Yes, thank you. The CISPA fear totally ignores the fact that all of the stuff in CISPA is already legal. You don't have a privacy interest in all of that information you give to third parties every day. Maybe you should, but that's a matter for a Constitutional amendment, because as it is that information is fair game.
there is not however, guaranteed immunity from civil/criminal prosecution for sharing data under the auspices of "national security", thats whats important about CISPA, it is carte blanc for the government to collect whatever data it wants, with zero oversight or accountability.
tptacek seems to be pushing the line that "this bill does nothing, everything it establishes is already legal". But i caution HN users to be aware of his own vested interests in this bill.
you work for a security contracting/consulting firm, it is in your own professional best interests to have cybersecurity information shared as "frictionlessly" as possible
There are supporters of CISPA who believe we need it because private companies manifestly do not share information about attacks, and so one thing the government can do to resolve that is (a) to encourage them to do so, and (b) create a clearinghouse in the government to provide a default place for information to be shared.
I don't agree with those people; I think CISPA is pretty silly. But that's the argument.
Whether or not it's legal does not inform whether or not it is a positive step as far as privacy advocacy is concerned.
Laws such as this embolden those parties that seek to undermine privacy. It is one thing for someone to be able to say "According to a set of disparate laws, X action is legal" and quite another when "According to CISPA, X action is legal."
You're responding on a thread that provides chapter and verse citation to the statute that already made this kind of sharing lawful. You might just as productively oppose every bill for not fixing the ECPA.
I don't understand how "threats to national security" could possibly be broader than "incident to rendition of service" or "protection of rights or property of the provider".
