RSS
CISPA Sponsor Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger Promises The Return Of CISPA
from the it'll-be-baaaaaack dept
This isn't a huge surprise. After the Senate failed to pass its Cybersecurity Act last year, and the White House threatening to push out an executive order to get its "cybersecurity" agenda moving, one of the two sponsors of the House's cybersecurity bill, CISPA (which did pass), Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, is promising that the bill will be back soon enough. Ruppersberger says that he's working with the White House to take care of any concerns it had with the bill. All of this was more or less expected. The concern, still, is what do the privacy protections look like in the bill and (more importantly) what the Senate will come up with on this front.
However, there's one big issue that no one has answered. There's plenty of talk about how cybersecurity is a big problem and we're "under siege" and all of that nonsense. But no one seems willing to explain what about current regulations are getting in the way of an effective response to any such "threats"? And that's a problem, because the proposed bills don't seem to do anything in terms of tweaking a specific issue to solve a problem. Instead, they more or less wipe out large, important rules across the board, all because someone screams "it's for cybersecurity!!!!"
However, there's one big issue that no one has answered. There's plenty of talk about how cybersecurity is a big problem and we're "under siege" and all of that nonsense. But no one seems willing to explain what about current regulations are getting in the way of an effective response to any such "threats"? And that's a problem, because the proposed bills don't seem to do anything in terms of tweaking a specific issue to solve a problem. Instead, they more or less wipe out large, important rules across the board, all because someone screams "it's for cybersecurity!!!!"
I have an idea...
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
I have an app...
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
How My First Game Made $28,623
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
Geography Of The App Economy
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
The concern, still, is what do the privacy protections look like in the bill and (more importantly) what the Senate will come up with on this front.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Anyway...I mean its just like recent FISA amendments being signed in right? I hope to God this doesn't pass.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Really
Yes they will probably ignore it but to do that they would have to check how the law they are going to pass would affect their privacy, and that would mean actually reading the document.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
That Ruppersberger thinks he's so smart
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
we're "under siege"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
should be 'because we have to remove as many freedoms as possible, as quickly as possible from the ordinary people!'
what a shame it is that those that want to carry out this sort of thing dont have anything concrete to use as evidence the bill is needed, never has any issues of this nature themselves, so dont know what it's like and have totally forgotten why America became America in the first place!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: we're "under siege"
You are, by your own government. They are trying to take down democracy in favour of corporate totalitarianism.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The concern, still, is what do the privacy protections look like in the bill and (more importantly) what the Senate will come up with on this front.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
RE: change we can believe in
is there any way we can get LAPD uniforms for the Congress and Senate??
two birds, one stone....................
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Prevention is the Best Medicine
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Your phones, computers, private communications therein, data therein etc. and so forth are your personal effects.
Any entity implying otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Computer security is neat. The proverbial "The best offense is a good defense." seems to apply and is most effective.
Defensive "security" measures that provide access to any of these aforementioned effects without a warrant are in direct contradiction of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Your government is, in effect, protecting itself and attempting to position itself as a feared entity. Given the recent past and current rate of successful incursions you probably should be afraid.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Sometime back, altenatehistory.com had a scenario in is "Future History" section, a bill called The Protecting Internet Communication And Commerce Act (PICCA), which combined elements of SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA, TPP, Secure-IT, CDA, and just about every other dracconian internet law that was ever made, into one bill.
With some wanted to resurrect SOPA, and the new CISPA bill coming down the line, I would not surprised if PICCA is being drafted right now.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Existing laws can't apply
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Look at the bills authors
"It wasn't anything really interesting," Ruppersberger said at the time. "It was just photos of bin Laden alive and photos dead and comparison of his facial features."
Why didnt the public see these photo? We saw those of gadafi. Man who lies for the establishment will of course seek to take your 4th amendment rights. This man once made the idiotic statement that people didnt need guns because the police can protect everyone at all times. So of course he is against the 2nd amendment too.
Basically he is a typical government tyrant who is opposed to the bill of rights and a typical payed liar known as a lawyer.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment