Re: Supporters of CISPA are
This will pass without any problems so soon after the tragic event in Boston.
Who won't vote for a bill with the word 'security' in it's title now???
The US House of Representatives has scheduled to vote on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) for Wednesday or Thursday, and the pro and anti camps are marshaling their forces to try and sway the result. #CISPA slated for House Floor on Wed & Thurs (April 17 & 18) — House Intel Comm (@HouseIntelComm) …
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Why is it that when the Republicans blocked this, everyone was commenting on the article talking about how evil, evil, evil the Republicans were for it - but now CISPA has apparently become the devil? The change between the comments on this page and on http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/02/senate_blocks_cybersecurity_bill/ is fascinating...
You have a point here. To be fair it has to be said the the article back then did not mention the privacy implications of the bill at all. The article concentrates rather on how various amendmends that are irrelevant to the case are being pushed around.
A good example how the tone of the article can influence the readers.
Well said - I remember feeling that at the time. It was focused on the politics and that coloured the responses.
A further factor, I think, was that by that time the whole subject had been done to death and people were just tired of banging on about the evils of the thing. I know I am - I can't even be arsed to read up on what the latest version contains.
How quickly the USA forget some of their heroes:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
--- Benjamin Franklin
(Yes, yes, I know you may not agree with the exact wording of the quote. But so far as I know *no-one* is sure of the original wording and it comes in many flavours. But they're all attributed to Ol' Ben.)
There should be a requirement on any legislation of this nature for the government and companies to disclose to those whose data has been shared, within a specified time period, exactly what information was passed and to whom.
Part of the problem with laws of this nature is that we have no idea of how much they are used or abused, so having to admit it either after prosecution or after two years if there has not been prosecution, might make the government think more carefully about how and when it asks for information.
Of course, none of the above detracts from the fact that it's bad legislation to start with, but at least it may provide the public with evidence as to exactly how bad it is.
...despicable bombing in Boston that killed an 8 year old child, an adult and blew off the legs and arms of many others while injuring 140 additional innocent people, sharing information on all criminal activities including hacking which is costly and which can have serious consequences for those hacked or personal data stolen, seems like a reasonable approach to me.
It's attitudes like this that require the power mongers to put someones children at risk each time they want to make a power grab.
We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!
Yes, by all means, let's pass yet more privacy-infringing legislation because 3 people died in a horrible bombing in Boston. Never mind that CISPA probably wouldn't have detected the perpetrator unless he is going around "liking" Bob's Pressure Cooker Bomb Emporium while at the same time bashing the Boston Marathon on Facebook, or sharing his bomb-making plans on Dropbox or Gmail.
And how many people died in the U.S. that same day due to traffic accidents/food poisoning/hospital infections/drug overdoses/accidental electrocutions? More in each of those areas than died in Boston, I would bet. Should we run out and pass new legislation in all those areas?
Tragedies do happen in life. We can't prevent them all. What we can do is make rational considered decisions about what traffic safety/cybersecurity/food safety/consumer product safety should look like while at the same time not loading up society under an unworkable amount of regulations.
conspiracy theorists could well link the Boston Marathon bombing with this vote, claiming that it was rather convenient timing.
They would say that all it requires is for someone to make some statement during the debate that it may have been possible to stop that event before it happened if only it had been easier to see the terrorists activity online, and the supporters will win some more votes.
Yes, yes. I know that this is cyber-security bill, but after the Homeland Security Bill, it's clear that American politics seems to react in knee-jerk ways to perceived threats using whatever tools appear to be available.
BTW. I am not making any apologies for the bombing. It was a cowardly act, designed to hurt the largest number of people who were least able to protect themselves, and ended up hurting the people running for charity. Despicable, but guaranteed to generate a huge public outcry. Ideal to polarise the vote.
Yeah, but it doesn't go far enough. Let's all abandon our clothes (after all, what are you hiding under them?) and only build walls out of glass. Hell, why we are at it, let's just make ANY email or text message program BCC a copy straight to our various governments and our mothers, and make it mandatory. All containers and bags should be see-through, and we should all have to carry around one of those duck-bill examination tools, in case someone might want to check inside our ass. I feel safer already.
But, let's make sure that laws are still hashed out in closed sessions, I mean we have t o have some sort of privacy, for our leaders.
//giant blaring sarcasm
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021