It's back. It's freaking back.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

We can't just ignore cyber security something has to be done. Everyone in the defense department knows the biggest threat to our national security isn't some guy in Pakistan strapped with a bomb, it's a hacker in Iran, Russia, or China taking down power for a city or even a state. We just need to ensure that they don't throw in personal online interactions with the company by individuals. Separating the two is difficult but needs to be achieved.

Unfortunately, the world is almost inevitably going to head in this direction. As hackers become more and more sophisticated, laws and security needs to be tightened. Will we give up some freedom? Yes. But we have already done that. Living in ANY society requires that you give up SOME freedom. You only find total freedom in the wild - societies do not and never have functioned with TOTAL freedom for all citizens.

By living in a society, I give up the freedom to murder people, to steal, to drive my car on the side-walk, to paint graffiti on my neighbor's walls and to light a forest on fire for the heck of it. I don't have those freedoms anymore - by living in a society with laws, my actions are necessarily constrained. But what do I gain in return for giving up those freedoms? Safety. Food. Comfort. Opportunities. Companionship. I gave up some freedoms, but I got a lot back in return. Everyone who lives in society has made the same trade as I have.

Will some of the freedoms of the internet disappear over the next 10 or 20 years? Absolutely. Will they be missed? Damn straight. Is it necessary for the security and stability of our industrialized world (which, I remind you, is a damn sight more comfortable than living in the wild)? Maybe.... depending on the laws.

The internet is probably going to have to change and come under control more. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Laws are not inherently evil (unless you're an anarchist), and can do the world a lot of good. SOPA and CISPA were bad laws - and it was good that they were defeated. But, eventually, some laws are going to get passed. Rather than pretend that the internet doesn't need regulation and stick our heads in the sand and hope that those "mean ol' governments" will go away, it's time to face reality and accept that, in the end, like EVERY SINGLE OTHER ASPECT OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION, the internet is going to be regulated by society at some point. We can choose to reject that and have no input into the process, or we can accept that and try to steer law-making process in such a way as to ensure some level of freedom for the internet.

Korolev is certainly right here. I like to think the Internet is a bit of a contemporary wild west: lawless specks of civilization surrounded by even more lawless wilderness. Hackers, phishing sites, pirates, copyright infringements, rampant hatespeech, a mess of local/regional laws that make the whole thing even more chaotic....you get the idea. However, the interconnectedness that marks Globalization will eventually force international lawmakers to reach an overarching deal to establish a common legal framework with regards of the Internet. The reason is pretty simple: the current layout of the internet generates far too much economic friction[1]and even threatens whole states through cyber security issues[2] and the far easier organization of violent groups.[3]

I'd go so far and say regulation is going to be a fundamental necessity for modern states to preserve their integrity. Not with SOPA and CISPA, mind you, which just exemplify the ignorance of the political establishment on these kinds of issues, but with further legislation that we will see over the course of the century. I'd also like to explicitly stress my agreement with Korolev that this is not necessarily a bad thing for the individual, too.

[1] A prime example: GEMA vs. Youtube. GEMA (the copyright arm of the entertainment industry in Germany) is still unable to reach a consensual deal with Youtube about profits shared from streaming official music videos and the like. Since Germany is still the most stable market for record sales in the Western Hemisphere, that legal battle has raged over years now with the only result for a German citizen to being unable to watch a significant number of videos due to copyright infringements. See for instance this little gem as an example of what I mean. In my eyes, the amount of administrative work required to do this is essentially a giant waste of money and manpower.
[2] See for instance the concerted attack on many Estonian government sites and sites of important Estonian organizations in 2007 or the release of Flame and Stuxnet, presumably to set back the Iranian nuclear programme
[3] The organization of terrorist groups over the Internet is often cited alongside news of recent attacks. See for instance this part on the Wikipedia article on Al-Qaeda for another example.

We'll never be free of this. Ever.

itsthesheppy:
We'll never be free of this. Ever.

True. But "this", if done correctly, might make us free from threat of identity theft and such stuff. SOPA was an example of "this" done in one of the worst possible ways imaginable, so I'm with Korolev on this.

Internet regulations will inevitably be set up, but they need to be set up in a way that will protect the users, not censor them. That's why, as internet users, we should participate in setting them up and making them "good", as opposed to dismissing them out of hand.

Vegosiux:

itsthesheppy:
We'll never be free of this. Ever.

True. But "this", if done correctly, might make us free from threat of identity theft and such stuff. SOPA was an example of "this" done in one of the worst possible ways imaginable, so I'm with Korolev on this.

Internet regulations will inevitably be set up, but they need to be set up in a way that will protect the users, not censor them. That's why, as internet users, we should participate in setting them up and making them "good", as opposed to dismissing them out of hand.

We won't be part of that conversation, ever. Our only recourse is to make it clear to the self-interested politicians that if they back certain proposals, they'll lose their job. That's all anyone cares about, and represents the only power we actually have.

itsthesheppy:

Vegosiux:

itsthesheppy:
We'll never be free of this. Ever.

True. But "this", if done correctly, might make us free from threat of identity theft and such stuff. SOPA was an example of "this" done in one of the worst possible ways imaginable, so I'm with Korolev on this.

Internet regulations will inevitably be set up, but they need to be set up in a way that will protect the users, not censor them. That's why, as internet users, we should participate in setting them up and making them "good", as opposed to dismissing them out of hand.

We won't be part of that conversation, ever. Our only recourse is to make it clear to the self-interested politicians that if they back certain proposals, they'll lose their job. That's all anyone cares about, and represents the only power we actually have.

Pretty much this. The idea that ordinary 'net users will have bugger-fuck-all input on even the broad strokes of these laws -let alone the minutiae- is hopelessly naive. We're talking about a political process in which lobbying industries write the fucking legislation for their pet politicians to submit, the next load of legislation on this subject will be no different.

I mean shit, even the few politicians with some modicum of understanding of the subject matter can't stand against the RIAA, MPAA, and chums; if you can find it, look up the debates on the Digital Economy Bill in the UK, and marvel as the only sane voice in the room, Tom Watson MP, spends hours carefully picking apart the proposed legislation, debunking the myths it's based upon, outing the BPI as authors of significant parts of the bill, etc etc etc, only to be totally fucking ignored by his ignorant, decrepit, technophobic Luddite bunch of cunts colleagues.

Magichead:

Pretty much this. The idea that ordinary 'net users will have bugger-fuck-all input on even the broad strokes of these laws -let alone the minutiae- is hopelessly naive. We're talking about a political process in which lobbying industries write the fucking legislation for their pet politicians to submit, the next load of legislation on this subject will be no different.

Listen, nothing personal, I usually agree with your points, even, but this time I feel the need to point out that this "Why bother" attitude (paraphrased, maybe mistakenly?) is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now 'scuse me, I have some civil disobedience to take part in, incidentally. No wrecking up the place tho, just being really loud and putting some more political pressure on some people. (And yes, this is a coincidence)

Well, whether it passes or not, I'd like to know how they plan to actually enforce it outside of the US, i.e. that place where pretty much all of the cyber attacks are coming from.

dmase:
We can't just ignore cyber security something has to be done. Everyone in the defense department knows the biggest threat to our national security isn't some guy in Pakistan strapped with a bomb, it's a hacker in Iran, Russia, or China taking down power for a city or even a state.
...

How on earth is a piece of US legislation going to have any effect on Iranian, Russian, or Chinese hackers?

Laws don't create actual technical barriers, many cyber attack have already been traced there, but the US have no jurisdiction to investigate further within foreign nations, and these nations aren't going to hand over one of their hackers anyway (unless they've already found 10 even more skilled dudes to replace him).

The bill is really only effective in getting people from the US or nations willing to cooperate with it prosecuted. Domestic cyber attacks can of course be a problem, but professional internet criminals with botnets and such at their disposal aren't likely to be too inconvenienced by it, and its immense privacy violations are disproportionate to the domestic risk posed.

Imperator_DK:
Well, whether it passes or not, I'd like to know how they plan to actually enforce it outside of the US, i.e. that place where pretty much all of the cyber attacks are coming from.

dmase:
We can't just ignore cyber security something has to be done. Everyone in the defense department knows the biggest threat to our national security isn't some guy in Pakistan strapped with a bomb, it's a hacker in Iran, Russia, or China taking down power for a city or even a state.
...

How on earth is a piece of US legislation going to have any effect on Iranian, Russian, or Chinese hackers?

Laws don't create actual technical barriers, many cyber attack have already been traced there, but the US have no jurisdiction to investigate further within foreign nations, and these nations aren't going to hand over one of their hackers anyway (unless they've already found 10 even more skilled dudes to replace him).

The bill is really only effective in getting people from the US or nations willing to cooperate with it prosecuted. Domestic cyber attacks can of course be a problem, but professional internet criminals with botnets and such at their disposal aren't likely to be too inconvenienced by it, and its immense privacy violations are disproportionate to the domestic risk posed.

Old dominion the Virginia power company gets hacked once or twice, small things email phishing scams. They call in a tech company to prod weak points and suggest fixes. More serious attacks come but are repelled by the buffed up security. Same style of attack happens in NY once again rebuffed, Florida once again rebuffed, this happens over an over till an email hack ends up releasing information power companies and the federal government doesn't want out from a kansas company. Those secrets could be used by terrorists or even just lolzers. Maybe those secrets are just distribution gird configurations, maybe they are structural plans, or maybe they release some information that allows a group to control a power grid.

The last is a 1 in a million chance, but the other two options can still be used to the detriment of the power plant, area, and the US. Of course it's an example scenario, ones that military startegist and defense contractors specilizing in tech have laid out in much more depth. Now how in the above scenario could we have prevented this? Old Dominion could have warned the government who would then suggest a course of action for other companies, every company is now aware of the scam and a major catastrophe is even less likely of happening.

As far as ISP releasing that information it's meant to track the hackers and possible bot nets which basically take over computers Internet connections. If we know a hacker has tried infiltrating point A well where has been from A to Z, information like that could reveal infected systems that no one knew where compromised. I mean smart hackers don't do the take down website, steal credit card info, and brag about it. They plant viruses and find back doors so they can accomplish any goals they want slowly. That's another scenario I've heard where viruses are attached to computers all over the us over a course of a couple years something relatively benign until a signal is sent out then this benign software that's infected thousands goes into active mode and causes major damage, however it's only used by minor credit card thiefs and such now.

Another thing is a lot of hackers from those countries are believed to be government funded. We need smoking guns though and we can do that by getting information on these attackers and use that as leverage with governments like China or Russia who deny they have any involvement.

Even if we can't prosecute these people we can prevent actual damage, we can learn more about techniques used, we can figure out where they are, and prevent them from use the same tactic again. Also I do believe in many cases there is someone in america helping these attacks at least in non-terrorist related incidents.

dmase:
...
Old dominion the Virginia power company gets hacked once or twice, small things email phishing scams. They call in a tech company to prod weak points and suggest fixes. More serious attacks come but are repelled by the buffed up security. Same style of attack happens in NY once again rebuffed, Florida once again rebuffed, this happens over an over till an email hack ends up releasing information power companies and the federal government doesn't want out from a kansas company. Those secrets could be used by terrorists or even just lolzers. Maybe those secrets are just distribution gird configurations, maybe they are structural plans, or maybe they release some information that allows a group to control a power grid.

The last is a 1 in a million chance, but the other two options can still be used to the detriment of the power plant, area, and the US. Of course it's an example scenario, ones that military startegist and defense contractors specilizing in tech have laid out in much more depth. Now how in the above scenario could we have prevented this? Old Dominion could have warned the government who would then suggest a course of action for other companies, every company is now aware of the scam and a major catastrophe is even less likely of happening.

What's preventing Old Dominion from choosing to contact law enforcement with this information now? The government would have no way of knowing it's under attack, so it can't use CISPA to force it to divulge information if it doesn't come forward anyway.

