Topic: This just in: House Passes Cybersecurity Measure CISPA [US] - page 2. (Read 3525 times)

I don't understand what you mean... a criminal would be one who breaks a law that defines one as a criminal, right?

Republicans, I am disappoint.

I hardly thought it could get much worse but as usual, I stand unfortunately corrected. This is yet one step closer to a Police State from NSL's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter

Where I live, regular use of Tor and strong encryption would be more than enough to qualify as "suspicious activity" (if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to hide.....). If you don't see me post for a while you'll know I've been tracked down and sent to jail for conspicuously awesome internet hygiene.

Excellent point 

From wiki:
On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA.
House Voting Counts

Full list can be seen at the House.gov site. [21]
Ayes Votes

Republican: 206 Democrat: 42
Noes Votes

Republican: 28 Democrat: 140
NV Votes

Republican: 7 Democrat: 8
Supporters

CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.

So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that?

Wow. So if someone somehow thinks you or some of the systems or persons using the computer systems registered on your name is thought to be a security threat, then they could share any information about you with the govt. or any other entity?

We have several cases from real life showing that not even judges and lawyers always manages to use common sense when handling persons percieved to be a 'security threat', and now we're going to have people who have no business taking legal decisions deciding when it's right to share information and not ?

A free man should be able to exercise his freedom be it offline or online, that's my stand. So basically now, if anyone wants your information, they could just call an ISP and say in a very serious voice to a stressed out sysadmin; Hi I'm Bob Hansen, calling from the local FBI office, we believe to have very serious security threats coming from user with ip 345.233.323.233 from you system. We need the Name, Street Address and Billing contact information NOW!

When there's no court order needs, the social engineering attempts to get out personal information and the misuse from government and private companies are only going to increase.

Also Imagine you or some of your friends or a remote hacker does some nefarious stuff with your current ISP account, and then later on you've straightened up your ways or gotten rid of the the malware, and get's rejected by the current ISP, and you try another ISP and you again get rejected for 'security reasons'. (ISPs sharing information about your activities and blacklisting you).

Personally I don't think a customers private information should be shared with anyone unless there's a court order allowing it.

You may know more about this then me.  I didn't think the president proposed amendments to bills but I guess I am wrong. 

You should spend less time listening to the PR and more time reading the actual language of the amendments. I'm not going to waste even a second more on this topic, so if you want to know the reality of this matter feel free to do your own research.

You may not like Obama but that is the opposite of what he said.  

"
OMB said that the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace."
"

You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.

Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do.

Guys, guys, don't worry about it, no need for a big campaign about this one, I've got it under control.

<>

Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.

Onward we march into tyranny... thank god for Bitcoin

Those mother fuckers.   I can't express how angry it makes me that some people out there think they own me.



http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/house-passes-cispa/