Be a Supporter!

Cispa Bill Passed In The House...

  • 1,836 Views
  • 44 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
johnathan-wrathborne
johnathan-wrathborne
  • Member since: Aug. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 40
Blank Slate
Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-26 22:19:32 Reply

I have a hard time fathoming how totalitarian my government has become, but the truth is that the USA is not "the land of the free", but the land of the free-loaders. The free loaders in this case being the several clusterfuck congressmen who run the country.

For those who don't know CISPA is a cyber 'security' bill, that allows the US government to go through everything you do online and keep a folder about you personally. Your e-mails, chat logs, browsing history, any online banking you do, what you purchase online, what you sell online etc..

I copied some of this from Reddit, the credit goes to 'Lenticular' who posted some of this ridiculous bullshit.

"OK. This is part of what they did. Under Cyber Crime right at the end of page 23 of the pdf they made it criminal to violate ANY part of title 18 United States code. This means that you can not use the internet to buy and ship things via the post office to your house [edit: ANONYMOUSLY] amongst other things. Oh. One of those other things is that you can't be obscene over the internet. More on that and others later.
[18 USC § 1342 - Fictitious name or address]
Whoever, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or carrying on by means of the Postal Service, any scheme or device mentioned in section 1341 of this title or any other unlawful business, uses or assumes, or requests to be addressed by, any fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than his own proper name, or takes or receives from any post office or authorized depository of mail matter, any letter, postal card, package, or other mail matter addressed to any such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than his own proper name, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Planning on planning a peaceful demonstration?
[18 USC § 231 - Civil disorders]
(3) Whoever commits or attempts to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder which in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or adversely affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the conduct or performance of any federally protected functionâEU" Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) Nothing contained in this section shall make unlawful any act of any law enforcement officer which is performed in the lawful performance of his official duties.
[L:How's that OWS workin' out for ya?]
[L:Oh! But here's one for the little guy.]
[18 USC Chapter 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS/18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights]
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so securedâEU" They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
[L:Good thing this bill has NOTHING to do with IP]
[18 USC § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited]
(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any personâEU"
(i) to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmittedâEU"
(I) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
(II) by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;
(III) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;
(iii) to engage in any conduct whichâEU"
(I) is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or
(II) is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;
[L:But what does section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934 say?]
[UNAUTHORIZED RECEPTION OF CABLE SERVICE SECTION 633 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 (47 U.S.C. §553)]
(a)(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. [L: CISPA allows torrenting?]
I'm pretty sure there's more, but I think I'm done for the day. I haven't even had a chance to really go over CISPA itself for that matter. I also have yet to mention certain implications but I'm sure someone else could do a better job expressing them anyway.
[Edit: I promised more on that later but my eyes started crossing. Here's that bit about obscenity.]
[18 USC Chapter 71 - OBSCENITY/18 USC § 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution]
Whoever knowingly produces with the intent to transport, distribute, or transmit in interstate or foreign commerce, or whoever knowingly transports or travels in, or uses a facility or means of, interstate or foreign commerce or an interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934) in or affecting such commerce, for the purpose of sale or distribution of any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, phonograph recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The transportation as aforesaid of two or more copies of any publication or two or more of any article of the character described above, or a combined total of five such publications and articles, shall create a presumption that such publications or articles are intended for sale or distribution, but such presumption shall be rebuttable. "

How this will affect video sites like Youtube, Liveleak, Newgrounds, etc I don't know. But the obscenity section listed last definitely goes after private intellectual properties, much of whats posted on NG.

Obama has said that he'll veto this bill if it reaches his desk, but he said that about the NDAA bill a few months back and signed it regardless.

Its ironic that the US fought the Nazi's and commies for shit like this(and more) a long time ago, and now the fuckers who are in charge are doing the same here here.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-26 23:13:25 Reply

it is the same strategy Hitler used to gain totalitarian control over Germany in a democratic country with out using force (more or less). He said his government needs complete control to protect the German people from Communists and other threats, but only temporarily (until the threats are gone).

of course we all know that he didn't give that power back as he promised. When the time comes for martial law (or as we call it in the civilized world, state of emergency, implying that it is only temporary we promise please believe us we pinkie swear we will give it back when we sign a peace treaty with the concept of terrorism please oh please oh please let us become dictators!) all of these new tools will be very dangerous in the hands of the government, phone taps from Patriot act, Internet tracking from Cispa, Indefinite detention without due process from NDAA. This happens so often and we dismiss it every time as craziness but that is why history keeps repeating itself I guess.