As far as ISP releasing that information it's meant to track the hackers and possible bot nets which basically take over computers Internet connections. If we know a hacker has tried infiltrating point A well where has been from A to Z, information like that could reveal infected systems that no one knew where compromised. I mean smart hackers don't do the take down website, steal credit card info, and brag about it. They plant viruses and find back doors so they can accomplish any goals they want slowly. That's another scenario I've heard where viruses are attached to computers all over the us over a course of a couple years something relatively benign until a signal is sent out then this benign software that's infected thousands goes into active mode and causes major damage, however it's only used by minor credit card thiefs and such now.

I doubt the American ISP has info on points A to Z though, unless the hacker has been using an American internet connection, or all the places he hacked have the same ISP/ICP. It'll be like finding a needle in a haystack, only you'll need to find the haystack and probable cause to request a search of it first.

Another thing is a lot of hackers from those countries are believed to be government funded. We need smoking guns though and we can do that by getting information on these attackers and use that as leverage with governments like China or Russia who deny they have any involvement.

I doubt anyone's going to want to go from cyber war to real war. Publicizing such information would risk quickly escalating matters, which is probably why exact identification isn't pursued too enthusiastically now, or at least not divulged to the general public. It's not hard for a foreign government to deny that owns a particular computer/IP-address either, and there's no way to go check.

Even if we can't prosecute these people we can prevent actual damage, we can learn more about techniques used, we can figure out where they are, and prevent them from use the same tactic again. Also I do believe in many cases there is someone in america helping these attacks at least in non-terrorist related incidents.

Or, as with the cold war, it'll be a new technological arms race to develop new and ever more efficient methods for intrusion and privacy protection. In which the freedom of the average private user is presumably going to end up as the loser.

There might be a few people involved in cyber attacks from within America, but they're hardly a significant thread.

Imperator_DK:

What's preventing Old Dominion from choosing to contact law enforcement with this information now? The government would have no way of knowing it's under attack, so it can't use CISPA to force it to divulge information if it doesn't come forward anyway.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03523:@@@D&summ2=m&

We don't currently have the sharing protocols required to maintain what analysts call a strong cyber defense. This is a big portion of CISPA and not the part that would deny anyone's rights, the internet traffic part is what people have problems with.

I doubt the American ISP has info on points A to Z though, unless the hacker has been using an American internet connection, or all the places he hacked have the same ISP/ICP. It'll be like finding a needle in a haystack, only you'll need to find the haystack and probable cause to request a search of it first.

Now I'm no computer genius but it's my belief that all incoming connections to the US are relayed to domestic(american) servers and go through domestic ISP's even if they originate from overseas. If verizon doesn't have a foothold in spain doesn't mean my email doesn't reach the intended target. Also I imagine there are quite a few companies that are multi national that are american based or would like to be on the good side of america by providing these information from areas overseas.

I doubt anyone's going to want to go from cyber war to real war. Publicizing such information would risk quickly escalating matters, which is probably why exact identification isn't pursued too enthusiastically now, or at least not divulged to the general public. It's not hard for a foreign government to deny that owns a particular computer/IP-address either, and there's no way to go check.

I'm not suggesting war because of cyber warefare. And yes, these leads are being pursued enthusiastically however we don't have the infrastructure to follow through as well as we should.

http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2013/01/obama_administration_considers.html

We can track ip address via isp's and can probably get down to the exact region you live in. The escapist administrators even have the ability to tell which country your in assuming your not using a proxy. Obama doesn't need to declare war on china it can impose harsh embargo, sanctions, and cut off cable feed from america(I don't think that one has ever been done, imagine every western nation is worried about trade secrets being released to china or security threats from there. We could basically cut China off considering most of the necessary infrastructure for the internet comes from America and the "west").

Or, as with the cold war, it'll be a new technological arms race to develop new and ever more efficient methods for intrusion and privacy protection. In which the freedom of the average private user is presumably going to end up as the loser.

