CISPA

[MrDanceWithLance]

We have all heard of SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. Now guys, it appears as if we have a new online piracy bill joining those three: CISPA. CISPA is a new American bill that would obliterate online privacy, give the military crazy new abilities to spy on the Internet, and potentially let ISPs block sites and cut off users accused of piracy.

 

So guys, what are your views on this new proposed internet bill?

 

[Chunkyman]

I despise almost any attempts to regulate the internet, so I'm naturally against this. The internet is a truly wonderful place where ideas and products can be exchanged with minimal interference and excellent results. The internet is one of the last places that is free from useless and destructive government bureaucracies, and I want it to stay that way.

 

Free market internet FTW!

[Slamman]

There have to be some laws, and I hear there is a BIG SWITCH if some terrorist were to use the WWW to try and wreak havok. We've seen what happens here when you let people do what they want, it's not good! hahaha

 

I don't know the details other then I last read that the outcry did effect a bit of a backup on proceeding with SOPA, etc. But have you noticed more videos getting by to YouTube then before? I heard Google is under fire for a lax approach to clamping down, more recently

Edited April 13, 2012 by Slamman

[lil weasel]

so... A new 'name' the same stuff. The same arguments pro/con.

New news is old news.

[jackass2009]

Another one? f*ck all.

[Mr.Funny12]

Why are they trying so hard for this? They see what the people want and keep comming back with the same thing in a different name.

 

 

[Toup]

Same sh*t, different name.

[GTA_stu]

From what I've read it seems its main purpose is more focused around cyber security than necesarily being used to prevent or fight piracy.

[sivispacem]

 

Same sh*t, different name.

Really sort of not.

 

I find it difficult to disagree with CISPA in principal and scope. It doesn't propose any measures which decrease internet freedoms or limit public use of the internet; as far as I can tell, it's additional intelligence-gathering powers which would operate inside a framework which already exists (National Security Act 1947). In fact, most of the discussion I've seen on the issue is related to the gathering of intelligence on individuals who are involved in illegal hacking or targeted attacks on companies and nations, both internally and externally. Yes, Avaaz and the like have some fears that the same powers could be used to target people involved in piracy, but the issue with legislation like this is that it must be quite broad to encompass a massive spectrum of potential threats. I'm sure more can be done to demonstrate that people who file share illegally are not the primary target of this legislation, though much has already been done to show that. I mean, it's proposed as an alteration to the National Security Act and seeks to bring responding to cyber threats onto the statute books- which, legally in the US, there's no collective inter-agency response to as of yet.

 

Lets have a look at what it determines a "threat"

 

 

...efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network...theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

Most rational people would struggle to see and issue there.

 

Just look at the advocate groups involved in supporting this bill in comparison to SOPA. It's not big copyright-dependent media conglomerates, it's technology providers, security companies and the financial services industry. They've been the targets of active cyber attack, not mass scale copyright fraud. So explain exactly what incentive they would have in implementing a law dedicated to counter-piracy intelligence gathering when that's not the biggest threat to these companies and their data?

[GTA_stu]

Exactly sivis. I bet most people complaining about how it's the next step in their freedoms being taken away haven't even actually bothered to read what's in the bill. They just listen to the sensationalists, who themselves probably heard it from someone else.

[Creed Bratton]

@Sivispacem: that part can be interpreted in so many ways. And knowing politicians who belong to the corporations you can bet it won't be interpreted in your favor. And it's obviously another effort to bring corporations and the government even closer together. Like bringing politicians wasn't enough, now they wanna be joined like Siamese twins. Which is why they will be in favor of this act. All of them. Even the ones that opposed SOPA, PIPA and ACTA. The bill still attacks constitutional rights.

 

And who's gonna decide what exactly effort to degrade and disrupt means? It will mean whatever those rich motherf*ckers want it to mean. It's a perfect way to shut down any site you don't like, and monitor anyone they believe is conducting some "suspicious" activity. You're naive if you think this law won't be misused by both the governments and big corporations.

Wake the f*ck up. There is no democracy.

[sivispacem]

 

And who's gonna decide what exactly effort to degrade and disrupt means?

I'm short on time and will add to this, but I just wanted to point out that these are technical terms (part of the D5E group of attack vectors) and not subject to interpretation. They have accepted meanings and scope- "degradation" is the intentional damaging and/or destruction of data on a network or system an individual is not legally permitted to access, and "disruption" is a direct attack on a network or system designed to prevent it from effectively performing it's assigned role. For instance, a DDoS attack by Anonymous is an example of "disruption" whereas the destruction of data on a company's main server by a disgruntled employee is "degradation". In addition to this, there are three other D's (denial and deceit/deception depending on who you ask) and E (exploitation)- and these different attack vectors cover all potential cyber attacks by all actors.

[Toup]

 

Same sh*t, different name.

Really sort of not.

 

 

Okay, but what I meant was that I do not really care about this since my brain was bombarded for 1 month about SOPA ACTA and PIPA. It is funny that everyone goes apesh*t when the government messes with the internet, but when there is actually a serious problem an or injustice, almost everybody ignores it.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Toup

[acmilano]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/0...tutional-rights

 

 

"It's a completely different issue [than SOPA]," says Jim Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "This is about government monitoring. [sOPA] is about the First amendment, [CISPA] is about the Fourth, but they both take a legitimate problem and try to tackle it with an overbroad solution."

 

CISPA's main goal, according to sponsoring Reps. Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, is as follows: Foreign governments and independent hackers are stealing information from American corporations all the time, costing the companies billions of dollars. The government knows how to stop these attacks and wants to help out private companies, but the current law doesn't allow them to share classified information with private companies. CISPA would open that pipeline, but it would be a two way street—the way the bill is written, companies can share users' information with the government if they sense a "cyber threat."

 

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Rogers and Ruppersberger repeatedly said that companies wouldn't be required to share information with the federal government.

 

"The government cannot require companies to give the government E-mails and that type of information, and it is voluntary," Ruppersberger said. "This is not surveillance. Companies can give back information about an attack as it pertains to a threat or vulnerability of a system or a network, but only as it relates to national security."

 

[Four Things Americans Have Learned From the SOPA Fight]

 

That gives some experts pause—it's overly broad, according to Dempsey.

 

The bill doesn't technically require companies to share data with the government, but it also doesn't require the government to share cybersecurity secrets with the companies.

 

"The government can say 'You want our secret sauce, give us all your data, if you play ball with us, we'll play ball with you,'" Dempsey says, although an amendment to the bill is meant to discourage required data trades. "Once [CISPA] removes the legal barriers, it becomes harder for companies to resist those inducements, which can lead them to do things they're uncomfortable with [like sharing data.]"

 

So its a different than SOPA and ACTA,but this one is more about government of USA giving backdoor to justify datasearch to their citizens.This would probably fail in Congress if there is enough voices against this,still,it gave bad taste in mouth how much everybody is trying to put more control on regular citizens.

[Rown]

I raided wiki.

 

Found these links:

 

• The Bill

 

• PC World Examines The Bill

 

Have a good day.

 

Rown

[Oakshaft]

it wont go through, and if it does, it will be revoked... because thousands of people protesting and rioting WILL affect something

[Dingdongs]

And who's gonna decide what exactly effort to degrade and disrupt means?

I'm short on time and will add to this, but I just wanted to point out that these are technical terms (part of the D5E group of attack vectors) and not subject to interpretation. They have accepted meanings and scope- "degradation" is the intentional damaging and/or destruction of data on a network or system an individual is not legally permitted to access, and "disruption" is a direct attack on a network or system designed to prevent it from effectively performing it's assigned role. For instance, a DDoS attack by Anonymous is an example of "disruption" whereas the destruction of data on a company's main server by a disgruntled employee is "degradation". In addition to this, there are three other D's (denial and deceit/deception depending on who you ask) and E (exploitation)- and these different attack vectors cover all potential cyber attacks by all actors.

I think it's also important to mention that Russia Today is really opposed to this thing. I'm sure those assholes would be happy to continue with no government protection over our cyber-infrastructure

[Jeeebuuus]

They are trying to make people who engage in piracy into cons. Its a cons-piracy!

[Dingdongs]

They are trying to make people who engage in piracy into cons. Its a cons-piracy!

 

Love it.

[spaceeinstein]

 

And knowing politicians who belong to the corporations you can bet it won't be interpreted in your favor... There is no democracy.

Stop voting then. Don't talk to your own lawmakers and keep those thoughts shared only to your circle of like-minded people. How can anyone think the entire system of governing is downright terrible at heart, especially in a democracy? You should be blaming your own neighbors for electing these people into office that you are apparently blaming for the ills and inefficiencies of the Internet and society.

 

 

Free market internet FTW!

How does the free market protect people from cybercrimes anyway? Or crimes in general?

 

There must be ways to protect people and businesses when they are using the Internet. We shouldn't be putting things off just because of unrealistic ideological differences. Everytime something is brought up, it's instantly shot down rather than improved upon. Wtf is the point of amendments then? More people will get hurt in the long run if nothing is done.

Edited April 16, 2012 by spaceeinstein

[Chunkyman]

How does the free market protect people from cybercrimes anyway? Or crimes in general?

 

There must be ways to protect people and businesses when they are using the Internet. We shouldn't be putting things off just because of unrealistic ideological differences. Everytime something is brought up, it's instantly shot down rather than improved upon. Wtf is the point of amendments then? More people will get hurt in the long run if nothing is done.

Governments primarily investigate crimes after they've already happened, they don't do a whole lot of protecting.

 

The only person who can truly protect you is yourself (whether it be online or in real life). Self-protection on the internet involves practicing due diligence before downloading anything or buying from online stores, only interacting with reputable online websites, and acquiring anti-virus programs.

 

Considering the internet works wonderfully as it is, it would be foolish to have bureaucrats possibly (likely) ruin that.

[GTA 360]

As much as I don't agree with them regulating the web I hate pirates, they make things more expensive for the rest of us and slow down the development and production of new software, so I agree with them banning pirates from the web but don't spy on us, just find those that visit pirating sites fairly regularly and cut their internet. End of.

[sivispacem]

 

Considering the internet works wonderfully as it is

Oh yes, it's not as if online organised crime, the theft of proprietary information and digital fraud are one of the largest industries in the world by value, is it?

[Chunkyman]

 

Oh yes, it's not as if online organised crime, the theft of proprietary information and digital fraud are one of the largest industries in the world by value, is it?

And you think the government has magic powers that can solve all of this (without negatively affecting anything else)?

[Dingdongs]

Governments primarily investigate crimes after they've already happened, they don't do a whole lot of protecting.

 

That's pretty, well, wrong. There are thousands of people employed in intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, etc. in this country who wouldn't take that comment too likely.

[sivispacem]

Oh yes, it's not as if online organised crime, the theft of proprietary information and digital fraud are one of the largest industries in the world by value, is it?

And you think the government has magic powers that can solve all of this (without negatively affecting anything else)?

No, but nation states do a far better job of policing it than it's users do. For one, there's actually an incentive for them to do so, rather than just to profit from involving themselves in such activity to restore some kind of punitive sense of balance. To be honest, though, the internet is not free and never has been, nor will it ever be. To pretend one has anonymity or privacy of information on the internet is roughly akin to leaving secret documents in a park under the pretext that people won't look at them. It's a public space, not a private one. As I've said before, you rarely ever own the data you distribute, regardless of whether you create it or not.

[Chunkyman]

That's pretty, well, wrong. There are thousands of people employed in intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, etc. in this country who wouldn't take that comment too likely.

There are still significantly more government officials involved in investigating crimes than there are people actively protecting citizens from criminal acts.

[spaceeinstein]

 

The only person who can truly protect you is yourself (whether it be online or in real life). Self-protection on the internet involves practicing due diligence before downloading anything or buying from online stores, only interacting with reputable online websites, and acquiring anti-virus programs.

Do you think the average person is that computer literate? People in general can't protect themselves, but since society as we know it somehow hadn't manage to collapse yet, what do you think is doing the protecting? Corporations and the individual? And what about victims? Leave them behind for not being able to protect themselves? Let heinous crimes go unpunished?

Edited April 17, 2012 by spaceeinstein

[Braindawg]

What are my views on this? Simple. Just like PIPA, SOPA and ACTA, It's a stupid fad that the goverment is trying to continue threatening us with, and just like before, people are not stupid enough to fall for this bullsh*t, and will continue to rebel against the f*cking goverment and their inner plans to spy on people and make money. Simple as that. Case closed.

[sivispacem]

What are my views on this? Simple. Just like PIPA, SOPA and ACTA, It's a stupid fad that the goverment is trying to continue threatening us with, and just like before, people are not stupid enough to fall for this bullsh*t, and will continue to rebel against the f*cking goverment and their inner plans to spy on people and make money. Simple as that. Case closed.

I love how every topic of this nature immediately becomes a sh*tstorm of very angry individuals who recycle the same old rebellious rhetoric whist betraying their complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. In essence, what you are saying is "I don't want governments to have more power to prevent cyber crime, espionage and the theft of sensitive and personal details by hostile nations and criminal gangs". Is that really what you mean or would you like to re-evaluate your position?