AwayGoalsRule Football Forum

The Internet's Finest Football Forum

Get moneyback specials on your football betting at PaddyPower


It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:19 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:09 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
Image

Want to help protest?

Outside the US:
Click The Link...https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9137


https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/act ... n_KEY=9137

Inside the US:
Click The Link...https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9048


https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/act ... n_KEY=9048

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA, Resurrection Of Cybersecurity Bill
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:10 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
Stop CISPA: A Week of Action to Oppose Broad Cybersecurity Legislation



A coalition of Internet advocacy organizations and individuals are launching a week of action to combat the CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.

Viewing CISPA as one of the greatest threats to Internet users since SOPA, the coalition intends to leverage popular outrage to oppose the dangerously broad cybersecurity bill.

The objectionable provisions of CISPA include:

Eviscerating existing privacy laws by giving overly broad legal immunity to companies who share users' private information, including the content of communications, with the government.

Authorizing companies to disclose users' data directly to the NSA, a military agency that operates secretly and without public accountability.

Broad definitions that allow users' sensitive personal information to be used for a range of purposes, including for "national security," not just computer and network security.


The coalition believes that legislation intended to enhance our computer and network security must not sacrifice long-standing civil liberties and protections.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA, Resurrection Of Cybersecurity Bill
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:22 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
CISPA is Back: FAQ on What it is and Why it's Still Dangerous



The privacy-invasive bill known as CISPA—the so-called “cybersecurity” bill—was reintroduced in February 2013. Just like last year, the bill has stirred a tremendous amount of grassroots activism because it carves a loophole in all known privacy laws and grants legal immunity for companies to share your private information. EFF has compiled an FAQ detailing how the bill's major provisions work and how they endanger all Internet users' privacy. Please join us in speaking out against CISPA by contacting Congress now.


What is “CISPA”?

CISPA stands for The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a network and Internet security bill written by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) (H.R. 624). The bill purports to allow companies and the federal government to share information to prevent or defend against network and other Internet attacks. However, the bill grants broad new powers, allowing companies to identify and obtain “threat information” by looking at your private information. It is written so broadly that it allows companies to hand over large swaths of personal information to the government with no judicial oversight—effectively creating a “cybersecurity” loophole in all existing privacy laws.

Under CISPA, what can a private company do?

Under CISPA, any company can “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property” of the company, and then share that information with third parties, including the government, so long as it is for “cybersecurity purposes.” Whenever these prerequisites are met, CISPA is written broadly enough to permit your communications service providers to share your emails and text messages with the government, or your cloud storage company could share your stored files.

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.

Does CISPA do enough to prevent abuse of the law for copyright enforcement?

No. Early versions of CISPA included language that specifically mentioned intellectual property, but that was taken out after significant outcry from the Internet community that the language could be used as a copyright enforcement bill similar to SOPA. (Great job, Internet community!)

CISPA’s definition of "cyber threat information" includes information directly pertaining to a threat to "confidentiality." But what does confidentiality mean? The definition encompasses measures designed for preserving "authorized restrictions on access," including means for protecting "proprietary information." "Proprietary information" is not defined, and could be read to include copyrighted information. For example, one type of restriction on access that is designed to protect proprietary information is digital rights management (DRM).

Legitimate security researchers have routinely bypassed restrictions on proprietary information in order to research and publish information pertaining to vulnerabilities. Vulnerability research should not be considered a cyber threat, and the movie and music industry should not be given immunity for "decisions based on" this information, good faith or not.

What triggers these new corporate powers?

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).

Under CISPA, what can I do if a company improperly hands over private information to the government?

Almost nothing. Even if the company violates your privacy beyond what CISPA would permit, the government does not have to notify the user whose information was improperly handed over—the government only notifies the company.