There might be a few people involved in cyber attacks from within America, but they're hardly a significant thread.

your right, we're probably in the early stages of a new cold war however that doesn't somehow magically make intrusions in our networked areas any less illegal or needing of protection.

You see the only way this working is by having all a users information given to the feds, but that is not how that has to happen. Which is why CISPA died in congress and the president wouldn't vote on it even though he wanted it for national security reasons, there weren't enough protections being built in. However it looks as though the new CISPA bill will have some guidance regarding people's right.

I don't think you comprehend how this could go down, if a nuclear reactor we're to go off line or a satellite where to be taken over or even just Chinese corporate espionage it could wither our country. And don't give me that bs franklin quote about liberty and freedom, we all give up freedom for safety and security it's called society, our best chance is to limit privacy, freedom, and liberty lost as much as possible.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57506216-83/cybercrime-costs-u.s-consumers-$20.7-billion/

It's my belief, and the belief of many people with far more experience on the matter than I, that cyber attacks can only get worse. Are they fear mongering? Possibly, but are they right as of this moment and foreseeable future? yes.

dmase:
We can't just ignore cyber security something has to be done. Everyone in the defense department knows the biggest threat to our national security isn't some guy in Pakistan strapped with a bomb, it's a hacker in Iran, Russia, or China taking down power for a city or even a state. We just need to ensure that they don't throw in personal online interactions with the company by individuals. Separating the two is difficult but needs to be achieved.

Not to mention that the economy of the west absolutely requires protection for IP creators against IP theft. Yes, SOPA and these bills are written in a sloppy as shit way to basically give all power to giant monolithic producers, and that's bad. But if we want something to be done about it, we need to start helping to draft bills that protect both side's rights.

But what we get instead is any time anything remotely like protecting against piracy pops up, is a bunch of babies crying about how they're entitled to theft, making our side look like it deserves no rights at all.

It's not a matter of 'if' a bill coming up to regulate the internet will pass, it's a matter of 'when', 'who' and 'how'. But as long as we think that we can stall this forever, the worse both our economy gets and the worse the final bill when it comes will look for us, the users. Especially if we go the route we did with SOPA and try to make weak as hell arguments defending theft and throw temper tantrums, rather than outline realistic rights for customers and consumers and producers and developers and retailers.

Damien Granz:

dmase:
We can't just ignore cyber security something has to be done. Everyone in the defense department knows the biggest threat to our national security isn't some guy in Pakistan strapped with a bomb, it's a hacker in Iran, Russia, or China taking down power for a city or even a state. We just need to ensure that they don't throw in personal online interactions with the company by individuals. Separating the two is difficult but needs to be achieved.

Not to mention that the economy of the west absolutely requires protection for IP creators against IP theft. Yes, SOPA and these bills are written in a sloppy as shit way to basically give all power to giant monolithic producers, and that's bad. But if we want something to be done about it, we need to start helping to draft bills that protect both side's rights.

But what we get instead is any time anything remotely like protecting against piracy pops up, is a bunch of babies crying about how they're entitled to theft, making our side look like it deserves no rights at all.

It's not a matter of 'if' a bill coming up to regulate the internet will pass, it's a matter of 'when', 'who' and 'how'. But as long as we think that we can stall this forever, the worse both our economy gets and the worse the final bill when it comes will look for us, the users. Especially if we go the route we did with SOPA and try to make weak as hell arguments defending theft and throw temper tantrums, rather than outline realistic rights for customers and consumers and producers and developers and retailers.

SOPA and CISPA where two different things completely, I think a lot of people on this site and the internet in general have a huge bias agaisnt this without actually seeing the legislation. SOPA was mainly a copyright issue and did prefer big business and CISPA had it's heart in the right place but lacked execution. CISPA allowed to much leeway for the feds which is what the reformed CISPA aims to prevent and which I hope will occur. Lets be clear the basic brunt behind CISPA and SOPA are two entirely different animals. Individuals rights need to be protected but at the same time we need to concern our self with national defense in this area that we are sorely lacking. And reading through all my posts I hope it's clear I agree the original CISPA was shit because it didn't respect privacy right but new CISPA I hope make a greater distinction between threat and average user.

To add, I'm drunk so any fuck up I blame on the rum.

My opinion has always been that we should just create some sort of "Internet Government." Let the Internet nominate and pick people for some sort of international regulatory congress, doing stuff like protecting privacy, improving infrastructure, ect. There would be a gamer rep, a hacker rep, ect.

Spartan448:
My opinion has always been that we should just create some sort of "Internet Government." Let the Internet nominate and pick people for some sort of international regulatory congress, doing stuff like protecting privacy, improving infrastructure, ect. There would be a gamer rep, a hacker rep, ect.

About 30 seconds online is all you need to see how this is a bad idea...

As noted by others in this thread, something along these lines is an inevitable necessity of an ever-expanding global network, and the real question is "do you want to be outside screaming through the windows or do you want to be at the table negotiating a surrender on your terms that actually protects internet freedom?"

While I agree that the world as a whole needs some improvements in the way it handles technology and internet related crime and terrorism, too many third parties with access to political figures and large cash reserves get involved for my liking.
Downloading MP3s and Walked Dead Episodes shouldn't be dealt with using the same piece of legislation that deals with organised cyber-attacks from another country. These third parties use this type of legislation as a way to cop-out of adapting, changing and competing. They'd rather we all go back to a world where TV Channels, Video Stores, Radio and Record Stores are the only places we get our entertainment from. They don't want to adapt to a global world - but they still want global profits.

The legislation needs to strike a balance. While I love the free and open nature of the internet, I believe there are problems - serious issues - that need to be dealt with.

I think we should all keep an eye out and see where this goes, instead of jumping on the 4Chan bandwagon of "I SHOULD BE ABLE TO POST CHILD PRON WHENEVER I WANT" because, frankly, that's a "freedom" I'm happy to live without.

itsthesheppy:
We won't be part of that conversation, ever. Our only recourse is to make it clear to the self-interested politicians that if they back certain proposals, they'll lose their job. That's all anyone cares about, and represents the only power we actually have.

How is that any different from any other issue?

Imperator_DK:

Another thing is a lot of hackers from those countries are believed to be government funded. We need smoking guns though and we can do that by getting information on these attackers and use that as leverage with governments like China or Russia who deny they have any involvement.

I doubt anyone's going to want to go from cyber war to real war. Publicizing such information would risk quickly escalating matters, which is probably why exact identification isn't pursued too enthusiastically now, or at least not divulged to the general public. It's not hard for a foreign government to deny that owns a particular computer/IP-address either, and there's no way to go check.

I'd back that up a step. Nobody is going to have a real war because of a cyber war, because nobody would start a cyber war that could lead to it.

Annoying the US, either by physical or cyber attack, or by something as simple as not changing its laws on trade or IP for the benefit of the US, is going to result in a response the country does not want.

Russia or China might be able to shut down a power grid via cyber attacks. They have been able to do that physically for decades. It's not going to be anything resembling a good idea any time soon.

Is it more reasonable than SOPA or PIPA? Because yes, we need cyber-security, we just want one that won't infringe on our privacy or harm Internet-communication.

dealing with the actual threat of cyber terrorists will not be accomplished without some lobbyists throwing in some kind of draconian clause that affects American's free speech. Never let a crisis go to waste.

What my question is, what will we do if this new one is just as bad as SOPA, but Barrack decides to use an executive order on it anyway?

edit-
OH FUCK OH FUCK!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/obama-said-near-issuing-executive-order-on-cybersecurity.html

You guys might want to get in on this. Just saying.
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/

dmase:

Damien Granz:

dmase:
We can't just ignore cyber security something has to be done. Everyone in the defense department knows the biggest threat to our national security isn't some guy in Pakistan strapped with a bomb, it's a hacker in Iran, Russia, or China taking down power for a city or even a state. We just need to ensure that they don't throw in personal online interactions with the company by individuals. Separating the two is difficult but needs to be achieved.