Maybe Glenn beck could be blamed for making people who know about creeping fascism all look crazy by using strong Christian over tones and blending his rants with lots of ignorance and obvious fallacies.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-26 23:54:04 Reply

At 4/26/12 10:19 PM, johnathan-wrathborne wrote: [18 USC Ã'§ 1342 - Fictitious name or address]
(Paraphrased) You can't use an alias when using the federal mail system.

Oh, no. We're truly in a fascist dictatorship now. (That's sarcasm in case you couldn't tell.)

[18 USC Ã'§ 231 - Civil disorders]
(Paraphrased) You can't stop cops from doing their jobs.

Anyone here ever watch a crime show like Law & Order? Just about every episode the cops threaten someone with a charge of obstruction of justice because they're lying about something to protect someone from the police. Physically trying to stop the police is going to immediately get you arrested, usually after some pepper spray in the face. None of this is really new.

[18 USC Chapter 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS/18 USC Ã'§ 241 - Conspiracy against rights]
(Paraphrased) Conspiring to violate another person's rights is illegal and you'll be sent to prison for it. Killing someone in the act of these crimes or conspiring to kill someone will get you a sentence of life in prison or death.

Once again, this is nothing new. Conspiracy is already a crime, killing someone is already a crime, murder in the first degree can already get you a sentence of life in prison or death.

[18 USC Ã'§ 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited]
(Paraphrased) Unless you're the government and have an appropriate warrant it is illegal to wiretap a persons electronic devices.

At this point I don't even think there's anything in this law that doesn't already exist which makes it at worst redundant but certainly not a violation of the constitution. Why did you even post it?

[Edit: I promised more on that later but my eyes started crossing. Here's that bit about obscenity.]
[18 USC Chapter 71 - OBSCENITY/18 USC Ã'§ 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution]
(Paraphrased) Obscene material is illegal. Making obscene material in order to sell it is illegal. Transporting obscene material for the purpose of selling it is illegal.

Obscenity is a frequently debated subject but obscenity laws already exist. The reason you can't run through the streets naked? OBSCENITY LAWS. The reason the FCC can control TV content? OBSCENITY LAWS. The reason you can't sell porn to minors? OBSCENITY LAWS.

Is there anything I missed? Some section that grossly violates the rights of American citizens? Something that would actually warrant the creation of this thread? Or is this just another law that you know nothing about but still oppose?

I will give credit where credit is due though, you posted a large portion of the actual wording of the law and that hasn't been done with most of these types of threads, so congratulations on that.

johnathan-wrathborne
johnathan-wrathborne
  • Member since: Aug. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 40
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 00:29:02 Reply

Heres a little more CISPA'ness fer ye, including the problem of the gray area that it creates for the government to do whatever it wants...not that it doesnt do that as it is, but the mroe gray areas they make, the worse it is for us.

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/26/sneak-attack-surprise-amend me.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Silverdust
Silverdust
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Art Lover
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 00:46:16 Reply

How is it that so many people are outraged by what our government is doing, yet nobody lifts a finger? I say it's nearly time to make change.


RussiaToday : Aljazeera : TEDTalks : io9
"We have the Bill of Rights; what we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." ~ Bill Maher

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 01:00:47 Reply

At 4/27/12 12:46 AM, Silverdust wrote: How is it that so many people are outraged by what our government is doing, yet nobody lifts a finger? I say it's nearly time to make change.

well what are you gonna do, vote against Obama by voting for Romney? or vote 3rd party? Thing is that the people who are outraged enough to do something about it are out numbered by the outraged but too demoralized to try folks.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
johnathan-wrathborne
johnathan-wrathborne
  • Member since: Aug. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 40
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 01:07:47 Reply

At 4/27/12 12:46 AM, Silverdust wrote: How is it that so many people are outraged by what our government is doing, yet nobody lifts a finger? I say it's nearly time to make change.

The problem is that people have been sending in petitions, some a million plus, some almost a million. Problem is that unlike SOPA, which had several large sites black out in protest, those same sites are for CISPA.

Facebook, Google(Youtube respectively) are dead silent on this matter.

Thats because this bill only hurts people, not corporations.

The bitch of it is, Obama is against this bill only because the republicans are for it, and vice versa.

Wanna do something about the shitty police state the US is becoming? Cut out the rot, 1 congressman at a time.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 10:22:37 Reply

At 4/26/12 11:13 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: it is the same strategy Hitler used to gain totalitarian control over Germany in a democratic country with out using force (more or less). He said his government needs complete control to protect the German people from Communists and other threats, but only temporarily (until the threats are gone).

of course we all know that he didn't give that power back as he promised. When the time comes for martial law (or as we call it in the civilized world, state of emergency, implying that it is only temporary we promise please believe us we pinkie swear we will give it back when we sign a peace treaty with the concept of terrorism please oh please oh please let us become dictators!) all of these new tools will be very dangerous in the hands of the government, phone taps from Patriot act, Internet tracking from Cispa, Indefinite detention without due process from NDAA. This happens so often and we dismiss it every time as craziness but that is why history keeps repeating itself I guess.

Maybe Glenn beck could be blamed for making people who know about creeping fascism all look crazy by using strong Christian over tones and blending his rants with lots of ignorance and obvious fallacies.

You're honestly going to compare this bill passing the house (which has nothing to do with Obama) to Adolf Hitler's propaganda machine (which was really all Joseph Goebbels's genius)? First of all I'm not going to derail this thread but you have a pretty naive understanding of Germany and the mood of the people living there prior to Hitler coming to power. Let's not speak in hyperbole.

Anyway, the fact that this absolutely shit bill passed the house is a pretty good barometer for how far this country has come post 9/11. We need to see how this goes in the Senate before we start flipping the shit and saying really dumb things like "goodbye internet."

Please, watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 14:48:08 Reply

At 4/27/12 12:29 AM, johnathan-wrathborne wrote: Heres a little more CISPA'ness fer ye, including the problem of the gray area that it creates for the government to do whatever it wants...not that it doesnt do that as it is, but the mroe gray areas they make, the worse it is for us.

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/26/sneak-attack-surprise-amend me.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I don't see anything in the wording of the bill posted that supports the claims in that article, or even anything specifically related to cyber-security aside from the ban on wire taps. Prove that this bill does what you're saying it does or SHUT UP!

johnathan-wrathborne
johnathan-wrathborne
  • Member since: Aug. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 40
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 16:41:06 Reply

At 4/27/12 02:48 PM, djack wrote:

I don't see anything in the wording of the bill posted that supports the claims in that article, or even anything specifically related to cyber-security aside from the ban on wire taps. Prove that this bill does what you're saying it does or SHUT UP!

Here is some more info for ye, courtesy of 'Lenticula'r from Reddit Here is the PDFfrom the sub committee on cyber security meeting.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg72229/pdf/CHRG-112h hrg72229.pdf

If you just want to read a few things instead of the PDF here are issues Lenticular has singled out in the comments section.
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/sklnj/the_real_r eason_why_cispa_is_terrible_a_53_page/

Including this gem:
"
COMMENTS ON CYBERSECURITY LEGISLATION
[p32] The committee had also asked for me to comment on cybersecurity legislation. In general, the FSSCC is supportive of policies in which a âEU~âEU~rising tide lifts all boatsâEUTMâEUTM. By that I mean the Government should offer incentives and, in some cases, require minimum security and resiliency standards for utilities that service critical infrastructure sectors. These utilities include entities like internet service providers and others with whom our sector and other critical infrastructure sector are dependent. For example, we need to ensure that these utilities adopt practices to protect networks, manage incidences, and address our long-standing concerns with internet congestion during a time of crisis.7 The development of these standards should be driven by private sector, consensus-driven bodies. What has been lacking is a comprehensive cross-cutting review of the cyber risk, mitigation, and regulatory dynamics across all of the critical sectors to ensure that any âEU~âEU~minimum standardsâEUTMâEUTM legislation can allow specific security gaps in each sector to be addressed without imposing one-size-fits-all standards that contradict existing sector regulation.
The FSSCC supports the following provisions: *Commitment to two-way public-private information sharing and cross-sector information- sharing efforts, leveraging the Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs), the Sector Specific Agencies (SSAs), USâEU"CERT, safe harbors, clearances, and confidentiality guarantees. Such a commitment is vital to facilitate the sharing of actionable and timely information, particularly during cyber emergencies.
*Focused efforts to address critical interdependencies such as our sectorâEUTMs reliance on telecommunications, information technology, energy, and transportation sectors.
*Leveraging Federal cybersecurity supply chain management and promotion of cybersecurity as a priority in Federal procurement.
*Public education and cybersecurity awareness campaigns to promote safe computing practices.
*Enhanced international collaboration and accountability in law enforcement and industry, including increased funding for law enforcement and facilitating the development of global cybersecurity standards.
*Increasing funding for applied research and encouraging collaboration with Government research agencies on authentication, access control, identity management, attribution, social engineering, data-centric solutions, and other cybersecurity issues. It is only through such public-private efforts, combined with adequate funding, that leading-edge research in these important areas can enhance our ability to secure on-line transactions, maintain data integrity, and enhance user confidence."

My favorite part is "the Government should offer incentives and, in some cases, require minimum security and resiliency standards for utilities that service critical infrastructure sectors."

Utilities that service critical infrastructure sectors...like say, your ISP. This does not "enhance user confidence" in me knowing that what they're talking about leads towards ISP's having to meet federal standards. Especially when there are people out there trying to create independent ISP's that dont allow user data to be tracked by the government.

You may proceed to scrutinize, Djack.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 17:13:17 Reply

I have a hard time believing you're looking at what you think you are...

The cites you include come from different parts of the USCs. They're all in the same chapter, but when Acts are passed they almost always involve consecutive section numbers.

Also, the civil rights section you cite to is directly from the Civil Rights Act of 1871...

So I think you need to link us to the language of the Act.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 17:51:22 Reply

At 4/27/12 05:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So I think you need to link us to the language of the Act.

Here is the bill that was passed: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3523rh/pdf/BILLS-112 hr3523rh.pdf


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 17:55:40 Reply

At 4/27/12 04:41 PM, johnathan-wrathborne wrote:
My favorite part is "the Government should offer incentives and, in some cases, require minimum security and resiliency standards for utilities that service critical infrastructure sectors."

So you're okay with a cybersecurity vulnerability that could conceivably allow a hacker or foreign government to wipe out power or communications across a large area of the country?

Utilities that service critical infrastructure sectors...like say, your ISP. This does not "enhance user confidence" in me knowing that what they're talking about leads towards ISP's having to meet federal standards. Especially when there are people out there trying to create independent ISP's that dont allow user data to be tracked by the government.

I don't see how mandating a certain level of internet security is the same as collecting user information from ISPs.

johnathan-wrathborne
johnathan-wrathborne
  • Member since: Aug. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 40
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 18:35:34 Reply

So you're okay with a cybersecurity vulnerability that could conceivably allow a hacker or foreign government to wipe out power or communications across a large area of the country?

The chances of that are less likely to happen than our own government creating government mandated spyware thats mandatory for every computer in the USA and also costs $25, all in the name of 'national security'.

While both scenarios listed sound kind of true, but stupid at the same time, thats the world we're living in now.

The government isn't interested in helping people, so much as it is helping them feel slightly safer, while keeping tabs on how many pieces of toilet paper we use to wipe our asses...Because 'terrorists' use more than 4 squares -_-

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 18:43:41 Reply

At 4/26/12 10:19 PM, johnathan-wrathborne wrote: "OK. This is part of what they did. Under Cyber Crime right at the end of page 23 of the pdf they made it criminal to violate ANY part of title 18 United States code.

Really? Even a cursory google search of US Title 18 would reveal that Title 18 is the CRIMINAL Code. So no shit violating any part of Title 18 will be criminal.

[18 USC Ã'§ 1342 - Fictitious name or address]

So you cannot use a fictitious name in a fraudulent manner. Internet aliases are hardly "ficticious names" under this staute. This would be more like me pretending to be a Nigerian Prince... 419.

[18 USC Ã'§ 231 - Civil disorders]

Why is this a surprise to anyone?

[18 USC Chapter 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS/18 USC Ã'§ 241 - Conspiracy against rights]

This comes straight from the Civil Rights act of 1871. This Act was also called the Klu Klux Klan Act. Now read that language agaain with this knowledge and complain again. I dare you.

[18 USC Ã'§ 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited]

No hacking or tapping of communication lines.

[UNAUTHORIZED RECEPTION OF CABLE SERVICE SECTION 633 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED BY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 (47 U.S.C. Ã'§553)]

This is about stealing cable. Remember that episode fo the Simpsons? Yeah, THAT is what this staute is about.

