what so ever if you so chose.

        Seriously, running and hosting a website is expensive. If you completely removed all adverts from the web then many websites would simply have to close as it is impossible to reliably host something popular without incurring costs.

        I have nothing to do with slashdot, but I do work as technical lead for a site that probably has nowhere near as much traffic and I know we have to pay a fair whack for our hosting even before you pay my colleagues and myself to actually develop the site. There are free or very cheap hosting companies but they either don't guarantee enough uptime or don't let you go above bandwidth caps.

        • Seriously, running and hosting a website is expensive. If you completely removed all adverts from the web then many websites would simply have to close as it is impossible to reliably host something popular without incurring costs.

          Ads aren't the only way to financially support a website. Also, $DEITY forbid that a website would cost something to keep online. The horror!

        • Seriously, running and hosting a website is expensive. If you completely removed all adverts from the web then many websites would simply have to close as it is impossible to reliably host something popular without incurring costs.

          Really? Bullshit. For about $100 per year you can easily have a hosting account for a small website. Add to that the cost of a domain name, and you're set. Just publish any content you like and see what happens.

          Now, if you're saying that you can't afford to sink $150 pe

          • Seriously, running and hosting a website is expensive. If you completely
            removed all adverts from the web then many websites would simply have to
            close as it is impossible to reliably host something popular without
            incurring costs.

            Really? Bullshit. For about $100 per year you can easily have a hosting account for a small website. Add to that the cost of a domain name, and you're set.
            Just publish any content you like and see what happens.

            Now, if you're saying that you can't afford to sink $150 per year on a website, and you would only be able to do it by getting paid for adviews, I'm going to have to seriously wonder about your ability to deliver even a small amount of content.

            It's true that some of the mega websites have huge bills in the millions for all sorts of things, but on that end of the spectrum, the actual money's coming from investors and real products, not adviews.

            If you have an idea for a website, start small and see if you can get 10 (decimal) people to pay money as a result. Then maybe try for 20. Most ideas fail that test, and the sooner your idea fails, the sooner you can try another. If it passes these hurdles, you'll be self-funding and I wish you the best of luck.

            So you reckon you could host slashdot for $150 per year? Good luck.

    • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Synerg1y ( 2169962 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:10PM (#43434715)

      have you thought for one second... to stop using google?

      It's not like there's not other mail providers, search providers, and little applets floating around the web that have nothing to do with google. If google's behavior is becoming unacceptable STOP USING IT.

      How you people continue to knock a service that is completely free for you to use is beyond me.

      Ignorance check: did you know there were major search engines that aren't US based and thus are not subject to CISPA?

      • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:29PM (#43434859)
        What about the people that actually like the loss of privacy? I search for something on my work computer, and that search is in my history on my home computer and even my phone. Seamless computing experience. The actual usability is why people like it. It just works, and gives value.
        • You can use a service that does the same thing without the invasion of privacy.

        • I don't care either to be honest. The seamlessness is nice, but as a choice between evils, microsoft offers similar usability. And I think if google truly went to the dogs, OSI competition would rise up in the constant rise and fall of internet empires to challenge and one day succeed google. I don't think google's patented immortality last I checked. They just happen to have a lot of wiggle room to fuck up with years and years of green.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AK Marc ( 707885 )
            There aren't any services which have the same abilities, which don't also have the same theoretical drawbacks, until we build our own on a home server.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You know Google can and does track you on every website that shows Google AdSense or uses Google analytics, right?

        • There's a ton of ways to prevent that, but for the common user it could be troublesome. What I'd like to see is google implement do-not-track, but if I recall they screamed bloody murder on their revenue streams when asked.

      • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:4, Informative)

        by misanthropic.mofo ( 1891554 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:31PM (#43434871) Homepage

        have you thought for one second... to stop using google?

        Exactly, DuckDuckGo FTW.

      • Uh... you CAN'T stop uing Google anymore (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        There is no opt-out for Google anymore. In fact, I dare you to not send an email directly or indirectly to a gmail user (and avoid calling or texting anyone who uses an Android phone) for ONE MONTH. You simply can't do it if you want to communicate at all these days. This is of course not to mention all the other sites that use their analytic services, ad networks, their other subsidiaries, etc.

        Please post back here if you succeed with this boycott and still have a job at the end of that month.

        It is simply

        • Please post back here if you succeed with this boycott and still have a job at the end of that month.

          You're not even a good troll, get back in your hole asshat. We use in-house/the cloud if you can even comprehend what business systems look like. Some tiny businesses use google, but I can go a lifetime without dealing with those, so I think I'm safe.

          • Please post back here if you succeed with this boycott and still have a job at the end of that month.

            You're not even a good troll, get back in your hole asshat. We use in-house/the cloud if you can even comprehend what business systems look like. Some tiny businesses use google, but I can go a lifetime without dealing with those, so I think I'm safe.

            I take it from your response that you don't deal with clients/customers directly.

            (yes, I meant that both ways)

            He's right... if you need to communicate with the general public, you're going to be feeding info to Google. In order not to, you have to have no contact with:
            1) Anyone using an Android phone that's not using a private server
            2) Any website using Google tracking (this one's NoScriptable to a degree)
            3) Anyone using a Gmail account (including businesses/orgs that have their own domain)
            4) Anyone who Go

      • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:22PM (#43435349) Homepage

        have you thought for one second... to stop using google?

        Sounds good. OK, quick: Link ten major websites that don't have embedded Google tracking code (including javascript embeds from Google, Google Analytics, Google APIs, Google Code, GStatic, etc). You'll be able to find ten, I'm sure, but it won't be the first ten you try.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        It's not like there's not other mail providers, search providers, and little applets floating around the web that have nothing to do with google. If google's behavior is becoming unacceptable STOP USING IT.

        That's the direct use case. How do you avoid using Google without breaking the web? Google Analytics is everywhere, and webmasters often force you to redirect through Analytics.

        Then there's all the +1 buttons. The Google CDN. The Google owned ad networks. Google owned javascript libraries used by many. Yo

      • A browser plug-in that:

        (1) rotates your search queries randomly across different search sites (google, bing, etc, etc) so that no one site has all your search history, and

        (2) periodically sends random search queries to those sites (quietly ignoring the results) so that there's (a) some plausible deniability that any given search was really yours and (b) raises the noise level in the data the search hosts are collecting.

      • How you people continue to knock a service that is completely free for you to use is beyond me.

        Great, the ole "if you don't use it, you can't complain" argument. And modded +5 interesting. Yay Slashdot. Again.

        I don't use Google anymore, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize their policies. Lots of organizations offering "free" services are capable of plenty of evil. You don't have to pay for it.

        If I don't use Google's services, why am I still forced to be their product? (i.e. recipient of advertising and forced tracking.) You *are* aware of how prevalent Google's tracking is, right? It's not

        • Just an FYI to implement those google technologies, devs have to go out of their way to do so by adding google code. So again, it's not google, it's the communities that are choosing to fuel google... and if nobody used google, the worst those technologies would do is accumulate interests by IP and target ads that way, effectively eliminating google's business edge.

    • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:4, Informative)

      by Spy Handler ( 822350 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:17PM (#43434777) Homepage Journal

      Google CEO: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

      • Re:Google hates privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by djdanlib ( 732853 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:01PM (#43435161) Homepage

        Yep. So I guess we have to go back to pre-Internet life according to that guy. I'll stop arranging surprise birthday and Christmas gifts for the people I care about, then. And I'll stop booking tables for my dates online. I'll also wait to consult my doctor for things that look like minor medical concerns, and stick to the offline first-aid book when I can't remember how to treat some minor injury. I'll also just use the old-fashioned phone book to look up each store I want to comparison-shop and call them one by one.

        My point is in agreement with yours... Some things just aren't other peoples' business, but that doesn't make those things nefarious.

      • What if I don't want anyone to know that I'm opposed to the actions of my government? I live in a country where it's unlikely (but not impossible) I'll get in trouble for that opinion, but most people in the world don't have that luxury.

        • What if I don't want anyone to know that I'm opposed to the actions of my government? I live in a country where it's unlikely (but not impossible) I'll get in trouble for that opinion

          Don't worry, the way things are going, that's going to change within a decade.

      • Google CEO: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

        +1, bleak unavoidable future

        Although I suppose we might hit singularity first, in which case who gives a fark.

        • It's only a singularity for an outside observer. Those in it experience it in all the gory and mediocre detail.

    • What are the specific problems in the examples you bring up? Privacy is my right, and google should only have information on me I want it to, I'm not trying to make an argument here, nor am I defending google. I just would like to have an answer if I get into a discussion with someone if they ask "What's the problem with google knowing what I search for on google, or knowing my real name on my youtube account?"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lumpio- ( 986581 )
      How is getting targeted ads going to "end the Internet as we know it"? Stop exaggerating.

      • How is getting targeted ads going to "end the Internet as we know it"? Stop exaggerating.

        Some people can't do healthy legal things publicly without risk of serious real world repercussions, from demotion and firing to risk of death. The internet has been a place where people can feed the parts of themselves that could ruin them (or others) otherwise. Repression and shame are killers.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Lumpio- ( 986581 )
          If it's anonymity you want, there's software for that. Anonymity online hasn't ever been guaranteed unless you take some steps to ensure that.

          • If it's anonymity you want, there's software for that. Anonymity online hasn't ever been guaranteed unless you take some steps to ensure that.

            There's a vast difference between anonymity not being guaranteed and having every detail CCed directly to TPTB. There's also something to be said for NOT fetishizing security, particularly for people wrestling with personal shame.

    • Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.

      Yes indeed, and I'm glad. I'd rather see an ad for something I'm interested in than constant True.com or e-harmony adds.

      The Internet as we know it is coming to an end.

      The internet as I know it starts with the Google home page. And yes, I was there during the 1200 baud dial-up BBS days. Or are you saying you prefer Bing? Are you honestly going to tell me that we are worse off now that we have a universe of information at our fingertips than we were back in the IRC days? Really?

      Everyone sees this but doesn't act. They just let Google steal all of their privacy. Google and CISPA must be stopped and it's your only time to act!

      Steal my privacy? Hardly. When I walk into the Home Depot and ask the cashier

    • No seriously look. Let's assume the article was posted just as the new minute ticked over at 4:25am, and lets assume this shill managed to post just before 4:26am started. There's 147 words in this article. You typed at more than 147 words per minute.

      But wait there's more. Slashdot typically takes about 5 seconds to bring up your confirmation window and allow you to post. That's over 160 words per minute.

      I congratulate you. If you ever get fired from Apple (based on your posting history) then let us know, I

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by symbolic ( 11752 )

      I've vowed to use only one Google service at a time. In other words, I will not be using any other services until I close my YouTube account. There are many alternatives for searching, and much of the other stuff Google offers just isn't that useful to me. I feel bad for the people who have gained some kind of dependency on this crap.

      I have a couple of Android tablets, and while I don't use ANY of the vendor-supplied bloatware, I'm very close to jail breaking both of them so that I can install what I want a

    • The Internet as we know it is coming to an end. Everyone sees this but doesn't act. They just let Google steal all of their privacy.

      Piffle. All you need to do is:
      a) Use a cookie blocker, and/or
      b) Use *separate browsers* for general surfing and apps. Apps means Google, Facebook, etc.

      Suddenly, the internet as we know it is back in full swing.

      The only problem here is lack of general user awareness, but we have people like Mozilla, and add-on developers, helping to educate people and providing the tools to get around these concerns if people are really worried about them.

  • really (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "providing liability protections to companies participating" - So that's why Google was resisting? We are boned.

  • "Oh noes! The people keep voting it down!" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wierd_w ( 1375923 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:36PM (#43434473)

    "I guess we just have to try EVEN HARDER!"

    Seriously, who are these people fooling? ..Then again, people get awfully tired of fighting the same battle over and over again, and often eventually just concede. We need to propose legislation outright forbidding this kind of shit. It's really the only way, else they will just keep shuffling commas and semicolons around in the text, and resubmitting.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PFactor ( 135319 )
      That will only work for maybe 200 years. Example: the 2nd amendment's "shall not be infringed" bit that's been blatantly ignored for the last few decades. The founding fathers made that as clear as they could, yet we're still screwing it up. What makes you think we can make our intentions any clearer for any longer?
      • The third amendment is holding pretty strong.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hondo77 ( 324058 )

        The founding fathers made that as clear as they could...

        If you think the founding fathers acted as one on anything, much less made the 2nd Amendment clear, then your opinion of their actions really can't be trusted.

        • The founding fathers made that as clear as they could...

          If you think the founding fathers acted as one on anything, much less made the 2nd Amendment clear, then your opinion of their actions really can't be trusted.

          Yea, sure, and if OP had actually said that, I would agree.

          However, "Making things as clear as they could" != assuming they agreed on everything.

    • Re:"Oh noes! The people keep voting it down!" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:47PM (#43434561)

      This is how laws are done today. You think a law gets voted down and that's it? Think again. Whenever you see some company not getting its way, be it due to public outcry or be it because even politicians could see that it's not a good idea, rest assured that they won't drop it. It will come back again. In some other form, maybe with less public exposure and much more hushed up, but it WILL COME BACK.

      Companies don't back down when it comes to getting their laws approved. They will keep pushing more money into Capitol Hill hos 'til they have enough to actually get it passed.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Companies don't back down when it comes to getting their laws approved. They will keep pushing more money into Capitol Hill hos 'til they have enough to actually get it passed.

        This is almost exactly what Costco did in Washington state to get the liquor system privatized (the people were voting on it via an initiative system). They didn't get the proposal approved one year, so they came back the next year with a massive advertising budget ($22 million) and finally got it approved. It was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen. I voted against it on the principle of "I hate corporate money in my government and laws".

    • Seriously, who are these people fooling?

      Easy enough to answer. Watch:

      Isn't this CISPA crap evidence enough that the type of government we have today has either been designed to abuse the People or is of a flawed designed, such that such abuse cannot be prevented?

      Now check the replies to this comment, defending 'democracy', hollering on about Somalia, blood in the streets, cats and dogs living together, and you'll have your answer.

      • No government is incorruptible. Governments are Turing-complete because they contain humans, therefore any behaviour is possible.

  • The anal-probe industry likes it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:37PM (#43434483) Homepage

    All the companies named are from the anal-probe sector of the tech industry.

  • Frustrating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moeinvt ( 851793 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @01:47PM (#43434559)

    I think the only reason we were able to beat SOPA/PIPA was that there were some big corporations on our side during that fight. Obviously they've now re-written the bill so that all of the big corporations will profit and only the little people will suffer.

    I find this really frustrating. We're forced to fund the federal government under threat of violence and they turn around and use the fruits of our labor to make our lives miserable. They can afford to be relentless in their efforts because it costs them nothing. We defeat SOPA/PIPA (using our free time and after tax income), they just turn around and re-introduce even more sinister legislation in its place.

    If you have the slightest wish to give government more wealth and more power e.g. to ban guns, to regulate free speech, to provide healthcare or to fix "climate change" you're out of your bloody mind! Washington DC is literally INCAPABLE of passing ANY legislation which benefits the average working American. Their stated intentions are meaningless. The substance of any new law will be to your detriment no matter what. Just say "No" to everything they propose.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by davecb ( 6526 )

      The proponents want you to think that: in fact, the non-"anal probe"* companies will object to this variant. Time for another "paint it black" day!

      --dave
      * Thanks to wierd_w for the term!

    • As you've noted, saying "no" over and over again isn't enough. There needs to be more structural limitations in place, to confine our government to a small set of permitted functions. We weren't quite explicit enough in 1776.

    • Most people didn't even know why they were opposing SOPA. They heard something about it on Google, or maybe on Wikipedia, and thought it was bad. Based on this some were literally even writing letters to their senators. I can imagine what kinds of insane letters senators get.

      Even people who should have known better lacked the knowledge. As an experiment, I asked people, "what provision of SOPA don't you like?" Not very many could answer.

      Benjamin Franklin said something like, "It's a democracy, if you ca

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by anagama ( 611277 )

      Totally agree. I would love to see a constitutional amendment that would allow states to unilaterally secede. That issue was decided during the civl war such that secession requires the consent of both the Feds and the seceding state. But that could be rendered moot with a constitutional amendment that would allow unilateral secession.

      And if you think about everything good the government does, almost all of that comes from local government -- roads, firetrucks, water and sewer -- that's all local or stat

    • Wealth == power.

      You see this from the microcosm of the small business (the boss is the boss because he signs the paychecks) to countries (the U.S. holds power over most other countries because it is the wealthiest of all countries). Unfortunately, the only way to decouple these two things is to completely rewrite our social values. And quite frankly, that's not going to happen without a major evolution in human physiology.

      The only thing we as poor, common people can do is maybe pool our money together and m

    • You were going pretty good until your logic went out the window.

      If you have the slightest wish to give government more wealth and more power e.g. to ban guns, to regulate free speech, to provide healthcare or to fix "climate change" you're out of your bloody mind! Washington DC is literally INCAPABLE of passing ANY legislation which benefits the average working American. Their stated intentions are meaningless.

      So we should stop the government from doing anything "good," like limiting guns and providing health care, because they do some things that are "bad?" Those are the things that I WANT the government to be doing with my money.

      • So we should stop the government from doing anything "good," like limiting guns and providing health care, because they do some things that are "bad?"

        "Good" and "Bad," especially in the context of government action, is purely subjective, evidenced by the sentence I qouted.

        FWIW, not everyone thinks limiting guns and providing health care is a good thing for the government to do.

  • [In part from a reply to http://www.slaw.ca/2013/04/04/access-to-server-data-for-foreign-criminal-investigative-purposes/ [www.slaw.ca] at Slaw]

    The U.S. requests under our Mutual Law Assistance Treaties for private information re Megaupload parallels the CISPA proposals, and both strike me as wrong-headed (;-)) It is arguably valid for such a process to be followed in cases of copyright infringement, and can be critiqued on the basis of whether it is necessary and sufficient.

    However, it suggest that at least the U.S.

  • Where's Vint? (Score:3)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:21PM (#43434805) Homepage Journal

    I got some good calls-to-action from Vint Cerf (Google's Internet Evangelist) on SOPA and PIPA, and a free and open Internet in general, but haven't heard anything from him on CISPA since last year [gamepolitics.com]. I wonder if he's still on payroll.

  • Have any of you even read the text of the bill? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:21PM (#43434807)

    It really seems to me that most of the commenters have no idea what the bill even states. It's like reading the posts of a bunch of fundamental right wing conservatives. A whole bunch of statements which have little to no basis in reality.

    Seriously, what power do you think this bill gives the government? If it's the "They can read all my email whenever they want now and are going to see all my HORRIABLE SPAM PORN / Anti-Governemt rantings" power you would be oh so very very wrong.

    Sec 1104 (b) (3) (A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;

    Can you people read? Read that. Know what that says? It says that all information shared with the government must be cleaned to not include information on U.S. Persons. Basically if they DO for some reason send your email they have to remove everything that could possibly identify you.

    To:immahurpdedur@gmail.com
    From:icanhazabrainplox@hotmail.com
    Dear Frank,

    Don't you just hate Obama?

    -
    John

    Becomes

    To:------------------
    From:--------------

    Dear -------,

    Don't you just hate Obama?

    -
    ------------------

    OH NOOOO They are gonna catch me now for sure! But in reality they likely can't even send that.

    • Sec 1104 (b) (3) (A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;

      Know what that says?

      It says whatever government lawyers say it means, assuming you ever get standing to sue the government.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by anagama ( 611277 )

        It says whatever government lawyers say it means

        Exactly. A perfect example is the recently released white paper on drones in which "imminent" is redefined. The White House defines imminent to mean:

        First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.

        Merriam Webster in contrast, defines imminent as:

        ready

    • Apparently I've read it better than you have (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Hizonner ( 38491 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:00PM (#43435153)

      It says they CAN clean it if they WANT to... to whatever degree the sharing entity considers to be "appropriate". So if some "protected entity" or "self-protected entity" hands something over, it can restrict downstream sharing. It can require whatever anonymization it wants, including no anonymization if it decides that no anonymization at all is "appropriate".

      Who's a "protected entity"? Hint: not you. "an entity, other than an individual, that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for goods or services to be used for cybersecurity purposes.".

      Excuse me if I don't believe that every "protected entity" or "self-protected entity" has my best interests at heart.

  • 4th Amendment disappears (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 12, 2013 @02:23PM (#43434827)

    If CISPA passes there will be no such thing as a 4th Amendment right protecting you against unreasonable search and seizure. You see, while the government has to obey the constitution, corporations are bound by no such guarantees--and CISPA makes the data-sharing (data which is already required by the government to be stored for several years for "law enforcement purposes") already commonplace explicitly legal.

  • What are the alternatives (Score:3)

    by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:11PM (#43435247)

    and how do you get people to change from Google to something else? I can do it as I know whats at stake as a tech/nerd/whatever but how do I convince others to not use those services. Even now I'm still debating on what I should do as a business owner when it comes to dropping my site from Google local and search. I've take the stand not to involve social sites with my retail store website and at least there are alternatives to Youtube when I start producing product video but there are now easy alternatives to search.

  • CISPA in it's original form was astoundingly horrific. This is merely horrible. The part that I despise is the retention of the information to use in other criminal cases such as child pornography or in cases of national security.

    This and the liability provisions are over the top,

  • And not a single definition of CISPA (Score:3)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @03:50PM (#43435685)

    Way to go Slashdot "editors". What the hell is a CISPA?

  • Solution to the whole mess (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hawkingradiation ( 1526209 ) on Friday April 12, 2013 @05:13PM (#43436409)
    1. People are corporations. You now get all the benefit and protection under the law that corporations have. When anybody is born, they are automatically assigned a corporate number or name and they will enjoy all the protections that government and the law have built into corporations. Kill somebody through a leak of deadly chemicals: pay a fine that is a percentage point of your income and walk away. Go bankrupt: just dissolve yourself and start again with a new identity or name. Want a favourable court ruling: just argue about how you, as a corporation would have lost money. Get sued: store all your money in a holding company that you own and don't pay a cent. And if you get big enough: get your own crack legal team, harass Senators and Congressmen, lobby the government, get access to others data. All you have to do is promise to store your email for long enough enough. Heck you don't have to follow any particular country's rules. Just sign a "free trade" agreement with other nations and then you can sue them. Yep, life as a corporation would be great.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson

Close