CISPA Passes in the House - Full Roll Call

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll117.xml#

by sethbannon • 13 years ago

355 246 13 years ago

clerk.house.gov

I found this slightly more readable: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/h117

Call your congressperson. They do care what you think, at least a little bit, especially if you take the time to call or write their office thoughtfully.

gknoy• 13 years ago

What good does it do for me to contact my congressman now, since it's already passed?

wavesounds• 13 years ago

Contact your Senator! http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...

sharth• 13 years ago

Let's say the senate amends the bill, and successfully passes that. The house would need to vote on that modified bill.

Normally, once the two sides pass relatively similar bills, a conference committee is formed to resolve any differences, and then that resulting legislation is voted on.

toomuchtodo• 13 years ago

Agreed. We should be funding a tech-based SuperPAC to get those who voted yes out of office.

johnbellone• 13 years ago

You should call them and let them know that you plan on voting against them, irregardless of their party affiliation, the next round of elections.

deepblueocean2• 13 years ago

If your congressperson voted for the bill, you can express your dissatisfaction, which counts for something. This kind of thing is not the sort of issue your congressperson likely understands or even thinks about for very long - they just do what their staff suggest and they don't expect to be called on it when they get back home to their districts. So if you can make it an issue, make it something they think might affect votes, you'll raise the priority and raise the level of discussion a little bit. And that makes it harder for the kind of disinformation that spreads around CISPA to survive.

Congresspeople are currently very afraid of "getting SOPAed" where they try to make some kind of tech policy regulation and then accidentally set off a huge wave of activism.

Keep in mind, just because something passes in the House doesn't mean it's law. There's a long process - right now it's still just a bill (that they voted for on Capitol Hill (sorry)). There's a lot that can be done, and, now, probably will be done to mobilize on this issue. I doubt that it will come to SOPA-level activity (SOPA would have affected the bottom lines of big tech companies. This is "just" about privacy). But there's always room for trying to make things more reasonable.

fnordfnordfnord• 13 years ago

Called them yesterday, didn't help.

bmj• 13 years ago

That's the wrong attitude to take. Perhaps you were the only person in your district that called?

This is roughly like saying "I voted for X, but Y still happened."

psionski4• 13 years ago

I'm not from America, but, as an Internet citizen, I still care deeply about the issue. Can I just call American politicians to express my dissatisfaction? Does it count if I don't have a social security number? I already donated to Fight for the Future, is there something else I can do about this?

t0dd• 13 years ago

the only way this is going to be stopped now is if Google, Twitter, and the other big tech companies come out strongly against it. except for reddit, they've been quiet so far. don't count on Obama's veto threat at all.

lawnchair_larry5• 13 years ago

Zero chance Obama will veto it, he just gave a massive budget to the spying program that CISPA was created to facilitate.

flipcoder2• 13 years ago

Obama veto threat = false sense of security to CISPA opposers

His track record tells me he'll sign it happily while saying "I have serious reservations about this".

notmarkus• 13 years ago

To be fair, the majority of YEA's come from Republicans, who control the House, and the majority of NAY's come from Democrats, who control the Senate. This has already died in the Senate once, so I wouldn't be surprised if that happens again.

firefoxman1• 13 years ago

So much for the "small government" Republicans advocate, huh?

enduser• 13 years ago

There were almost as many Democratic YEAs (92) as Democratic NAYs (98).

rquantz• 13 years ago

What are your reasons to question Obama's veto threat?

Carltonian2• 13 years ago

If he were to veto it, it would already pass again in the House with a 2/3's vote. The Senate would require some politicking, but it's not unimaginable that it could also get a 2/3's vote.

Having your veto overturned is a bad thing. That alone would be a reason. The other reason being that Obama chose to stay silent on the SOPA/PIPA/CISPA issue the first time around. Coming out against it would have cost him relatively little in public opinion, which must mean there are interests relevant to him that aren't entirely opposed to the bill.

kylec• 13 years ago

So Massachusetts didn't even vote at all? That's extremely frustrating.

keithwinstein• 13 years ago

Most of the delegation is attending the interfaith services here today re: the attack on the Boston marathon.

eyeface• 13 years ago

Are the MA representatives allowed to vote while not present? It seems very strange that an entire state's representatives will not have a vote on this issue because of a scheduling conflict. Can the votes not be phoned in?

cmelbye• 13 years ago

Uh, they kind of have more important things to deal with right now...

obviouslygreen• 13 years ago

Do they? I don't think there's anything more important for these particular politicians than representing the interests of their constituents.