[18 USC Chapter 71 - OBSCENITY/18 USC Ã'§ 1465 - Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution]

Have you tried to look up porn lately? Apparently this is either as impotent as a 90 year old man, or it is an extremely narrow rule.


How this will affect video sites like Youtube, Liveleak, Newgrounds, etc I don't know. But the obscenity section listed last definitely goes after private intellectual properties, much of whats posted on NG.

Ok, OK, OK. HOLD THE PHONE.

I just read the CISPA. Yes, I did. Guess what? It has NOTHING to do with anything you are saying!!!

It merely allows the sharing of information between government agencies. It can only be used for a "cybersecurity purpose" or for "national security". "Cybersecurity purpose" is defined as and effort to attackj a network, or theft of intellectual property.

Furthermore it contains the following explicit limit:

"ANTI-TASKING RESTRICTION.âEU"Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Federal Government toâEU"
(A) require a private-sector entity to share information with the Federal Government; or
(B) condition the sharing of cyber threat intelligence with a private-sector entity on the provision of cyber threat information to the Federal Government."

It's really interesting to seee how, when confronted with the text of the actual bill, the fantastic arguments of the anti-IP law folks crumble like a cookie under the tread of a tank.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 20:04:54 Reply

At 4/27/12 06:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It merely allows the sharing of information between government agencies. It can only be used for a "cybersecurity purpose" or for "national security". "Cybersecurity purpose" is defined as and effort to attackj a network, or theft of intellectual property.

It says a lot more than that, now doesn't it? It defines "Cyber Threat Information" as:

"... information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network fromâEU" âEU~âEU~(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or âEU~âEU~(B)theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information."

Emphasis mine on the last part, because I think that's the important part. "Theft or misappropriation of... government information"? So leaking any information the government doesn't want out is now a "cyber threat"? Sounds to me like they just outlawed whistleblowing.

Furthermore it contains the following explicit limit:

"ANTI-TASKING RESTRICTION.âEU"Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Federal Government toâEU"
(A) require a private-sector entity to share information with the Federal Government; or
(B) condition the sharing of cyber threat intelligence with a private-sector entity on the provision of cyber threat information to the Federal Government."

Just because it's not required for private-sector entities to share information doesn't mean that they CAN'T share the information, which was kind of the problem with this bill in the first place.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 20:15:38 Reply

At 4/27/12 08:04 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: It says a lot more than that, now doesn't it? It defines "Cyber Threat Information" as:

"... information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network fromâEU" âEU~âEU~(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or âEU~âEU~(B)theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information."

Emphasis mine on the last part, because I think that's the important part. "Theft or misappropriation of... government information"? So leaking any information the government doesn't want out is now a "cyber threat"? Sounds to me like they just outlawed whistleblowing.

What you call whistleblowing is already called treason by the U.S. government and a fairly large section of the U.S. population.

Just because it's not required for private-sector entities to share information doesn't mean that they CAN'T share the information, which was kind of the problem with this bill in the first place.

If a private-sector entity chooses to share information with the government, that's their choice. That's also something that isn't new. Companies and individuals can choose to give information to the government already, it's not like this bill changes any of that.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 20:19:06 Reply

At 4/27/12 05:55 PM, adrshepard wrote: So you're okay with a cybersecurity vulnerability that could conceivably allow a hacker or foreign government to wipe out power or communications across a large area of the country?

I don't know about him, but my answer is no. However, that doesn't mean that I want ISPs to be immune from privacy lawsuits for disclosing customer information. I'm also not okay with ISPs being granted antitrust protection to immunize them against allegations of them deceitfully acting together in the name of "national security," which could mean literally anything. I'm also not okay with ISPs being allowed to share data with other internet providers in order to prevent a "cyberattack" (a threat to "national security.")

So, I mean, does this become one or the other? Is it a choice between a vulnerable network or privacy? I certainly hope not, and I certainly hope nobody here is justifying your privacy being infringed because of some nebulous threat.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 20:34:44 Reply

At 4/27/12 08:04 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: "... information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network fromâEU" âEU~âEU~(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or âEU~âEU~(B)theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information."

Exactly what I said just without the editing for laziness purposes.

Emphasis mine on the last part, because I think that's the important part. "Theft or misappropriation of... government information"? So leaking any information the government doesn't want out is now a "cyber threat"? Sounds to me like they just outlawed whistleblowing.

Doesn't outlaw whistelblowing. First off, all it does is allow for government agencies and private organizations to exhcange information in order to prevent the taking of government information. This is not a criminal statute. Second, even if it were a criminal statute, all it would do is outlaw the use of the internet to take government information, i.e. hacking or accessing systems for the purpose of misappropriating it (AKA "Manninging").

Just because it's not required for private-sector entities to share information doesn't mean that they CAN'T share the information, which was kind of the problem with this bill in the first place.

They can't share any information. They cannot violate their own privacy policies in order to share information. Also, the immunity from liability only goes so far as they share information that is allowed under their privacy policy and they do so in good faith. If I were a Court, because this is a privacy issue (a second tier Constitutional Right) I would be very strict with regard to this good faith requirement, holding a duty to ensure due diligence was taken in compiling and filtering the information. Then again, not all judges are as open as I.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 20:40:33 Reply

At 4/27/12 08:15 PM, djack wrote: What you call whistleblowing is already called treason by the U.S. government and a fairly large section of the U.S. population.

Um, no it isn't.

If a private-sector entity chooses to share information with the government, that's their choice. That's also something that isn't new. Companies and individuals can choose to give information to the government already, it's not like this bill changes any of that.

Depends on what information it is. A company can't share personal information regarding any particular individual or employee associated with that company with the government, unless there is a court ordered warrant for that information. From my understanding, this law changes that, allowing web-based companies to share personal information about their users, and also protects the companies sharing the information with the government from any kind of legal action.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 20:43:00 Reply

At 4/27/12 08:19 PM, Feoric wrote:
At 4/27/12 05:55 PM, adrshepard wrote: So you're okay with a cybersecurity vulnerability that could conceivably allow a hacker or foreign government to wipe out power or communications across a large area of the country?
I don't know about him, but my answer is no. However, that doesn't mean ...

Stop right there. You're falling into the trap. I don't care what some two bit computer-geek turned faux-legal expert in between his lattes at the local Starbucks says. If you're going to assert a claim about a bill, and the text of that bill has been linked to, use the language of the bill to back those claims up.


So, I mean, does this become one or the other? Is it a choice between a vulnerable network or privacy? I certainly hope not, and I certainly hope nobody here is justifying your privacy being infringed because of some nebulous threat.

The threat isn't nebulous. It has known for a long time that our infrastructure, namely our power grid, has been extremely vulnerable to cyber-attack. Furthermore, with our economy being run almost entirely upon the internet in some form or another, an attack on, say, Cisco Systems, could seriously harm if not cripple our economy for a significant period of time. Finally, the theft of IP via the internet is rampant. Most of it comes from abroad, but they steal from within our cyber borders. These exchanges of infromation serve to prevent the harms that these dangers pose.

I do find it quite ironic that the voice most loudly opposed to things like Cispa on privacy grounds is the same voice that is most vocally supportive of hackers.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 20:45:03 Reply

At 4/27/12 08:40 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Depends on what information it is. A company can't share personal information regarding any particular individual or employee associated with that company with the government, unless there is a court ordered warrant for that information.

Unless you have a law to quote for this, I have to disagree completely. Companies are free to share whatever information their customers have authorized them to share. Let's just say that there is a reason the click through adhesion contracts are massive.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 22:11:20 Reply

At 4/27/12 08:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Stop right there. You're falling into the trap. I don't care what some two bit computer-geek turned faux-legal expert in between his lattes at the local Starbucks says. If you're going to assert a claim about a bill, and the text of that bill has been linked to, use the language of the bill to back those claims up.

So, uh, what are you, then? Lawyer? Judge? Law aficionado?

Let me propose you, then, show me how this bill is a good thing. Using the language of the bill, of course. But I'll do what you asked me to, I guess, if you wanna be like that.

I kinda cant copy and paste the bill here because of the formatting and I don't want to sit here and waste 40 minute editing it so i'm just going to tell you where to look. Ctrl+F Quayle (should bring you do amendment 6, which passed the debate). Since you're ostensibly the law guy, can you tell me why this isn't just another addition to the list of acceptable purposes for which shared information can be used? I counted three (3) more valid uses: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Originally, in the main bill, cispa allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed by this amendment. At least it appears to me.

And, I mean, can this really be called a cyber security bill at all, anymore? The government would be able to search information it lawfully collects under CISPA for the purposes of "investigating American citizens" with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Can anyone tell me how this does NOT violate the 4th Amendment? And, to keep the good times rolling, the government can do whatever the hell it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone or some child was in danger of bodily harm, in spite of any other law that would normally limit the government's power.

The threat isn't nebulous. It has known for a long time that our infrastructure, namely our power grid, has been extremely vulnerable to cyber-attack. Furthermore, with our economy being run almost entirely upon the internet in some form or another, an attack on, say, Cisco Systems, could seriously harm if not cripple our economy for a significant period of time. Finally, the theft of IP via the internet is rampant. Most of it comes from abroad, but they steal from within our cyber borders. These exchanges of infromation serve to prevent the harms that these dangers pose.

Well, gee, if us lowly newgrounders know about such a severe vulnerability in our power grid (namely one that has existed for a long time) why hasn't anything happened yet? Am I supposed to be terrified of some mythical chinese hackers that can pull shit out of that ridiculous die hard movie? And "cyber borders?" What? Is this a Real Thing? Cyber borders? How is that not an oxymoron? The pentagon already declared cyberspace as an "operational domain".

The US government also already has the right to seize domains inside the us they believe are used for piracy, and have been doing so since 2010.You somehow think it'll be even better if we can just cut off any major site from funding or indexing a foreign site that is accused of IP theft, which has thoroughly been explained why it very clearly and explicitly is not during the SOPA/PIPA protests. IP protection is not bad. The way this bill and it's amendments go about doing so is.

I do find it quite ironic that the voice most loudly opposed to things like Cispa on privacy grounds is the same voice that is most vocally supportive of hackers.

Huh? What I find more ironic is the companies that opposed SOPA/PIPA are now in support of it.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 22:12:59 Reply

At 4/27/12 08:40 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
At 4/27/12 08:15 PM, djack wrote: What you call whistleblowing is already called treason by the U.S. government and a fairly large section of the U.S. population.
Um, no it isn't.

Of course not. That's why Manning continued on with his life and experienced no change. Oh wait, Manning was charged with treason and there's a large portion or the U.S. population that agrees that Manning's actions were treasonous.

If a private-sector entity chooses to share information with the government, that's their choice. That's also something that isn't new. Companies and individuals can choose to give information to the government already, it's not like this bill changes any of that.
Depends on what information it is. A company can't share personal information regarding any particular individual or employee associated with that company with the government, unless there is a court ordered warrant for that information. From my understanding, this law changes that, allowing web-based companies to share personal information about their users, and also protects the companies sharing the information with the government from any kind of legal action.

Like Camaro said, a company can share any information that they've been permitted to share. Even if that weren't true, point out what section of the law changes that. There's been nothing in what was posted here that validates your concern.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 22:15:54 Reply

At 4/27/12 10:12 PM, djack wrote:
Of course not. That's why Manning continued on with his life and experienced no change. Oh wait, Manning was charged with treason and there's a large portion or the U.S. population that agrees that Manning's actions were treasonous.

To be fair (and let's not derail too much) what Manning did actually was treason. This wasn't a typical whistle blower case, regardless how you feel about the man and his actions.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 23:21:04 Reply

At 4/27/12 10:11 PM, Feoric wrote: Let me propose you, then, show me how this bill is a good thing. Using the language of the bill, of course. But I'll do what you asked me to, I guess, if you wanna be like that.

I am not claiming the bill is a good thing. I am calling foul on the "sky is falling" claims regarding it.

I kinda cant copy and paste the bill here because of the formatting and I don't want to sit here and waste 40 minute editing it so i'm just going to tell you where to look.

My adobe isn't working properly, so I can't see your link. Look on the link Angryhatter posted and point me to the section (e.g. Section (II)(a)(3)(B))


And, I mean, can this really be called a cyber security bill at all, anymore? The government would be able to search information it lawfully collects under CISPA for the purposes of "investigating American citizens" with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Can anyone tell me how this does NOT violate the 4th Amendment?

First off, all this bill does is authorizes the government to accept information from private parties. I have yet to see anything that says that government cannot recieve information voluntarily provided to it by private parties.

Also, it's not an unlawful search if you have no right to the thing searched.

And, to keep the good times rolling, the government can do whatever the hell it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone or some child was in danger of bodily harm, in spite of any other law that would normally limit the government's power.

Show me the language of the bill that authorizes this.


The US government also already has the right to seize domains inside the us they believe are used for piracy, and have been doing so since 2010.You somehow think it'll be even better if we can just cut off any major site from funding or indexing a foreign site that is accused of IP theft, which has thoroughly been explained why it very clearly and explicitly is not during the SOPA/PIPA protests. IP protection is not bad. The way this bill and it's amendments go about doing so is.

What does this bill have to do with SOPA/PIPA?

Huh? What I find more ironic is the companies that opposed SOPA/PIPA are now in support of it.

Unlike the situation in which hackers create the very problem the butts up against the privacy, SOPA/PIPA have very little to do with CISPA.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 23:25:58 Reply

At 4/27/12 10:12 PM, djack wrote: Of course not. That's why Manning continued on with his life and experienced no change. Oh wait, Manning was charged with treason and there's a large portion or the U.S. population that agrees that Manning's actions were treasonous.

I would have to distinguish Manning from regular whistleblowing.

A regular whistleblower lets out a specific problem to the people who can solve it for the purpose of solving it. manning indiscriminately opened top secret files and sent them out to cyberspace without any ameliorative purpose. Trying to exact revenge against those who treated you poorly by airing dirty laundry is not whistleblowing.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-27 23:39:53 Reply

At 4/27/12 11:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I would have to distinguish Manning from regular whistleblowing.

A regular whistleblower lets out a specific problem to the people who can solve it for the purpose of solving it. manning indiscriminately opened top secret files and sent them out to cyberspace without any ameliorative purpose. Trying to exact revenge against those who treated you poorly by airing dirty laundry is not whistleblowing.

You used Manning yourself as an example of this type of "whistleblowing" and all I said was that what Angry-Hatter was calling whistleblowing others call treason.

i.e. hacking or accessing systems for the purpose of misappropriating it (AKA "Manninging")

Based on that I would expect you to agree with my previous statement, at least to some extent.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-28 00:49:22 Reply

At 4/27/12 10:12 PM, djack wrote: Of course not. That's why Manning continued on with his life and experienced no change. Oh wait, Manning was charged with treason and there's a large portion or the U.S. population that agrees that Manning's actions were treasonous.

I feel no need to dredge up the topic of Bradley Manning and his actions in this thread since there is already a thread on that subject on this forum. I suggest you make a post in that thread if you want to continue that particular discussion.

This law in question seems to define the "theft" or "misappropriation" of any government owned information as a threat to cyber security. So, hypothetically, if there was a document in the possession of the US government which detailed illegal activities perpetrated by the US government in one way or another, would it be unlawful (even treasonous) for someone with access to this document to take it (or copy it) and release it to the public?

Like Camaro said, a company can share any information that they've been permitted to share. Even if that weren't true, point out what section of the law changes that. There's been nothing in what was posted here that validates your concern.

The very fact that this law allows companies to share private user information with the Federal government (as well as other companies) without a warrant, as long as they claim that the information is relevant to "national security", pretty much makes it legal for them to share any information they please. Additionally, with the lack of oversight over this sharing (only one annual review conducted by the inspector general of the intelligence community), as well as the provisions providing protection from lawsuits to the companies engaging in this sharing of information, the stage is set for all kinds inappropriate applications of this law.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Cispa Bill Passed In The House... 2012-04-28 01:11:07 Reply

At 4/28/12 12:49 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: The very fact that this law allows companies to share private user information with the Federal government (as well as other companies) without a warrant, as long as they claim that the information is relevant to "national security", pretty much makes it legal for them to share any information they please.

There is still the good faith requirement. Recklessness and such could easily be shown to not be good faith. Deliberately providing information that is questionable is clearly a violation of good faith.

It's not the biggest bar, but it is enough to cover the lazy and the downright bad cases.

as well as the provisions providing protection from lawsuits to the companies engaging in this sharing of information, the stage is set for all kinds inappropriate applications of this law.

Don't confuse protection from lawsuits with protection from liability. Protection from lawsuits subjects claims to dismissal. This means the case is over before any fact finding whatsoever. Protection from liability (the language used in CISPA) requires a full trial. What it does is give the defendant immunity if the finder of fact finds the requisite facts to be true. In this case that would a jury would have to find that the private party, in good faith, in compliance with whatever other privacy issues imposed upon it by itself and the governments, providing information related to national security or the various named missapropriations, in order to absolve the defendant of liability. Miss out on any of those and the defendant is subject to full liability.