A Challenge To Facebook: Withdraw CISPA Support Until The Bill Is Fixed Or Replaced
from the get-off-the-fence dept
One of the more concerning aspects of CISPA that sets it apart from SOPA/PIPA is the number of technology companies that support it. Of chief concern is Facebook, which handles a lot of sensitive private data, but is standing behind the bill. Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s VP of U.S. Public Policy, has now released a statement explaining their support, which basically amounts to “we promise not to abuse the gray areas in the bill”.
A number of bills being considered by Congress, including the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (HR 3523), would make it easier for Facebook and other companies to receive critical threat data from the U.S. government. Importantly, HR 3523 would impose no new obligations on us to share data with anyone –- and ensure that if we do share data about specific cyber threats, we are able to continue to safeguard our users’ private information, just as we do today.
That said, we recognize that a number of privacy and civil liberties groups have raised concerns about the bill – in particular about provisions that enable private companies to voluntarily share cyber threat data with the government. The concern is that companies will share sensitive personal information with the government in the name of protecting cybersecurity. Facebook has no intention of doing this and it is unrelated to the things we liked about HR 3523 in the first place — the additional information it would provide us about specific cyber threats to our systems and users.
Kaplan then goes on to say that Facebook is engaging lawmakers to see about amending the bill to address people’s concerns. But that creates a pretty big question: why are they still supporting the bill if they recognize its problems? Based on this statement, Facebook wants to use cybersecurity laws the right way—to give and receive anonymized and minimized data about specific threats, to be used solely in relation to those and similar threats. But CISPA does not require any of that. It’s nice that Facebook is “able to” protect private information, but why aren’t they and all other companies forced to? If the authors of the bill want to tout its “strong privacy protections”, then a requirement to eliminate personal user information from shared data seems like a necessity.
Moreover, while Facebook may only be worried about specific cyber-threats, they can’t control what the government does with the information. As currently written, CISPA basically allows the feds to keep whatever data Facebook shares on file, and search it whenever they want, for anything they want, as long as there is a “cybersecurity” or “national security” purpose. And “cybersecurity” is very broadly described, and includes things like intellectual property. If this bill is supposed to be about protecting networks from disruptive attacks, why aren’t the terms and limitations narrowly defined to ensure that’s the only thing it can be used for?
If Facebook’s cybersecurity motivations are good—and I’m willing to grant them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are—then they should withdraw their support of CISPA until it is fixed to exclude the broad provisions that go well beyond what Facebook wants to use it for. If the company is so proud of its commitment to user privacy, then surely it has to acknowledge that there are other companies which are not so responsible, and which will abuse the same powers and immunities that Facebook promises to handle responsibly. Unless they can show us that they are making meaningful demands of Congress, this attempt to soften their support of CISPA is just hot air.
Filed Under: abuse, cispa, cybersecurity, pipa, privacy, sopa
Companies: facebook
Comments on “A Challenge To Facebook: Withdraw CISPA Support Until The Bill Is Fixed Or Replaced”
Leave a comment on that Facebook link.I did.And If you live in Maine and are interested I would love to start a Maine Pirate Party.
Jordan Kratz of Big Meat Hammer
http://wh.gov/U19
Sign my Petition and help stop CISPA
Re: Re:
Sounds good, you could call it the Failed Creators Party.
You tell’em Marcus. I am sure that Zuckerberg is quaking in his shoes thinking that some just out of diapers momma’s boy in Toronto is going to really shake up his world.
Perhaps you should contentrate on Canadian politics. Then your co-workers at the National Post might be able to explain that stuff better to you.
Hey, idea: why not make a horrible rap sound about it, and perform it in a room with 3 people watching? You know how to do that!
Re: Re:
Here’s another idea. Up your medication, it may help you be less of an asshole. Then again, it may not.
Re: Re: Re:
I just disagree with Marcus, and I find he is bring a prick thinking that some snot nose kid from Toronto can tell the world how to work.
He’s a pathetic wimp keyboard warrior. His posts should be stopped, he is a stain on the site.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just disagree with Anonymous Coward, and I find he is bring (sic) a prick thinking that some snot nose kid from a shill troll farm can tell the world how to work.
He’s a pathetic wimp keyboard warrior. His comments should be stopped, he is a stain on the site.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You sound like an angry old man set in his ways.
“I just disagree with Marcus” I disagree with you. You have a absurd fixation with him that just wreaks of homosexual wanting. Its OK. We know you loooooooooove him. Its cute, I think. Like the little girl that kicks the little boys shins.
You are a pathetic wimp keyboard warrior. Your posts should be stopped, they are a stain on the underwear of this site.
FTFY
Kiss kiss AC. Have a lousy weekend.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I have to wonder if this is the same AC that said:
It is never as simple as Marcus tries to make it look.
In the comments of the recent Dolce & Gabbana article, that was written by Mike.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120407/01343518418/does-trademark-law-have-room-sense-humor-dolce-gabbana-sue-dolce-banana.shtml#c316
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh goodness. He’s Canadian?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a sick fetish you have: diapers, stains, kids?
You should seek professional help.
Re: Re:
Insightful.
Re: Re:
Lol, same idiot from the last article. Still believe Itunes won’t let you upload?
Re: Re:
You tell’em Marcus. I am sure that Zuckerberg is quaking in his shoes thinking that some just out of diapers momma’s boy in Toronto is going to really shake up his world.
Perhaps you should contentrate on Canadian politics. Then your co-workers at the National Post might be able to explain that stuff better to you.
Hey, idea: why not make a horrible rap sound about it, and perform it in a room with 3 people watching? You know how to do that!
Agree or not, this is pretty funny.
Re: Re: Re:
There is nothing amusing about unmitigated ignorance.
N.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh come on Nigel, I thought stuff like that was funny…when I was 7.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You should ask his age first, he may actually be 7 years old LoL
Re: Re: Re:
Would be funny if Marcus’ rap was lousy, but it is good.
Would be funny if he/she/it actually presented points of interest to debate, but that would take intelligence, which is clearly missing from this particular AC. Nothing but insults, and poor ones at that. He might as well just be saying, “Oh yeah, your momma.” It is that kind of schoolyard nonsense.
Hid Id is clearly disturbed. They may have meds for that.
While accurate dumbass AC should simply be ignored he should simply get the boot. He has nothing to add that is on point with any topic, nor has he ever.
I do find it somewhat amusing that he clearly has some man love for Leigh.
Or perhaps he just needs a quick hand…
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080226204929AAwPTPt
Nigel
HAH !
What’s even more hilarious is that, Cispa authors told that china etc ‘steals’ 200 bn worth (probably RIAA/Hollywood mathematics) of ‘intellectual property’ from usa every year. Whats the hilarious bit is that, they are bringing a law that will affect US citizens, AGAINST threats from CHINA. get a load of that !!!
Instead of throwing out meaningless insults, I think AC should stick to doing what he does best – entertain us with some of his good ol’ hill-billy banjo music!
Instead of throwing out meaningless insults, I think AC should stick to doing what he does best – entertain us with some of his good ol’ hill-billy banjo music!
Facebook's motivation...
…is profit. That’s it. Spammer Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t care about anything else. So if FB is supporting CISPA, it’s because he’s coldly calculated that doing so will maximize profits. Unless something changes to make opposing CISPA more profitable, there’s no way he’ll change positions.
i dont give a toss whether Facebook promises not to ‘abuse the data’ or not. it’s the fact that the Government and Law Enforcement CAN abuse that data after Facebook has, either voluntarily or forced, handed it over! do they really think people are that stupid?
why are tech companies going along with CISPA anyway? why are they so keen on allowing their customers privacy to be breached, by just about anyone, but the government in particular? why is it such an issue to know exactly what every one is doing/saying every second? why should no one have any privacy? why will be gained if all people are classed as terrorists and criminals?
Re: Re:
“why are tech companies going along with CISPA anyway? why are they so keen on allowing their customers privacy to be breached, by just about anyone, but the government in particular?”
Because once the data is pulled out there is no harm in just taking advantage of it.
Re: Re:
There’s an excellent explanation here: http://www.geekosystem.com/facebook-pro-cispa/
The summary: Because there’s an upside for them and no downside (unless, or course, the people rise up like with SOPA).
whats all this bullshit about marcus. who cares. focus on the topic.
Re: Re:
Seconded! I’m fairly new to this site and have never posted before, but I enjoy reading the articles AND the comments which are often very insightful and informative. So whoever you are, please disdain from your continuous juvenile comments which only serve to disrupt an otherwise intelligent discussion.
Re: Re: Re:
When Marcus (Leigh) writes uninformed, one sided posts that gloss over reality, he gets called out. You have to remember that you are dealing with a young, untalented boy from Canada, thinking he can wag the dog of American politics. He’s got a puffed up ego and a desire to impress, and his posts are generally lacking.
I call him out because of the puffery. It is a debate of the subject, because when you start out debating a weak story, all you get is weak debate. Time to ask Mike to remove Marcus from the posting roster, and replace him with someone more intelligent – say like a monkey.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hahaha, and yet all you’ve ever accomplished is convincing people that you’re an immature idiot who has a creepy obsession with me.
You’ve even driven weneedhelp, who has fought with me several times and used to oppose me regularly, to start defending me. As a spokesman for the Hate Marcus party, you’re pretty terrible – because who would want to join a team that has you on it?
Heh. It really is amusing watching you go. Keep on “calling me out” all you want – I couldn’t think of a better endorsement!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Hey, nice attempt at deflection, once again.
You have learned a lot from Mike, that is for sure. You never answer a direct challenge with a direct answer, you always deflect, and you are always quick to try to build up a ridiculous counter attack rather than deal with things.
Honestly, do you think you have the power over facebook? Are you that full of yourself?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Man, you need have to look in the mirror… And have some reading comprehension classes.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
And I need grammar classes. “you need to have a look in the mirror” is what I meant.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Identify yourself as “Monkey’s Advocate” instead of taking the slacker route and defaulting to “Anonymous Coward” then.
So far all you’ve been proving is that you have an obsession with using Ad Hominems on EVERY article Leigh posts.
What does that make you? Identify yourself. At least Bob and Darryl willingly have pseudonyms.
At least he has credentials (or in your view, lack of). What makes your comments any more credible?
Unless you have something besides Anecdotal Evidence to back your claims up:
[citation needed or GTFO]
Weak debates that you take upon yourself to start with “MarcusMarcusMarcusIHeartMarcusMarcusMarcus…”
So you’re a monkey?
Everything makes sense now!
You obviously have some talent to write up long-winded posts. Why not use that to be productive and submit your own articles? You don’t have to be part of us “TechDirt freetards” to do so. 🙂
Facebook: Withdraw CISPA Support Now
Friday the 13th of April 2012 ~
Greetings, I totally agree with the above article. I am no paranoid conspiracy fanatic. I have been sharing my concerns about a creeping fascism in this country, the USA, where I am a citizen, since the early 70s. Thus, none of this blows my mind.
We are already living under a mature sophisticated form of fascism in the USA, in fact, the most advanced form of authoritarian fascism in man’s history.
We should know that whatever we put online is potentially hackable anyway. Why should we approve of further and deeper encroachments on our already threatened if technically non-existent civil liberties?!? Oppose the CISPA or any other version of it. Unite and Fight Back!
Namaste, Peter S. Lopez AKA @Peta_de_Aztlan c/s
Facebook? -1, Google+? +1
If Zuckerberg continues to support this, I and about 10 gazillion others will drop our FB accounts and move to Google+. Google has its issues, but in this case, ANYTHING they do is better than FB!
Internet Spying Law ? Pushed by For-Profit Spy Lobby
Re: Internet Spying Law ? Pushed by For-Profit Spy Lobby
Not mentioned in article: Spy Law would Legitimize Massive Spying On Americans’ Electronic Communications To Facilitate Civil Asset Forfeiture of U.S. Citizens? and Business Assets:
U.S. Government wants the power without a warrant, to introduce as evidence in criminal prosecutions and government civil trials, any phone call record, email or Internet activity. That would open the door for Police to take out of context, any innocent?hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person?s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.
If the Justice Department has its way, any information the FBI derives from circumventing the Fourth Amendment, i.e. (no warrant searches) of Web Server Records; a Citizen?s Internet Activity, personal emails; fax / phone calls may be used by the FBI for (fishing expeditions; to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence or to prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation. Consider that neither Congress nor the courts?determined what Bush II NSA electronic surveillance, perhaps illegal could be used by police or introduced into court by government to prosecute Americans criminally or civilly. If U.S. Justice Department is permitted (No-Warrant) surveillance of all electronic communications, it is problematic state and local law enforcement agencies and private government contractors will want access to prior Bush II /NSA and other government illegally obtained electronic records not limited to Americans? Internet activity; private emails, faxes and phone calls to secure evidence to arrest Americans, assess fines and or civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on ?Asset Forfeiture? to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?
The ?Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000? (effectively eliminated) the ?five year statue of limitations? for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they ?learned? an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government electronic surveillance be approved; police will relentlessly sift through Citizen and businesses? (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover possible crimes or civil violations. A corrupt despot U.S. Government too easily can use no-warrant-(seized emails, Internet data and phone call information) to blackmail Americans, corporations and others in the same manner Hitler utilized his police state passed laws to extort support for the Nazi fascist government, including getting parliament to pass Hitler?s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. A Nazi Government threat of ?Property Seizure? Asset Forfeiture of an individual or corporation?s assets was usually sufficient to ensure Nazi support.
Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an ?innocent owner defense.? This defense can become a ?Catch 22? a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime ?even when you did not do the crime? may (involuntarily waive) a defendant?s right to assert in their defense?the ?Criminal Statute of Limitations? past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html