Obama Administration Threatens CISPA Veto, EFF Urges Action 106
An anonymous reader sent in word that the Obama administration is threatening to veto CISPA in its current form because "The Administration, however, remains concerned that the bill does not
require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information (PDF) when
sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. Citizens have a
right to know that corporations will be held accountable — and not granted immunity — for failing
to safeguard personal information adequately. The Administration is committed to working with
all stakeholders to find a workable solution to this challenge."
Ars has a few more details, the EFF urges U.S. citizens to oppose the bill, and one of the sponsors tweeted that those opposed to the bill are basement dwelling fourteen-year-olds. Note that the Administration still wants there to be some kind of comprehensive data sharing law in the name of cybersecurity, so this may very well rear its head again in the coming months.
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:4, Interesting)
I can think of a few
- The citizens who own the corporations, or are sufficiently high enough in its organization to make wads of money off it
- The citizens who think POTUS is on the right track, but is approaching it wrong or have issues with the current implementation
- The crazy fuckers who oppose POTUS at every turn because he's black/Arab/has a white grandmother/The Man/Muslim/not Muslim/supports Israel/hates Israel/is from Kenya/is from Hawaii/is getting gray hairs/etc
- The slightly less crazy fuckers who oppose POTUS at every turn because they oppose his general political stance, but don't have the time/effort to pick and choose which specific issues to oppose
- and many more!
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why just corporations (Score:5, Interesting)
Withholding the information will work for now while this stuff is still in turmoil. However, if it becomes established across all businesses, then where will you go to buy food if no one will sell it to you without your phone number? What about a car? A home or apartment? I'm not so paranoid that I object to giving out a little personal information (like a ZIP code) but I don't like the idea of giving companies information not directly relevant to the business we're doing. If you're shipping me something, I can see why you would need my phone number. If I'm buying it in-store, then you don't need that. Unfortunately, most people will just give whatever information is asked for... I've had people give me their SS# or bank PIN because they misunderstood me when I was asking for something else.
The general masses don't understand that information is the ultimate smart bomb... it can be used to target a single individual with almost no collateral damage and can be launched from anywhere in the world at any time with no warning. The only defense is to protect the information and prevent it from spreading as much as possible.
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely. "One man one vote" is a phrase that comes to my mind a lot these days.
I absolutely don't have a problem with CEOs voicing their opinions. I have a problem with their opinions holding perhaps one million times the weight mine does a private citizen. I don't even have a problem with a CEO opinion holding more weight than mine in certain cases (as experts, especially), but right now the private citizen means nothing. We keep hearing screams about "liberty," but as I read the constitution that's WAY out of line for what they believed liberty to be.
Re:HIPAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a serious question, I don't know the answer. Does HIPAA protect pharmaceutical purchases?
I does now. But it won't after the gun control "universal background" check gets passed. There is an explicit exemption in there for all medical providers to share information with the background check system. So if you're prescribed anything from Haldol to Ritalin to Prozac (and any other flavor of SSRI), or even Wellbutrin, you'll be flagged as having a mental illness and unable to purchase a gun, and probably have any you own confiscated. They already do that in New York and California.
It's a good idea, but a bad implementation. It's a sledgehammer approach better implemented by relying on psychiatrists and psychologists evaluations. It will sweep up a lot of veterans that are no danger to anyone but the bad actors on the streets.
Re:You don't have a left and a right. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your median is slapped over on the hard left.
FTFY.
Leftist governments are traditionally the governments that are large and up in everyone's business. That's what we got today.
This graph of US state senatorial positions [politicalcompass.org] shows the opposite of your above quoted statements. Right-leaning states' senators hold more authoritarian positions, while left-leaning states' senators hold more libertarian positions — though all of those positions are on the right and authoritarian sides of the median axes.