Not to mention that the economy of the west absolutely requires protection for IP creators against IP theft. Yes, SOPA and these bills are written in a sloppy as shit way to basically give all power to giant monolithic producers, and that's bad. But if we want something to be done about it, we need to start helping to draft bills that protect both side's rights.

But what we get instead is any time anything remotely like protecting against piracy pops up, is a bunch of babies crying about how they're entitled to theft, making our side look like it deserves no rights at all.

It's not a matter of 'if' a bill coming up to regulate the internet will pass, it's a matter of 'when', 'who' and 'how'. But as long as we think that we can stall this forever, the worse both our economy gets and the worse the final bill when it comes will look for us, the users. Especially if we go the route we did with SOPA and try to make weak as hell arguments defending theft and throw temper tantrums, rather than outline realistic rights for customers and consumers and producers and developers and retailers.

SOPA and CISPA where two different things completely, I think a lot of people on this site and the internet in general have a huge bias agaisnt this without actually seeing the legislation. SOPA was mainly a copyright issue and did prefer big business and CISPA had it's heart in the right place but lacked execution. CISPA allowed to much leeway for the feds which is what the reformed CISPA aims to prevent and which I hope will occur. Lets be clear the basic brunt behind CISPA and SOPA are two entirely different animals. Individuals rights need to be protected but at the same time we need to concern our self with national defense in this area that we are sorely lacking. And reading through all my posts I hope it's clear I agree the original CISPA was shit because it didn't respect privacy right but new CISPA I hope make a greater distinction between threat and average user.

To add, I'm drunk so any fuck up I blame on the rum.

Let's be frank, I don't believe there's any way in hell that CISPA as written wouldn't enable the police to do basically what SOPA tried to allow publishers to do. Yeah, later drafts removed the whole "We're gonna spy on you to curtail piracy" bit, but if they have the information, you know damn well they're going to use it. Even if they legally can't, all they really have to do is 'happen' to do another 'unrelated' investigation.

Again, I'm not pro-piracy. I actively think the internet as a generic whole taking the whole "Piracy and eavesdropping are my god given rights!" stance without a strong vocal counterpoint online to it, is going to ensure we get the worst possible bill as public support turns against the online community.

Damien Granz:

dmase:

Damien Granz:

Not to mention that the economy of the west absolutely requires protection for IP creators against IP theft. Yes, SOPA and these bills are written in a sloppy as shit way to basically give all power to giant monolithic producers, and that's bad. But if we want something to be done about it, we need to start helping to draft bills that protect both side's rights.

But what we get instead is any time anything remotely like protecting against piracy pops up, is a bunch of babies crying about how they're entitled to theft, making our side look like it deserves no rights at all.

It's not a matter of 'if' a bill coming up to regulate the internet will pass, it's a matter of 'when', 'who' and 'how'. But as long as we think that we can stall this forever, the worse both our economy gets and the worse the final bill when it comes will look for us, the users. Especially if we go the route we did with SOPA and try to make weak as hell arguments defending theft and throw temper tantrums, rather than outline realistic rights for customers and consumers and producers and developers and retailers.

SOPA and CISPA where two different things completely, I think a lot of people on this site and the internet in general have a huge bias agaisnt this without actually seeing the legislation. SOPA was mainly a copyright issue and did prefer big business and CISPA had it's heart in the right place but lacked execution. CISPA allowed to much leeway for the feds which is what the reformed CISPA aims to prevent and which I hope will occur. Lets be clear the basic brunt behind CISPA and SOPA are two entirely different animals. Individuals rights need to be protected but at the same time we need to concern our self with national defense in this area that we are sorely lacking. And reading through all my posts I hope it's clear I agree the original CISPA was shit because it didn't respect privacy right but new CISPA I hope make a greater distinction between threat and average user.

To add, I'm drunk so any fuck up I blame on the rum.

Let's be frank, I don't believe there's any way in hell that CISPA as written wouldn't enable the police to do basically what SOPA tried to allow publishers to do. Yeah, later drafts removed the whole "We're gonna spy on you to curtail piracy" bit, but if they have the information, you know damn well they're going to use it. Even if they legally can't, all they really have to do is 'happen' to do another 'unrelated' investigation.

Again, I'm not pro-piracy. I actively think the internet as a generic whole taking the whole "Piracy and eavesdropping are my god given rights!" stance without a strong vocal counterpoint online to it, is going to ensure we get the worst possible bill as public support turns against the online community.

We could prevent it by requiring court orders to access the site and only for specific information, an ISP would only give that specific information.

And even if cops where allowed to see everything they wouldn't be able to use it in trial or to collect information. It would qualify as illegal search or breach of privacy. And even if it didn't in the constitution it could be put in the legislation.

Or we could do what Obama's executive order plans are

"voluntary program of cyber security standards for companies operating vital U.S. infrastructure." It also "directs federal agencies to consider incorporating the cyber security standards into existing regulations [and]...directs the government to share more information about computer threats with the private sector and issue more security clearances allowing industry representatives to receive classified information"

Of course you could be in the group that thinks DDOS attacks are a valid form of protest.

Critics of the different proposed cyber security measures are concerned that increased cooperation between Internet businesses and U.S. intelligence agencies could erode user privacy. And some have gone so far as to say that hasty regulation of things like the Denial of Service attacks used against U.S. banks could hamper legitimate forms of protest.

The executive order, has a civil liberties section, of course this probably won't be the final version.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/White-House-Draft-Executive-Order-Dated-11-21-12.pdf

And after the final draft of the executive order is released we'll get to see exactly what the privacy protections will entail and if this draft is anything to go by a year after that we'll have the exact safety protocol courtesy of the DHS.

Sopa, Cispa and any of its various iterations are just like a bad case of herpes.

porpoise hork:
Sopa, Cispa and any of its various iterations are just like a bad case of herpes.

Says everyone who has been so brainwashed they have never actually read the original bill and what was wrong with it and instead got all of their opinions from blogs.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112e2SyS2::

Now read it carefully and tell me where the hole in the bill is? It's definitely there. Then ask yourself how to fix it?

I came into this thread hoping for good news on Crystal Pepsi.

I am very disappointed.

The first thing I guess was this, I hate it when I am right on bad things. As for cyber warfare fight back I guess. Hack Iran, and if they go too far hack Russia, and China.

Of course it is, and it's going to keep coming back in one form or another until they jam it through, quietly or not. The internet is one of the last places to get raw, unfiltered information (whether true or not) and the government would rather that been toned down. Hard to brainwash people when they're getting better info elsewhere.

Ever notice how it seems to be mostly Republicans doing this crap?
"We Want Less Government*"

*And by less government, we mean big government, it's just less helping Americans and more helping corporations.

image

This is the same backwards, savage country that pushed the patriot act through. That's like SOPA, CISPA or PIPA in real life. They're going to push this through too. I give up.

Okay, with pardon to hijack, I want you to understand from the point of view from someone who is for the ownership of firearms.
The rage you feel right now about how they wish to tear our freedom of speech to shreds under the guise of security which will do nothing is EXACTLY the same rage we feel when they wish to tear our right to bear arms to shreds under a guise of security which will do nothing.

Singularly Datarific:
Okay, with pardon to hijack, I want you to understand from the point of view from someone who is for the ownership of firearms.
The rage you feel right now about how they wish to tear our freedom of speech to shreds under the guise of security which will do nothing is EXACTLY the same rage we feel when they wish to tear our right to bear arms to shreds under a guise of security which will do nothing.

Funny bit is, freedom and security are so close they might as well be on the same coin. You can't have one without the other. Just my take on it.

Lack of restriction does not freedom make. Some order is always, uh, in order. Just can't get complacent with it.

dmase:
We can't just ignore cyber security something has to be done. Everyone in the defense department knows the biggest threat to our national security isn't some guy in Pakistan strapped with a bomb, it's a hacker in Iran, Russia, or China taking down power for a city or even a state. We just need to ensure that they don't throw in personal online interactions with the company by individuals. Separating the two is difficult but needs to be achieved.

if thats so darn big, why hasnt it happen yet?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked