Lawmakers Defend Controversial CISPA Bill

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Zak Islam
Contributor

Zak Islam is a freelance writer focusing on security, networking, and general computing. His work also appears at Digital Trends and Tom's Guide. 

  • itchyisvegeta
    Here we go again. Unless passing a law nullifies or repeals a previous law, passing laws empower the government, not the private sector. Too many fascists running this country.
    Reply
  • Soul_keeper
    Problem is these lawmakers spend 24/7 working on ways to screw us.
    While the rest of us work to pay their salaries.

    They are likely hoping we get tired or don't have the energy to keep fighting them.
    We must be vigilant. More laws are not a solution, nomatter how much they try to scare us into thinking we need them.
    Reply
  • Kami3k
    Maybe NYT and WSJ should listen to their IT department more.

    Problem solved, no bill needed.
    Reply
  • Kami3k
    itchyisvegetaHere we go again. Unless passing a law nullifies or repeals a previous law, passing laws empower the government, not the private sector. Too many fascists running this country.
    This actually would help the private sector, as in it will be able to more easily sell your info. AKA make money, which is the goal of the private sector.

    And I suggest you look up the word fascist.
    Reply
  • KelvinTy
    The "What Kind of Information" is the key point...
    Like I care if you "share" something like, "We are currently under attack!" and "They are trying to access our blablabla (e.g. user data) database!"...
    The problem with the bill is, it doesn't specify, to what extend... All I know, they gov organization could have my address, my social security number, my email address, favourite website, and maybe, even my credit card number... These info can be really harmful to someone...
    Reply
  • dark_knight33
    itchyisvegetaToo many fascists running this country.
    You have no idea what real fascism is, just like the idiots that think socialism = communism. Instead of name calling, why don't you try pointing out the fact that the real problem is politicians that don't understand technology trying to craft tech law? Most of our politicians don't study tech, and don't really have an idea of the repercussions these laws would create. They constantly take knee jerk reactions on vauge threats from a foreign country that really isn't interested in attacking "our cyber-infrastructure". They make it sound so dramatic, when it's really just private companies skimping on their IT budget.
    Reply
  • C12Friedman
    I have to agree with the bill here. Until someone can invent the telephone which would magically allow a website or corporation to tell the feds or (heaven forbid) the feds share info with someone else... we're all just going to have to sit around the campfire and read tea leaves for information - when will they invent that phone thing?
    Reply
  • house70
    If the bill is so innocent, why the vagueness in it's terms?
    Reply
  • After spending any time on Capital hill or in a court of Law, ALL of these politicians know exactly what it means to use vague language in a bill like they have done here. Hint: it's a blank goddamn check to interpret it however they want and do whatever they want.

    This is no accident. They aren't being naive. They aren't unintentionally screwing us. They know _exactly_ what they are doing.
    Reply
  • Marcus52
    Kami3kThis actually would help the private sector, as in it will be able to more easily sell your info. AKA make money, which is the goal of the private sector.And I suggest you look up the word fascist.
    You definition of the phrase "private sector" is a bit narrow here. Individuals are part of the private sector. And, the bill isn't designed to allow companies to make more money in a fair and equitable way, it is designed to be an end-run around our rights, further enlisting businesses to violate them on behalf of the government , and in turn said government gives them protection against legal procedures when they get sloppy about their security.

    This has already gone far beyond what anyone should put up with. If law enforcement needs to gather data, they should do it as they had to in the past, with oversight from another, separate organization (the judicial system). "Checks and Balances" is disappearing from our legal system, and that will only mean less freedom, not more safety. Those truly concerned with our safety are perfectly willing to protect it within the bounds of the Constitution.

    Notice that the Republican/conservative will tell you he's all about less government sticking its nose in your business and taking your money away with higher taxes, but they are solidly behind bills like this. Our so-called 2-party system has devolved into trying to select the party that will least take away the rights you hold most dear - and even that is an illusion because almost all politicians are about taking the rights of the individual away and putting the power into their pockets.

    Thank you EFF for being one of the solid bastions against governmental and media wool being pulled over our eyes.
    Reply