There's a reason we have police and local authorities in addition to high-level politicians. They handle local politics and issues. If we actually need our state representatives so involved in something like this that they can't perform the functions they were elected for, then that's a systemic problem that should be addressed.

Is this a bit insensitive? Perhaps. But these people have a responsibility to look at the big picture, and if that means ignoring something tragic but not related to their responsibilities, they need to recognize that and act appropriately.

fredleblanc• 13 years ago

Also frustrated by this. I understand there are other things happening, but we have absolutely no representation on this thing? Even some sort of absentee voting for such an extreme circumstance?

tocomment4• 13 years ago

Why aren't we invoking the internet bat signal already? [1]

[1] http://internetdefenseleague.org/

D9u2• 13 years ago

Kind of late now, huh?

The "Cat Signal" was activated prior to this debacle as a means to urge netizens to contact their elected representatives and garner opposition to CISPA.

My elected representative voted no. Thank you Tulsi!

Udo6• 13 years ago

That already happened. From the IDL release on March 19th:

  Dear Internet Defense League member,

  Last year, right on the heels of our historic victory against SOPA, a piece 
  of really nasty legislation almost passed that would have radically undermined 
  online privacy.

  It was called CISPA.  And it raced through the US House of Representatives, 
  passing before any of us had a chance to react.  We stalled the bill in the 
  Senate, but now CISPA is back, and we don't want to make the same mistake twice.  
  Before there is *any* movement on the bill, we want to send a strong message 
  to Congress that CISPA shouldn't pass.  

  That's why we're partnering with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to launch 
  an Internet Defense League action starting tomorrow, Tuesday March 19th.  

  Can you participate? If so, get the code for your site here: http://members.internetdefenseleague.org

The problem is that online activism seldomly accomplishes anything. But a more pessimistic point of view might also suggest that we don't stand a chance against this, because this shit will come back every year until it passes. It will pass in pieces because they have to hack it up into easily swallowable packets, but it will pass. Online privacy and freedom goes the same way as net neutrality, sadly.

tocomment4• 13 years ago

I thought when activated it would black out all of the member sites. And I thought it had some big names like Reddit. But I don't remember anything special happening on March 19th.

It must really not be working if someone like me who reads tech sites every day didn't notice it?

bensw• 13 years ago

"If we let them persuade us we didn't actually make a difference, if we start seeing it as someone else's responsibility to do this work and it's our job to just go home and pop some popcorn and curl up on the couch to watch Transformers, well, then next time they might just win. Let's not let that happen"

scott_s• 13 years ago

Released where? I went to their webpage to find information on this, but I couldn't see anything. They said the call is out, but they only link to the member singup page, not actual information on the issue.

sinak2• 13 years ago

I'd love to have a meaningful conversation about how we can make online activism actually have an effect on Congress. Any takers?

It seems to me like we need a new generation of tools that allow people to take actions that matter. Beyond relatively poorly designed click-to-call your congress person tools, we really don't have much right now. I think with better software we can do a lot more, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly what that'll look like.

I'd love to hear HN's thoughts.

straight_talk4• 13 years ago

And the same way as individual freedoms and democracy ...

anonymous• 13 years ago

I don't really mind fighting the exact same shitty bill each year. Imagine if they start making new, shittier bills when their efforts fail!

sailfast• 13 years ago

Forgive my ignorance but can I get a clarification on what specific parts of the bill will be damaging to privacy? From what I've read so far of the bill it will permit government organizations with classified intelligence about a possible threat to tell those that might be attacked without going through a lengthy declassification process. While that is certainly valuable, I gather there are other provisions that allow for sharing of user data without consent by those under threat?

EDIT: Seeing now that the measure does not require participants to remove user data, but it doesn't prohibit that, correct?

EDIT2: The CISPA Myths vs. Facts and the EFF articles are informative. Regardless, I think it is important to note that because of classification this information may not have been able to be communicated to organizations prior to something like this bill being in place. I would highly recommend encapsulating each constructive measure in its own bill (and I favor that for all legislative endeavors) however that may not work given the difficulty of the process these days.

gdubya2• 13 years ago

Obviously this is bad for those of us in the USA, but can someone explain how this will affect the rest of the world? And is there anything that those of us outside the US can do to try and defeat this, other than spread the word?

Andrenid• 13 years ago

> can someone explain how this will affect the rest of the world?

A lot of the "rest of the world" data is stored in the US, or passes through US servers. That gives them access to it.

Anything you have in Google services, Microsoft services, Yahoo, Apple iCloud, etc etc etc

lucb1e2• 13 years ago

It's frightening to see how much of my data is stored in the US. The new Whatpulse (2.0+) keeps track of how much data is sent per country, using a geoip database. By far, most data went to America. That quite convinced me I should get my e-mail out of there at the very least (MS/Hotmail), and possibly find alternatives for Google services like Plus and Drive.

Edit: For clarity, I'm from the Netherlands.

st0p• 13 years ago

I live in the Netherlands, can anyone tell me what this law is about and why it is damaging to the internet?

wavefunction• 13 years ago

Do you use any sites in America? Do you access any sites hosted outside of America but accessed via any network infrastructure owned by an American company?

If so, any of this information can be easily shared with the US Government free of charge to you!

tptacek22• 13 years ago

Can you tell a short story about how some specific piece of information this person shares with a US site winds up shared with the USG?

27182818284• 13 years ago

Weren't they supposed to activate the "Cat Signal" that would go up on everyone's favorite websites? I never saw it, and that seems like it would have been the only thing that could have re-invigorated people to action like they were for SOPA and such.

w1ntermute3• 13 years ago

Like I said before guys, start using end-to-end encryption. Stop talking and start sticking it to the man. If a company cooperates with the government, then don't use their products or services.

Udo6• 13 years ago

What good is end-to-end encryption if the server you're communicating with is legally obliged to forward your data to a gov database?

sneak• 13 years ago

End to end, not client to server.

EvanKelly• 13 years ago

Unless I misread the bill, CISPA information sharing is opt-in. There is no legal obligation for a company to share your information.

aespinoza3• 13 years ago

If you encrypt the data coming from the client all the way to the database or any other persistence mechanism, then it doesn't matter if the company is obliged to forward your data to a gov database. It would be encrypted, hence not easily readable.

In my case, as a service provider, we are encrypting as much as we can, so that we can't even read the data even if obliged to. It becomes troublesome for some pieces of data because we need to decrypt it so that it can be displayed in the website. So if we can decrypt it, as a provider, then we would be obliged to decrypt it for government agencies.

It would be interesting to see what can we do as a provider, to protect our own customers without breaking the law.

tptacek22• 13 years ago

The man wants you use end-to-end encryption. NIST has been trying to tell you how to do it for years. They even published Suite B to try to get us to use modern crypto instead of the '90s stuff we're using today.

w1ntermute3• 13 years ago

The man has many different hands. Just because NIST is doing something doesn't mean the NSA isn't doing something completely different.

ced• 13 years ago

The man wants you use end-to-end encryption.

Why?

nine_k4• 13 years ago

Take, for instance, Skype. It has end-to-end encryption, and call are damn hard to intercept due to p2p routing.

Instead of rejoicing, the man forced MS to build a backdoor into it.

The man is glad if your valuable communication can't be stolen by some Chinese spies. But you are a good citizen and have nothing to hide from your own government, right?

mtgx2• 13 years ago

Sure, but never rely solely on technology to escape your government. Political solutions are much better and more "comfortable" in the long term.

diminoten3• 13 years ago

What? Seems alarmist... if a company shares md5sums and directory paths of malware with the government, we should write that company off?

badalyan• 13 years ago

CISPA: Myths vs Facts

http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/f...

u23283• 13 years ago

CISPA: FAQ on What it is and Why it's Still Dangerous

https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq

tptacek22• 13 years ago

This FAQ includes what I think are very misleading statements about CISPA; for instance, CISPA is clearly not intended to enforce copyright, and includes provisions that no copyright advocate would have accepted were that the purpose of the law. For instance, CISPA, unlike any other statute in the US Code, specifically exempts ToS violations from the purview of the statute.

Lewisham• 13 years ago

Nothing says "small government" like expanding government oversight, right? I really don't understand what the Republican party actually stands for. There's no consistency in their platform. I might not agree with the Libertarian Party either, but at least I understand why they say what they say.

Can someone help me out here?

w1ntermute3• 13 years ago

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats support the views they claim to. Those are just ways to get votes from their gullible and emotionally persuadable constituents who will pick the least-worst of the 2 choices as long as the candidate of their choice presents a veneer of authenticity.

Politicians really support the views of the people who actually matter to them - the donors who fund their campaigns, the lobbyists who give them nice perks while they're in office, and the companies who promise them high-paying jobs once they've left public office.

straight_talk4• 13 years ago

It obviously stands for global fascist totalitarian government.

betterunix4• 13 years ago

The major parties in the United States are what the rest of the world calls "the right wing." Their goals are more or less "keep the wealth in the hands of the wealthy" and "keep the power in the hands of the powerful." The only difference is which groups of wealthy and powerful people the parties cater to, though there is plenty of overlap there.

ajscherer• 13 years ago

When politicians say "small government" they really mean "low taxes", and when they say "liberty" that is measured as 100% minus the top marginal tax rate. Restrictions on people's behavior or privacy aren't really part of the discussion. When they say "spending" you can safely suffix that with "on someone other than me".

Seriously though, the Republican party isn't a libertarian organization and never has been. They've been marketing themselves that way lately, since they are a bit closer to the libertarian ideal than the Democrats (I guess not in this case though!).

dmix4• 13 years ago

Anecdotally I've seen a notable upswing in the self-identification of republicans as "libertarian" in the last 6 months (when that's clearly not the reality).

mtgx2• 13 years ago

If you're talking about the "old Republicans" who may pretend right now that they are also libertarians (like Glenn Beck is doing for example), then I agree. But since the "Ron Paul movement" a lot of true libertarian people entered the Republican party and are still trying to take over it. The "real" Republicans are actually fighting them, though, because besides lower taxes they have almost nothing in common.

Also if you were thinking about Rand Paul, in a way he's his father's son, and unlike others who just pay lip service for liberty and such, he's actually fought hard against the Patriot Act, FISA, NDAA, drones and so on. He filibustered them for many hours, introduced amendments (which obviously got rejected), etc. However, he also seems to play way too much towards the overly religious base in the Republican party, and in that way he's also much like the "old" Republicans, which is a shame, and I think it makes even libertarians have second thoughts about him. The "always lower taxes" attitude at least could work on most libertarians, but the very religious side of him, kind of ruins it for libertarians, too.

mwfunk• 13 years ago

Historically the Republican party has been libertarianish, at least in the sense that the guiding principles were minimizing the size and reach of government, keeping the government out of people's lives, and legislating at the most local levels possible (don't make a state law if a local law will do, and don't make a federal law if a state law will do).

This changed in the '60s- Democratic support for the civil rights movement caused a massive shift in the south, in which a huge number of voters (evangelical, socially conservative voters who had supported the Democrats since the end of the Civil War) switched allegiances from Democrats to Republicans. That period also saw the rise of Barry Goldwater, who also wasn't a traditional Republican- he was more of a demagogue who engaged in a lot of flag waving and and emotional oratory to get people riled up.

Ever since then there's been a cognitive dissonance within the GOP- the old-school libertarianesque beliefs wedded to the social conservatives and demagogues of the Religious Right (who aren't traditionally right-wing (or left-wing) at all, they've just latched on to the Republican party as being more amenable to being bent to their will).

This cognitive dissonance has reached epic proportions in the last 10 years, in some cases leading to polarization in the party (fiscal conservative/social liberals vs. those who are completely driven by religion and social conservatism). In other cases it leads to politicians who somehow try to appeal to both the libertarians and the Religious Right (Ron Paul being a prime example), and I just don't know what to make of that. The views of the world embodied by those two groups could not be more different, and seems impossible to reconcile in any intellectually honest way.

nostromo• 13 years ago

Nothing says "civil liberties" like getting multinationals to share data freely with the FBI and CIA. This is why I don't understand what the Democrats actually stand for either, and there are plenty on that list.

niggler3• 13 years ago

To be fair, the majority (52%) of Dems voted against the bill. Contrast that with 13% of Republicans.

enoch_r• 13 years ago

Borrowing from Arnold Kling's "three axes", generally speaking:

- Libertarians evaluate things on a freedom/tyranny axis.

- Republicans evaluate things on a civilization/savagery axis.

- Democrats evaluate things on a fair/unfair axis.

I think that explains Republican voting behavior here fairly well. They're not for small government because they're libertarian; they're for small government because the US is historically connected with libertarian philosophies.

pekk• 13 years ago

Not sure about this. If I think it is savagery to have lots of people dying without healthcare, that's a pretty Democrat sentiment isn't it? Or are we talking about the parties as they were decades ago rather than today?

lobster_johnson2• 13 years ago

Republicans seem to care less about civilization than "family", more precisely "conserving [Christian] family values". That's why it's linked to all the nonsensical, irrational thinking about gay marriage and abortion; they think it violates the ideals of the traditional Christian family. It cannot be equated with "civilization" unless you somehow believe that those things are uncivilized, which makes the entire axis analysis tautological.

TallGuyShort4• 13 years ago

Ask most voters to explain the reasons they voted the way they did and you would find a big disconnect between not only what they thought the candidate said and what the candidate actually said, but also between what the candidate said and what they do.

JonnieCache• 13 years ago

Rational self interest.

It's not like they're shy about it.

jbooth• 13 years ago

Sure there's consistency.

Obama.

Healthcare ideas that originated from the heritage foundation? No way.

Romney 'won' the first debate by agreeing with Obama's platform on every single issue. The difference between them? Obama.

marknutter2• 13 years ago

The same hypocrisy can be found with Democrats. They like "big government" except when it comes to wars, women's bodies, and gay marriage.

pessimizer3• 13 years ago

Democrats don't campaign in support of "big government." That's something that they are characterized as being for by the people that oppose them.

That's like a Democrat saying that Republicans like "letting the poor die" except when it comes to veterans, children, and those wounded by terrorist attacks. What hypocrites!

mncolinlee• 13 years ago

TLDR: It's not hypocrisy if they never said it.

It's only "big government" if you accept the Republican premise that fixing other people's roads and teaching other people's kids is a waste of money.

poindontcare• 13 years ago

Laws for sale.

SomeCallMeTim2• 13 years ago

"Small government" is a code phrase for reducing the social safety net. Nothing more.

For much greater detail about why Democrats and Republicans think they way they do, read what the cognitive scientist George Lakoff has to say.[1] By the end things like "We respect life!" but "We want the death penalty!" on the same platform actually make sense.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_%28book%29

geon• 13 years ago

You have only two parties that matter. They have to take a stance in virtually every matter ever; abortion, gun control, unemployment... And they neet to take the opposite view, or it becomes a non-issue.

It is simply impossible to make a de-facto two-party system like the US make sense.

There are more than 2kinds of people, so uou need more than 2 parties to represent them.

smky80• 13 years ago

> Can someone help me out here?

It's a sham. The voting process is just there to create an illusion of control and provide a circus for the masses; just another means of control by manufacturing consent.

The Republican Party's purpose is just to mobilize a certain segment of the population when a war needs fighting or some banks need bailing out, and as controlled opposition to the Democratic Party's social agenda. The Democratic Party likewise serves as controlled opposition to the Republican agenda: Obama is President, but you still get the wars and Wall Street anyway.

fedxc• 13 years ago

So it passed... now what?

moens2• 13 years ago

It still has to pass the Senate.

buro92• 13 years ago

On a related note, is there a list of cloud providers and hosts with zero US presence?

I'm looking for a European provider of virtual machines, with competitive prices and features, but with no US company behind it and ideally not even a US datacenter. Just a strong IaaS offering within the EU and a commitment to stay out of the US.

LoneWolf• 13 years ago

The only one that comes to mind is Hetzner.de as far as I know they don't have any US datacenter.

larrydavid• 13 years ago

Take a look LowEndBox, and the related forums LowEndTalk.

The first site collates prices/deals, where you can filter by location.

They also carry out a quarterly survey as an attempt to gauge customer satisfaction for each provider (http://www.lowendtalk.com/wiki/top-providers).

I've been looking for a VPS recently and found the above 2 sites very useful.

http://www.lowendbox.com/ http://www.lowendtalk.com/

gboudrias• 13 years ago

That site (LowEndBox) is full of sketchy deals, and a lot of companies it promotes stop existing a few months afterwards.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that choosing their VPS provider by price alone can be a bad idea, but I really don't recommend it.

corry• 13 years ago

OVH.fr - great machines, good prices. We have a machine in western Europe. VPS or dedicated servers.

SG-• 13 years ago

OVH also has a datacenter in Montreal.

avenger1232• 13 years ago

Try http://www.prometeus.net/

They are very highly regarded and are an European provider.

They may not be the cheapest but are reasonable.

psionski4• 13 years ago

Take care, some European countries are very pro-American and will cooperate without even thinking about it. At least Germany and Bulgaria would most probably hand over all requested data, so West-East Europe doesn't really make a difference here.

So far the Russians have been pretty cool - when America told them to shut down their mp3 search engines, their reply was something along the lines of "go fk yourself". I assume they have this saved as a template.

mhw• 13 years ago

http://brightbox.com/ is UK based and privately owned. I don't think they've said anything about plans to expand into the US or otherwise.

buro92• 13 years ago

They look really good except for their AUP which appears to be massively over-reaching and incompatible with any product or service that has user generated content.

I've dropped them an email asking about those things, as they do appear to be good.

LandoCalrissian• 13 years ago

Thank you Keith Ellison for being sensible and voting no on this bill.

aamar• 13 years ago

288 Yea votes. They're very close to 290, which would be enough to override a veto.

Even if it doesn't come to that, a credible veto threat is often enough to get the President to sign the thing. So bending even a few votes in either direction may have some political meaning here.

dllthomas• 13 years ago

I want to thank my representative for voting against. Hopefully she can pull more of her colleagues next time 'round.

Xcelerate• 13 years ago

Could someone give me a specific concrete example of how this would be bad? I read the bill and found that many of the online claims about it are simply incorrect. Maybe I missed something.

artursapek• 13 years ago

Look at them custom HTML tags!

    <vote-data>
    <recorded-vote><legislator name-id="A000055" sort-field="Aderholt" unaccented-name="Aderholt" party="R" state="AL" role="legislator">Aderholt</legislator><vote>Yea</vote></recorded-vote>

rockmeamedee• 13 years ago

Everybody's saying contact your senator. Call them, write them a letter... Is the problem the disconnect between the elected officials and the public? If so, can we make the communication a bit easier? My grandparents write me letters. I barely use my phone to call. What if each elected official's website had a place where their electorate can create and fill out polls, giving the member of congress access to much finer grain information?

It seems to me that if you told me that you're running for the House in my district and you'll answer my questions on 8thdistrictva.com or whatever, I would completely believe you're better than the other guy. You might listen to me.

Has anybody tried to do this? To be fair I've barely looked at my representative's web page. But this seems much better than calling or writing a letter. I guess you could email them, but every standard means of communication I just imagine an office full of overcaffeinated interns skimming the message for keywords and picking the closest automatic reply. Most of the time, I'd just want to communicate a simple feeling (eg I don't like this bill) and I'd be okay with them looking at a graph of the poll results.

xradionut• 13 years ago

You need to buy your senator and make sure they stay bought.

bmelton4• 13 years ago

Having worked in political advocacy, what you're wanting is exactly the right way to go.

It's almost impossible to get an email to your actual representative. What you want to do is get your sentiment to their aide via email. Simply put, your subject should be one of:

"Please oppose Senate Bill <number>" or "Please support Senate Bill <number>". Make sure you know if it's a senate bill or a house bill, and make sure you know the number. If you can't be bothered to perform that simple amount of research, then it's a signal to them you probably aren't a voter, or don't have strong opinions on the matter (right or wrong).

In the contents of the email, which probably won't be read, but in the case that they are, state your name, district (if applicable), and whether you're registered to vote, and if it's for their party, then say so. If it isn't, omit it.

After that, do whatever you like, but keep it brief, polite and on-topic.

jimktrains2• 13 years ago

If your rep voted "nay," be sure to thank them.

dguido• 13 years ago

I find opposition to this bill somewhat hilarious. On one hand on the front page right now, we have FBI soliciting the public for information after we've experienced a serious attack. Efforts are underway to crowdsource the identities of the perpetrators in a completely unstructured and privacy-invading manner on forums like Reddit (/r/findbostonbombers). On the other, we have people loudly complaining that companies shouldn't be able to do the same when they experience an attack. Sharing of this information would occur via structured records and include oversight and audits that get reported to the public.

I think the problem is one of perspective. In the Boston bombings, it's incredibly simple to see the harm and it directly affects those being asked to share the information they have to help. In the persistent and ongoing computer intrusions that are now a reality for any successful business, the public is largely unaware and only indirectly affected by such events. Hence, why try to solve it?

psionski4• 13 years ago

* for any successful business that doesn't care the slightest bit about security, i.e. remains the lowest hanging fruit.

DigitalSea• 13 years ago

Time to see if Obama and his office are going to follow through with their veto threats and play their hand. Considering the amount of publicity his opposition to the bill has received, it would be in his best interests to follow through.

eyuelt• 13 years ago

Now how do I get the roll call of the vote on the gun control bill?

CISPA Passes in the House - Full Roll Call

Related Stories