CISPA provides legal immunity to a company for many actions done to or with your private information, as long as the company acted in "good faith." This is an extremely powerful immunity, because it is quite hard to show that a company did not act in good faith. These liability protections can cover actions the company uses to identify and obtain threat information and the subsequent sharing of that information with others—including the government. The immunity also covers "decisions made based on cyber threat information," a dangerously vague provision that has never been defined.

Do companies need to share users' personally identifying information (PII) to enhance information security?

No. At a recent hearing on CISPA, Governor John Engler, President of the Business Roundtable, and Paul Smocer, President of BITS, the technology policy division of the financial industry group called the Financial Services Roundtable, testified in support of the bill. Smocer admitted that "there is very little private data, PII, being exchanged today in the threat information world," and that it would "not be an issue" to remove personally identifiable information before sharing. CISPA, however, authorizes sharing PII, and leaves redaction to the companies' discretion.

The most useful threat information that should be shared includes previously unknown software and network vulnerabilities, malware signatures, and other technical characteristics that identify an attack or its methodology—all of which can be shared without PII. 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. Mandiant's recent report on Chinese hacking is just one of many instances where companies have shared a great deal of useful threat information without authority beyond what is granted to them by current law.

Can a company hack a perceived threat under CISPA ("hack back")?

CISPA provides companies with immunity "for decisions made based on cyber threat information" as long as they are acting in good faith. But CISPA doesn’t define “decisions made.” Aggressive companies could interpret this immunity to cover "defensive"—and what some would consider offensive—countermeasures like DDOSing suspected intruders, third parties, or even innocent users. Private defense contractors have already advocated for this power. These actions should not be allowed by such expansive wording. It leaves the bill ripe for abuse.

What is a "cybersecurity system"?

The bill's definition of "cybersecurity system" is circular. It defines a "cybersecurity system" as "a system designed or employed" to protect against, among others, vulnerabilities or threats. The language is not limited to network security software or intrusion detection systems, and is so poorly written that any "system" involving a tangible item could be considered a "cybersecurity system."

In practical terms, it’s unclear what is exactly covered by such a "system." Does it include port-scanning or other basic defensive software tools or could it mean more aggressive offensive countermeasures? The drafters of this legislation leave it unclear whether the term "cybersecurity system" is trying to refer to a computer, a network of computers, security software, or something else entirely.

This definition is critical to understanding the bill. The information that a company can “identify or obtain” is limited by the term, which, in turn, limits what the company can share with the government. The definition is yet another reason why CISPA is dangerously vague.

What government agencies can look at my private information?

Under CISPA, companies can hand “cyber threat information” to any government agency with or without limitations on what agency can receive the information. Generally, the information will be given to a central hub in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But once it’s in DHS’s hands, the bill says that DHS can then hand the information to other agencies, including the National Security Agency.

Can the government use my private information for other purposes besides “cybersecurity” once it has it?

Yes. 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:

Quote:
(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.


This broad definition gives the government too much power to use private information without safeguards.

What can I do to stop the government from misusing my private information?

CISPA does allow users to sue the government if it intentionally or willfully uses or retains their information for purposes other than what is permitted by the law. But any such lawsuit will be difficult to bring because it’s not at all clear how an individual would know of such misuse. An individual could not even use transparency laws, like FOIA, to find out, because the information shared is exempt from disclosure.

Isn't it important to protect computer systems and networks?

Absolutely. Strong information security is critical to privacy and civil liberties, and can protect users and companies from the activities of malicious actors, be they authoritarian regimes or common criminals. Everyday, millions of ordinary users rely upon the information security of software vendors and online service providers to keep their personal information private and secure, to conduct transactions, and to express their ideas and beliefs.

CISPA, however, only addresses a small piece of the information security puzzle: sharing threat information. It does nothing to, for example, encourage stronger passphrases, promote two-factor authentication, or educate users on detecting and avoiding social engineering attacks, which is the cause of a majority of attacks on corporations. CISPA also does not address promoting more security research, more responsible disclosure or faster patches to known vulnerabilities, nor fixing the troublesome Certificate Authority system.

Who is supporting this legislation?

Facebook and other social companies have NOT endorsed this version of CISPA, but have backed previous iterations of this legislation because companies believe they need the legislation to receive information about network security threats from the government. Right now mostly telecommunications like USTelecom, AT&T, and Verizon support the bill. A full list can be found here.

What can companies do to show they will stand by their users?

Companies can pledge not to provide sensitive private information about their users to the government without legal process.

Facebook released a statement about last year’s version of CISPA saying that it is concerned about users’ privacy rights and that the provision allowing them to hand user information to the government “is unrelated to the things we liked about [CISPA] in the first place.” As we explained in our analysis of Facebook’s response: the “stated goal of Facebook—namely, for companies to receive data about network and other Internet threats from the government—does not necessitate any of the CISPA provisions that allow companies to routinely monitor private communications and share personal user data gleaned from those communications with the government.”

Companies should also join users in opposing this bill by issuing public statements prior to the hearing this Spring.

What can I do to stop this bill?

It’s vital that concerned Internet users tell Congress to stop this bill. Use EFF's action center to send an email to your Congress member urging them to oppose this bill. Click here to email Congress.

And once you’ve done that, please spread the word. Tweet this message or post it to your social networking profiles:

Quote:
Fight with us against the Internet's latest threat, #CISPA. Let's stop this terrible bill. https://eff.org/r.2bJf via @eff #CISPAalert


Note: Domain name registrar Namecheap is helping to raise awareness about CISPA by donating $1 to EFF for every tweet using the hashtag #CISPAAlert. If you're a company that would like to run a similar awareness-raising campaign, let us know by emailing rainey@eff.org

Call on Congress to back off of any cybersnooping legislation that sacrifices the civil liberties of Internet users.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA, Resurrection Of Cybersecurity Bill
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:25 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
Web Giants Fight CISPA, Push Back Against Resurrection Of Cybersecurity Bill

Gerry Smith - HuffingtonPost


Thousands of websites, including Craigslist and Reddit, demonstrated their opposition this week to a controversial cybersecurity bill, arguing the measure fails to protect the privacy of Internet users.

But as Internet activists wage an online battle against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, the bill's chances of passing Congress the second time around remain uncertain, and some experts question whether CISPA goes far enough to protect the country from a potentially crippling cyberattack.

The websites opposing the bill broadcast an "action tool" on their sites Tuesday that allows users to send an automated message to their representatives in Congress. “CISPA is Back. This bill sacrifices privacy without improving security. We deserve both," the message says. Craigslist featured a link on its site that said: "Pro Privacy? Oppose CISPA."

The effort is being promoted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Internet Defense League, an organization of Internet activists who led an online outcry last year that led to the defeat of anti-piracy legislation known as SOPA. The organizers said more than 30,000 websites participated Tuesday in the online protest.

The action marked the latest push by activists to rally public opposition to the bill, which was re-introduced in February by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) after it failed to pass Congress last year.

Last month, activists submitted 300,000 online signatures via email to the House Intelligence Committee, which is debating the legislation. This month, a petition urging the Obama Administration to prevent the bill from becoming law reached 100,000 signatures -- the necessary threshold to elicit a response from the White House.

The legislation would give businesses and the federal government legal protection to share data on cyber threats with each other in order to enhance the nation's cybersecurity. President Obama and many experts have warned that Congress needs to pass a cybersecurity bill because the nation's most vital computer systems are increasingly vulnerable to a cyberattack that could lead to severe economic loss, sustained blackouts or mass casualties.

But privacy and civil liberties groups oppose the House bill, arguing its definition of what data can be shared with the government is overly broad and fails to protect Internet users' privacy.

"The bill would allow companies to share private user information with the government in ways that are currently illegal, and provide legal immunity to companies that share information for vaguely defined 'national security' purposes," the Internet Defense League said in a statement Tuesday.

However, James Lewis, a senior fellow and director of technology policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said such arguments are misleading. Under the current legislation, the government and companies would not share with each other the content of private emails, he said. Instead, a machine would search Internet traffic for patterns of "ones and zeros" in computer code that would signal a potential cyberattack, Lewis said.

House lawmakers are expected to vote on the bill in April. Several tech and telecom companies are backing the legislation, including AT&T, Verizon, Facebook and Microsoft.

But even if the House passes the legislation, it remains unclear how the Senate and White House will respond. Last year, the Senate never voted on the House bill. Instead, senators tried to pass comprehensive legislation known as the Cybersecurity Act of 2012.

That bill failed amid differences over how to enforce security benchmarks for companies that operate critical infrastructure, such as the power grid or water treatment plants.

Obama signed an executive order last month to protect government and businesses from what he called "the rapidly growing threat from cyberattacks." But senior administration officials have said the executive order was a "down payment" on what they hope will be congressional action this year.

Last year, the White House threatened to veto the House bill over privacy concerns, but the president has not made the same threat so far this year.

Even if the bill becomes law, it only fixes part of the problem, according to Lewis. About 25 percent of cyberattacks have never been seen before, meaning the information that's being shared between companies and the government may not prevent an attack, he said.

"It's like saying four people are trying to break into your house and I'll tell you about three of them," he said.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA, Resurrection Of Cybersecurity Bill
PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:22 pm 
Offline
AGR Poster Of The Year
AGR Poster Of The Year
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:08 pm
Posts: 3870
Location: Whitehall, PA USA
Look first let me be clear I'm very much against CISPA. That said we've all become "big brother", George Orwell expected it to come from governments putting camera everywhere. However it's all of us taking and posting photos all over the Internet, disseminating all of our information. The government only is trying to unlock the door.

Again I really hope this doesn't pass


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA, Resurrection Of Cybersecurity Bill
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:05 am 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
CISPA sponsor tweets, then deletes, link to support's financial incentives


Image
Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers. (AFP Photo / Mandel Ngan)



Michigan Congressman Mike Rogers, a co-sponsor of the controversial online security bill CISPA, deleted a post from his official Twitter account linking to a website outlining how much funding each US politician has received from pro-CISPA lobby groups.

Rogers has been a vocal supporter of the Cyber Intelligence Security Protection Act (CISPA), which critics say will effectively eliminate privacy on the Internet under the guise of enhancing cybersecurity.

The congressman retweeted a message from MapLight, an organization billing itself as a “nonpartisan research organization that reveals money’s influence on politics,” that linked to an article revealing that the House Intelligence Committee - which Rogers currently chairs - “received 15 times more from pro-CISPA groups than anti-CISPA groups.” The tweet was preserved on Politwoops, a website that logs deleted messages from politicians.

According to the MapLight article, Rogers has been on the receiving end of donations totaling $214,750 from interest groups backing CISPA. He deleted the retweet 23 minutes after posting it.

It only gets worse for the congressman, though, as digital activists made him an online punchline on Friday for his frequent use of the Twitter hashtag #CISPAalert. Most likely unknown to Rogers was the fact that each time the phrase is included in a tweet, the domain registrar Namecheap donates one dollar to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group dedicated to stopping the legislation. :snigger:

CISPA has come under fire from privacy advocates as well as Internet giants including Craigslist and Reddit for the powers it would provide government officials and corporations. The bill would allow companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Verizon and many others to share information about web users without any legal obstruction when their networks are under attack. The government could then prosecute individuals based on the personal information passed on.

Critics of the bill have complained that its broad language would virtually legalize surveillance, while proponents have deemed it necessary in the battle to stop hackers. The legislation failed to pass through Congress last year but will be voted on in April.

“The bill would allow companies to share private user information with the government in ways that are currently illegal, and provide legal immunity to companies that share information for vaguely defined ‘national security’ purposes,” said the Internet Defense League in a Tuesday statement.

Earlier this week Martin Libicki, a senior management scientist at the RAND Corporation, warned the House Homeland Security Committee to be wary of the line between realistic projections regarding cybersecurity and fear-mongering.

“The more emphasis on the pain from a cyberattack, the greater the temptation to others to induce such pain — either to put fear into this country or goad it into a reaction that rebounds to their benefit,” he said. “Conversely, fostering the impression that a great country can bear the pain of cyberattacks, keep calm and carry on reduces such temptation.”

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA, Resurrection Of Cybersecurity Bill
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:27 am 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
The James wrote:
Look first let me be clear I'm very much against CISPA. That said we've all become "big brother", George Orwell expected it to come from governments putting camera everywhere. However it's all of us taking and posting photos all over the Internet, disseminating all of our information. The government only is trying to unlock the door.

Again I really hope this doesn't pass



Well it looks like the politicians are working for the highest bidder... the problem is that it's just not us, the people, who are paying the most. :hmm:

Know what you mean about us all becoming big brother, it's like they've collectively been trained en-mass to just give all their personal info away because it's trendy/what others do/FaceTw@t asked them to. :blink: Too many years training having store 'loyalty' cards getting your data for pennies methinks, so much so that people no longer bother to guard their data. I find it baffling tbh.

But not I, you won't find any profiles stuffed full of my personal info on any websites, not even this one. And the data that is collected by this site, EG IP and email addresses etc. isn't used for anything other than bulk email wishing members a happy Christmas/informing them of new stuff and such... and even then it's pretty rare you'll find an email from AGR in your inbox. Plus, that data never leaves the site, there are no advertisers plugged in harvest anything and nobody ever sees it. And I think that's how it should be. I simply don't believe that people come to websites to give their data away or have it taken from them.

*sighs* But it seems the politicians don't agree. Again. :rolleyes:

IMHO the governments seem more than a little jealous of the enormous data collected by various massive corporations and want a taste for themselves so badly that they're trying to simply take it. Again.

It's scary stuff. We've seen time and again how untrustworthy the politicians are, the bribes they take and u-turns they perform and all the other dodgy stuff they get caught doing so the very last thing you'd want is these criminals getting hold of every detail about you.

I completely agree with you James. Let's just hope people realise what this entails and are on guard every time the government tries to resurrect this idea under whatever guise this time.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:35 am 
Offline
AGR Poster Of The Year
AGR Poster Of The Year
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:08 pm
Posts: 3870
Location: Whitehall, PA USA
I think the people who are most at risk here are people my parents age that join FB or instagram or whatever so they can see pictures of the grandchildren. I feel like the generation who grew up since the Internet has been a "thing" know the score pretty well on this issue. But the older generation who was taught how to use the Internet by their kids I always feel are much more vulnerable on the Internet. You don't read too many stories of 26 year olds sending $10,000 to an African king. :rolleyes: I admittedly have a FB page, that I'm sure I don't do the best job keeping as private as you can keep them on their, but I also don't have much personal info on there, my phone numbers there which is public record, my email address what have you, but you can't pull much off there that matters. I've hesitate now posting pictures of my daughter but that has less to do with CISPA and more to do with personal choice.

And the day politicians aren't in it for the money, that's the day it's news


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:41 am 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
You're absolutely right. Your average grandparents have no concept of what really happens.

I'm not so sure that all the net generation are that clued up. Geeks know, and friends of geeks, but how much of say, Facebook's privacy policy of what Google do with your personal data make the mainstream media? Not much, I'd bet.

You wouldn't dare post pictures of your family with the T&C that exist that give these companies rights to sell, sub-licence it to others, etc. for their commercial gain. Remember that family who fell foul of Flikr? Their daughter's photo was used on billboards for Virgin Mobile without their consent or knowledge - until they saw the billboards they had no idea! But there was nothing they could do, they'd legally given their rights to the picture away just by uploading it. Might be just as well emailing those photographs to your loved ones if you don't want to give away your family album. While today's kids are much more net savvy in general, I think it goes over the head of a lot of the non-technical people, who are too used to seeing massive EULAs that they accept but don't actually read. :rolleyes:

CISPA is similar, only everybody can share everything even in circumstances that are currently illegal. It's not a good step, and totally unnecessary. Giving corporations any kind of immunity is never wise, especially at the public's expense. :thumbdown:

You're right about the politicians too. About time we had some decent ones... there really should be a "none of these people" option on voting papers, which, if it got the majority should force the people applying for election to stand aside and let some different - hopefully better - people to apply to see if they meet the public's approval. But that's another debate entirely.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:50 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:55 pm
Posts: 11695
Highscores: 1
conscience wrote:
While today's kids are much more net savvy in general, I think it goes over the head of a lot of the non-technical people, who are too used to seeing massive EULAs that they accept but don't actually read. :rolleyes:


Who actually reads those things? They just get in the way between buying a game and playing the game :D

_________________
idontfeardeath wrote:
Spawny wrote:
But James and Pak both said they were voting JSP


:doh:

You know what Paks like. He's probably voted JSP for woman of the year or something.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:19 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
Spawny wrote:
Who actually reads those things? They just get in the way between buying a game and playing the game :D


Oh I dunno, anyone who doesn't want their 'private' data being sold, traded and exploited for financial gain? Or family photo album used in corporate advertising campaigns? Or giving up all legal rights to their creative works? :doh: :lol:

People really should read 'em, but I can see why they don't. Even if they did, by the time they get to page 75 they've probably forgotten the first bit. :yawn:

Generally, whenever and wherever you find a massive EULA (or anything else) written at length with loads of long words and complex legal jargon and many pages of waffle there's likely something being hidden from you that's not in your best interests.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:53 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:55 pm
Posts: 11695
Highscores: 1
conscience wrote:
Spawny wrote:
Who actually reads those things? They just get in the way between buying a game and playing the game :D


Oh I dunno, anyone who doesn't want their 'private' data being sold, traded and exploited for financial gain? Or family photo album used in corporate advertising campaigns? Or giving up all legal rights to their creative works? :doh: :lol:

People really should read 'em, but I can see why they don't. Even if they did, by the time they get to page 75 they've probably forgotten the first bit. :yawn:

Generally, whenever and wherever you find a massive EULA (or anything else) written at length with loads of long words and complex legal jargon and many pages of waffle there's likely something being hidden from you that's not in your best interests.

So... nobody then.

This is the thing, it's a case of "baffle them with bull$h!t". If EULAs were simplified then it would be a huge benefit to the consumer, but as it is you need a law degree to make sense of it.

_________________
idontfeardeath wrote:
Spawny wrote:
But James and Pak both said they were voting JSP


:doh:

You know what Paks like. He's probably voted JSP for woman of the year or something.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:41 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
Spawny wrote:
So... nobody then.

This is the thing, it's a case of "baffle them with bull$h!t". If EULAs were simplified then it would be a huge benefit to the consumer, but as it is you need a law degree to make sense of it.


There's bound to be somebody we'd vote for eventually. Someone who wasn't affiliated with the three major parties would be nice. But I won't hold my breath.

IF EULAs were simplified almost nobody would click next/I agree! They'd shake their heads instead and think instead - you cheeky b**tards!

Adobe demands 7,000 years a day from humankind

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:40 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
US House of Representatives passes CISPA by 288-127

Co-sponsor dismisses opponents as '14 year-olds tweeting'


By Iain Thomson • The Register




The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) has been approved by the US House of Representatives, despite a last-minute gaffe from its co-sponsor.

#CISPA passed the House with a decisive bipartisan vote of 288-127 with 92 Democrats supporting. This is a good day for Americans.
— Dutch Ruppersberger (@Call_Me_Dutch) April 18, 2013


The 288-127 vote saw an increased majority from CISPA's first passage last April, with a broadly bipartisan turnout. CISPA was filibustered in the Senate but resurrected this year by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and "Dutch" Ruppersberger, a Maryland democrat whose congressional district covers the home of the NSA in Fort Meade.

