Ramblings of an old Doc

 

I’ve written before on this topic (https://forums.wincustomize.com/423486/page/1/#3140935). This is more of an update. The House of Representatives passed the bill last week, and it’s moving on to the Senate.

So what?

“CISPA would allow for voluntary information sharing between private companies and the government in the event of a cyber attack. If the government detects a cyber attack that might take down Facebook or Google, for example, they could notify those companies. At the same time, Facebook or Google could inform the feds if they notice unusual activity on their networks that might suggest a cyber attack.” - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417993,00.asp

OK… ostensibly that’s a good thing. Cyber attacks are not good things right? Right. However, the EFF has argued that “CISPA would override the relevant provisions in all other laws—including privacy laws.” (https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq#company).

“Right now, well-established laws like the Cable Communications Policy Act, the Wiretap Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act provide judicial oversight and other privacy protections that prevent companies from unnecessarily sharing your private information, including the content of your emails.

And these laws expressly allow lawsuits against companies that go too far in divulging your private information. CISPA threatens these protections by declaring that key provisions in CISPA are effective “notwithstanding any other law,” a phrase that essentially means CISPA would override the relevant provisions in all other laws—including privacy laws. CISPA also creates a broad immunity for companies against both civil and criminal liability. CISPA provides more legal cover for companies to share large swaths of potentially personal and private information with the government…CISPA allows a company to obtain and share "cyber threat information" if it has both a "cybersecurity purpose" and believes it is protecting its rights and property.

A "cybersecurity purpose" only means that a company has to think that a user is trying to harm its network. What does that mean, exactly? The definition is broad and vague. The definition allows purposes such as guarding against “improper” information modification, ensuring “timely” access to information or “preserving authorized restrictions on access…protecting…proprietary information” (i.e. DRM).”

- https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq#company

Worse, under CISP there is essentially nothing you can do even if you are harmed. This is a fundamental violation of our right “to seek redress” since such a suit would be neutralized by “a belief cybers security was violated.” It doesn’t even have to be proven. This is nonsense. Also, companies don’t need to share personally identifying information to have such material removed and neutralized. Indeed, if companies need to share an email, such as a phishing email message, existing exceptions allow the recipient to divulge the information; there is no need for the blanket authority in CISPA.

More, your info once in the hands of DHS can be distributed to any agency it wants, and

“Even though the information was passed along to the government for only “cybersecurity purposes”—the government can use your personal information for cybersecurity, investigating any cybersecurity crime or criminal exploitation of minor, protecting individuals from death or serious physical injury, or protecting the national security of the United States. Under the National Security Act, which CISPA amends, national security interests can include:

(i) threats to the United States, its people, property, or interests;

(ii) the development, proliferation, or use of weapons of mass destruction; or

(iii) any other matter bearing on United States national or homeland security.”

- https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq#company

Who’s supporting it? The list is here: https://intelligence.house.gov/hr-624-letters-support

Google, face book and others who supported prior versions haven’t expressed support for the current version.

You can read more about CISPA here: https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq#company

There are some useful links in the article.


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Apr 23, 2013

Boooo hiss, booo hiss!

on Apr 23, 2013

This is the small government of Republicans at work.

 

Citizens are suspect of every crime, just living is having potential to commit evil, thus every person must be treated as a suspect and potential suspect of everything.

 

Corporations need no regulation and all power needs transferred from government (elected) to corporations (privately owned) to allow the wealthy elite more power than historical kings.

on Apr 23, 2013

Easy solution, quit Facebook and any other of these so called "social sites" you belong to, they are worthless and serve no real useful purpose anyway.

on Apr 23, 2013

And your ISP, Tom? Gonna quit that too? Check out who's supporting CISPA. The linl's in the OP. It's mainly the ISP/Telecommunication companies because the bill holds them "harmless" so they become in essence, police informants. Also, what about your fundamental right to privacy? And that of redress?

 

thadianaphena
This is the small government of Republicans at work. Citizens are suspect of every crime, just living is having potential to commit evil, thus every person must be treated as a suspect and potential suspect of everything. Corporations need no regulation and all power needs transferred from government (elected) to corporations (privately owned) to allow the wealthy elite more power than historical kings.

The thread isn't about parties. Please don't try to pull the thread into that.

It's about protection of our individual rights and not losing them. That would be granting a "win" to the cyber terrorists. Please relate to the topic at hand.

on Apr 23, 2013

Well I would agree with not going to social networks in the first place. 

As an old fart who is not advocating any type of revolution or over through of the system and puts very little to nothing about themselves on the internet I still see the concern here. 

The problem with any of these measures that the Government plans to or are undertaking is they will never solve the intended problem that it was set in motion to do.  I'm also reminded of this, locks on doors only keep honest people out, they will never protect you from the people wanting in.

on Apr 23, 2013

 

The US appears to be well on its way in stripping more and more of what its citizens refer to as 'freedom'.  No joke, at some point that nation may no longer be able to present itself to the world as the paragon of same.

It's too bad that so many americans seem content with the fact that what has become their 'culture of fear' is being used to slowly and systematically erode their 'freedom'.  Unfortunately it appears our government loves to copy what happens down south so..........sigh....I've got nothing more to add to this unfortunate subject.

 

on Apr 23, 2013

Back to the future - 1984.

on Apr 23, 2013

the_Monk

 

The US appears to be well on its way in stripping more and more of what its citizens refer to as 'freedom'.  No joke, at some point that nation may no longer be able to present itself to the world as the paragon of same.

It's too bad that so many americans seem content with the fact that what has become their 'culture of fear' is being used to slowly and systematically erode their 'freedom'.  Unfortunately it appears our government loves to copy what happens down south so..........sigh....I've got nothing more to add to this unfortunate subject.

 

the_Monk... absolutely.

Really glad you stopped by.

Now get to work on those detailed security recommendations, you slacker!   j/k.

 

Daiwa

Back to the future - 1984.

Indeed. The White House has vowed to veto this bill, as it should (but let's see if "a deal" is to be had).

on Apr 23, 2013

the_Monk
It's too bad that so many americans seem content with the fact that what has become their 'culture of fear' is being used to slowly and systematically erode their 'freedom'

I can agree with the quote. However I don't think it's a matter of content but more a matter of not being able to do anything about it. One can say lets stand up. Well that has been tried many times without success. Latest example would be the gun control law which didn't pass. Can't get many more people that stood up for that along with some very important people, but it still didn't pass. Power rukles no matter how one thinks about it.

if it wasn't for Doc making this thread I wouldn't even know about the bill. So I would guess other than tech sites that less than 1 percent even know about the bill and it may be more like .0001 percent. Like a tax incress. We can screem, bitch or whatever but we can't ever seem to stop it.

I don't like this bill and I'm not content with it but can't do anything about it. Some things in life one can control can get out of control and can make one upset. No reason to get upset at things you have no control over.

on Apr 23, 2013

DrJBHL
Now get to work on those detailed security recommendations, you slacker!    j/k.

 

Aye aye sir!     hehe 

 

One of these days I'll have such a document ready!  I'm just so terribly non-creative and am just plain crappy at anything that isn't simply typing.    I'm just such a geek.  I have no issues with the technical side of things, but making my explanations/suggestions 'look nice'? 

 

 

 

on Apr 23, 2013

I have some info for you...I had corn last night...download file to verify contents.

on Apr 23, 2013

Saw this coming after that whole SOPA/PIPA outrage. You don't threaten to censor/regulate Fortune 500 companies AND override a citizen's right to privacy at the same time. Make sure you grease the wheels of those Fortune 500 companies with legal protection and THEN go after citizen's rights. After all, those corporations are the ones that elect legislators and not the people, right?

CISPA provides more legal cover for companies to share large swaths of potentially personal and private information with the government…CISPA allows a company to obtain and share "cyber threat information" if it has both a "cybersecurity purpose" and believes it is protecting its rights and property.

A "cybersecurity purpose" only means that a company has to think that a user is trying to harm its network. What does that mean, exactly? The definition is broad and vague. The definition allows purposes such as guarding against “improper” information modification, ensuring “timely” access to information or “preserving authorized restrictions on access…protecting…proprietary information” (i.e. DRM).”

I can't wait to get a cease and desist order for downloading a couple cracked games that I legally purchased on Steam\Origin.

on Apr 23, 2013

the_Monk
It's too bad that so many americans seem content with the fact that what has become their 'culture of fear' is being used to slowly and systematically erode their 'freedom'.

Let's try "culture of ignorance"....how many Americans even know about CISPA?

You don't need a culture of fear when the average citizen doesn't even know what legislation is in the works...

 

on Apr 23, 2013

GOP, GOP, GOP... grand old party now exposed as really the 'Greedy Old Plutocrats."

on Apr 23, 2013

Let's avoid divisive comments, folks as I mentioned in #4 please.

This is about individual rights, not political parties.

3 Pages1 2 3