The legislation sets up as framework for federal government agencies to share information on security threats with private companies in order to help protect their systems. In return, private companies can choose to hand over user information (anonymized or not) to the government for "cybersecurity purposes" with full legal indemnity, whatever their terms and conditions say.

"CISPA is a poorly drafted bill that would provide a gaping exception to bedrock privacy law," EFF senior staff attorney Kurt Opsahl said in a statement. "While we all agree that our nation needs to address pressing Internet security issues, this bill sacrifices online privacy while failing to take common-sense steps to improve security."

Despite opposition, however, the bill looked to be an increasingly done deal as the vote approached. On Monday, 36 new congressional co-sponsors decided to add official support, and IBM said that it had flown in lobbying muscle to help push for CISPA.

"We're going to put our shoe leather where our mouth is," Chris Padilla, vice president of governmental affairs at IBM, told The Hill. "The message we're going to give [lawmakers] is going to be a very simple, clear message: support the passage of CISPA."

The technology industry broadly approves of CISPA, in that it might do some good and limits their liability, just in case. Facebook has been a vocal supporter, saying that the bill clarifies a lot of things and puts it under no onus to share its user's data with the government if it doesn’t want to. Of course, if it changes that view, it's unlikely the customers would be able to find out about it.

During the debate, Representative Rogers said that Silicon Valley CEOs supported him and opponents of were "people on the internet, a 14 year-old tweeter in the basement," just like his nephew who gave him aggravation for sponsoring the bill.



"Once you understand the threat, and you understand how the mechanics of it works, and you understand that people are not monitoring the content of your emails, most people go 'Got it, I'm in'," he said.

This prompted a flood of angry tweets from the vast majority of CISPA opponents who are over 14, live successful lives (many in the fields of security, computing and law), but who presumably don't count.

CISPA isn't in force yet. The Senate still has to pass legislation, and shows no sign of doing so. Even then, the President has sort-of threatened to veto the legislation as it stands.

"The Administration recognizes and appreciates that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) adopted several amendments to H.R. 624 in an effort to incorporate the Administration's important substantive concerns," the White House said in a statement.

"However, the Administration still seeks additional improvements and if the bill, as currently crafted, were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

We shall see if he takes that advice.

Bootnote

Calling opponents names is an increasingly essential part of politics in America these days. To see how politicians can use the rapier rather than the cudgel in debate El Reg suggests checking out Wednesday's performance by New Zealand MP Maurice Williamson, a man who describes C++ coding as just below sex in terms of pleasure.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Web Giants Fight CISPA... should YOU?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:04 pm 
Offline
General
General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 17205
Location: Over there.
Highscores: 2
White House threatens to veto redrafted Cyber Intelligence act

Still too evil, insist presidential viziers


By Brid-Aine Parnell • The Register



The White House has threatened to veto the re-animated Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) over privacy concerns.

It's deja vu all over again, as President Barack Obama's administration said that the bill needed to better protect civilians' privacy and reduce the protection from liability the new legislation would extend to companies.

"The Administration still seeks additional improvements and if the bill, as currently crafted, were presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill," the White House said in a statement.

The act is attempting to grease the wheels for sharing of cybersecurity information between private firms and different government bodies, but the new bill doesn't force companies to make an effort to remove irrelevant personal information when they pass data along, according to the White House.

In order to share potentially personal information, companies need some protection from privacy legislation and prosecution over private data, but the administration said the bill's current liability limitations were too broad.

The House of Representatives is expected to vote on CISPA later this week.

To try to push the bill through on the second pass, the Intelligence Committee has changed around a few things, including stopping firms from using information for anything other than cybersecurity and adding civil liberties oversight.

The act got cleared by the House last year in its original form, but was then scuppered by a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

_________________
A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

Image
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron