Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Businesses Government Privacy Security United States Politics

Bernie Sanders Comes Out Against CISA 211

erier2003 writes: Sen. Bernie Sanders' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act in its current form aligns him with privacy advocates and makes him the only presidential candidate to stake out that position, just as cybersecurity issues loom large over the 2016 election, from email server security to the foreign-policy implications of data breaches. The Senate is preparing to vote on CISA, a bill to address gaps in America's cyberdefenses by letting corporations share threat data with the government. But privacy advocates and security experts oppose the bill because customers' personal information could make it into the shared data.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bernie Sanders Comes Out Against CISA

Comments Filter:
  • by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @03:28PM (#50712413) Homepage

    You mean besides John McAfee. Who is also certifiably insane, but at least manages to be interesting while being so.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      and also Rand Paul? https://randpaul.com/f/stop-cisa?sr=807fbnp1

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Once you're that rich, you can no longer be insane. Just eccentric.

  • impressed again. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2015 @03:32PM (#50712459)

    Another sensible and patriotic policy position by Bernie Sanders.

    • Re:impressed again. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2015 @04:42PM (#50713047)

      Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I think most people on slashdot support Bernie, so I'm probably going to get modded down, but I think he's just another one of those "hey, let's be more like Europe" politicians. And honestly, I think that would be a disaster. Income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.

        The thing is, our "struggle to the top" culture is the reason why all of the world's best tech firms are here, and why all of the world's best new scientific (especia

        • by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @03:30AM (#50715833)
          You sound like a well-educated 8-year-old arguing why his country is the bestest in the world - lots of hyperbole, lots of massive (incorrect) generalizations, and dripping with conjecture. You're not making a very compulsive argument, but you are showing everyone just how ill-informed you are about the country you live in, and how quickly you will form an opinion with the scantest of evidence or opinion.
        • by DanJ_UK ( 980165 ) *
          "why all of the world's best tech firms are here"

          It's that kind of ignorance that gives American a bad name, fortunately over the other side of the pond here we're not so ignorant to generalise that all Americans are ignorant idiots.

          'All' of the world's best tech firms are not, in America, in fact the largest one in the world by revenue is in South Korea.
          • by DanJ_UK ( 980165 ) *
            America*
          • Actually when I made that statement, I was just echoing something that a few European governments have lamented. More details here:

            http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]

            If you disagree, then go take it up to your own leadership who is now resorting to legal tactics to try to push out American competitors to local European firms for no reason other than they just can't manage to produce a good enough product to effectively compete on the global economy.

            • by DanJ_UK ( 980165 ) *
              TFA you linked is talking about companies based on size, not technological innovation, it's misleading to say a technology company is not 'one of the best' just because they're not the size of Apple.

              I can speak for the UK, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden in saying we're all fantastically innovative nations and have huge technology markets, the fragmentation may not lead to companies the size of Apple but to dismiss them entirely is naive at best.

              You seem to also forget that your Apple behemoths have d
        • The first link maybe, just maybe, has to do with the size and population of the US, and the second, if you bother to read the comments, is a non-story.
        • so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.

          No. It is not. It is for you. It is (currently) for me. I know many who can not easily get the bare essentials. Living a sheltered life is a wonderful thing but you need to find a way to see outside of your little bubble before making such pronouncements.

          Life is grim for quite a number of people in America.

      • by NoKaOi ( 1415755 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @06:24PM (#50713871)

        Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.

        You probably think that's weird because you don't know what a Democratic Socialist is. When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government - but then confuse you into thinking that's the type of socialist Bernie is. Democratic socialism is about making things fair (people making millions per year don't pay lower tax rate than their janitor) and economically secure (making sure you have access to medical care, enough to eat, housing, access to education etc without having to work 80 hours per week and not being able to save any money for retirement).

        Coming out against CISA shows this. CISA is about more government control. If Bernie was the type of socialist that Republicans and Hillary want you to think he is, he would be strongly in favor of CISA. Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA. Isn't that pretty much the epitome of irony?

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Agreed....

          It's also funny how people get so upset about a social program for college education, but are perfectly OK with a social k-12 program. Also social security is probably the one program that the government did right, and it's not out of money like republicans want you to think. When Bernie Sanders is talking about making billionaires pay there fair share, he's not saying that we should charge them a higher rate, he's saying that we should charge them the same rate as everyone else, but not have a

        • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

          Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA.

          This is untrue. Hillary's campaign has not yet released any position on CISA [dailykos.com]. I suspect you'll find a lot of the Republican "Freedom Caucus" against it too, but I don't have the stomach to check.

          She's actually in a bit of a weird position on any pending legislation. As both the "presumptive nominee" (for now) and a Clinton, her coming out against a bill is the one thing that can guarantee its passage in the Republican House. If its mostly a political football bill anyway (eg: The Keystone Pipeline), more'

        • with social ownership of the means of production.

          source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

          When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government

          Either Sanders is incorrectly using the term, or he really does want a lot of the means of production controlled socially. I suspect he believes in the later. I would support more ownership of things by the people/government, especially when they are common resources. Like, I'd much rather have my city own the internet service, just like water/sewer. Infrastructure should be 'owned by the people' in some way, shape, or form.

          If he really does bel

      • Times have changed. The biggest growth in US socialism in the past 50 years was George W. Bush's Medicare drug expansion. He was supposed to be a Republican. I have a hard time telling who the players are these days just by looking at the team they're supposed to be on.
    • by KGIII ( 973947 )

      I've established a fair reputation here and I've been pretty consistent for the duration of my stay. It should be well known that I'm a pretty staunch Libertarian though the moniker is, really, Classic Libertarian. I'm neither a follower of Rand nor a believer in anarcho-capitalism nor a conservative - by any stretch of the imagination. I've explained this, time and time again actually. I'll spare you the details unless you promise to read them and do so with an open mind but, rest assured, that the vast ma

      • You won't listen. I could type for days but you won't read it and you'll just try to argue.

        This part of your post comes across only as arrogant.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    With 50 states, there could be variations about all these civil rights / privacy / security issues and people could just live wherever they feel comfortable instead of putting everything into two irrelevantly similar baskets (political parties) and swinging from one to the other every 8 years.

    • With 50 states, there could be variations about all these civil rights / privacy / security issues and people could just live wherever they feel comfortable instead of putting everything into two irrelevantly similar baskets (political parties) and swinging from one to the other every 8 years.

      Civil Rights shouldn't be negotiable.
      Also, poor people have a disproportionately hard time moving across town, so across the country is just not an option.

  • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @03:47PM (#50712597) Journal

    Looking at how candidates are responding to this Rand Paul has been pushing several amendments addressing the privacy concerns of CISA.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Seriously, Rand Paul advocates for our privacy and has done so for longer than half of Bernie Sanders' life(since he's like a million years old thats a long time).

      https://randpaul.com/f/stop-cisa?sr=807fbnp1

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Even a blind squirrel encounters a nut on occasion. Rand Paul is against CISA because he wants to eliminate the entire federal government. NOAA, NWS, NASA, all would be gone so that UmbrellaCorp executives can get rich selling all of us the weather forecast (along with an umbrella). No national park service, no DOT to manage the interstate highways, no FAA to ensure that planes don't fall out of the sky and onto your house. Rand wants it all gone, replaced by the strong invisible hand of capitalism. Thanks

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @03:50PM (#50712615)

    Since Clinton opted to share everything up to top secret emails with the Russians, Chinese, or simply anyone skilled and a little curious she obviously doesn't see why it would matter to anyone if they were sharing data with a government.

    • Not saying she wasn't reckless, and not saying that the next fool that follows in her footsteps will get away as cleanly as she appears to have, but...

      The value of secrets diminishes with time, and it appears that any secrets she may have leaked through carelessness weren't leaked quickly enough to be highly valuable to anybody who eventually obtained them.

      The other value of secrecy is wrapping up everything you can justify in TOP SECRET clearance, so if anybody does crack a TOP SECRET file, odds are what t

      • Not quite sure how the name of an active CIA field agent is ever a secret whose value "diminishes with time" with respect to the guy who is going to be murdered if the information leaks.

  • Irrelevant (Score:4, Informative)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @03:50PM (#50712619)

    I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.

    • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      And yet, there is diversity and disagreement within the different candidates' campaign promises.

    • Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2015 @03:58PM (#50712677)

      Great thing that Bernie Sanders has had a consistent voting record his entire political career then as well as his net worth is about $390,000.
      His presidential campaign is being funded by the people not special interests and Wall Street hates that.

    • Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fnj ( 64210 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @04:07PM (#50712747)

      I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.

      OK, cynicism does resonate with some part of me. But when is the last time the US elected a president who was not an obvious establishment sellout from long before election time? The last one I could possibly see as a possibility was JFK in 1960 - and he was debatable. One can have disagreement with various of Mr. Sanders' stands, but seeing him as a sellout is not credible.

      Just because the electorate has chosen an endless series of sellouts, who were transparently obvious as sellouts at election time, is not a rational argument that all candidates would sell out if elected.

      • Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ravenscar ( 1662985 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @04:38PM (#50713007)

        I'd agree with JFK being debatable. I'd say Jimmy Carter wasn't a sellout. Few would call his presidency successful, but few would call him a sellout.

        • by PRMan ( 959735 )
          I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout. He did a LOT of things that a lot of people didn't like, almost all of which were for the longterm good of the country...
          • He did a LOT of things that a lot of people didn't like, almost all of which were for the longterm good of the country...

            Like raise 90% of the population's taxes?

            Like sign an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants?

            Like give arms to Iran?

            Like send death squads to Central and South America?

            Like crap his diaper in the oval office?

            Yeah, I'd say that Reagan did a lot of things that a lot of people didn't like. I would have to respectfully disagree about the "good of the country" part, though.

          • by sconeu ( 64226 )

            Truman. Maybe -- and ONLY maybe -- Ike.

          • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

            I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout.

            And you would be wrong.

            almost all of which were for the longterm good of the country...

            OK not that's some funny #@% right there.

          • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

            I would say Reagan wasn't a sellout.

            Depends on your version of "a sellout". He started political life as an FDR supporter, then changed his tune when G.E. started paying him to tour the country shilling for them [amazon.com] in the 50's. So some might argue that he actually sold out long before he was ever elected.

    • Re:Irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gavagai80 ( 1275204 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @04:10PM (#50712797) Homepage

      We're talking about a senator who has a vote on it. It's not a campaign promise, it's a senatorial decision.

    • the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding

      Chief among these ways: passing laws to make things that a minority finds distasteful illegal... That's the problem with government, they try to govern.

    • Re:Irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @05:05PM (#50713275)

      I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office.

      That's actually VERY true. Candidates from BOTH parties will SAY anything to be elected and what they say has largely been "focus grouped" to death. They study the exact phrases being used on the stump, weasel word their way though the mine field of diverse opinions, letting you believe what you *want* to hear without actually having said it.

      HOWEVER.... There are two fairly reliable indicators of what candidates will do when they take office. First is their associations. Who where they associated with during their lives, what kind of people do they hang out with and feel most comfortable with, who are their long standing friends? Second, what have they done in the past? What did they vote for, what did they not, what types of things have they done with their lives in the past?

      But your primary way to tell your candidate isn't really "on board" with what's being said is when they use weasel wording on an issue. The candidate will use similar words and phrases ALL THE TIME when they are trying to thread the needle on some hot topic. If you hear this, if you hear these pat sayings and phrases which are highly parsed and usually meaningless when you pay attention to what's actually said, be warned, they are trying to snow you...

    • by lbenes ( 2737085 )

      I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.

      While I would love to see a great distinction between to two parties, your black and white attitude bears little resemblance to reality. Do you really believe the War mongler John McCain would have passed a historic nuclear arms deal with Iran? Or any Republican for that matter pass a historic health care plan to ensure that even the poorest Americans have some form of health insurance.

      You're attitude is toxic, and part of the reason we have some of the lowest voter turnout in the free world. If people got

  • CISA attempts to increase the amount of shared knowledge about ongoing threats by creating a federal government bureaucracy which is supposed to facilitate communication. It grants immunity from law suits to any information shared through the new system.

    This isn't necessary in order to achieve the goal. A federal program like this would be used almost exclusively by large companies, mom-and-pop shops aren't going to do 800 pages of paperwork to become a participating entity. Currently, the large companies who care about security -already- engage the services of security companies like Alert Logic or Fire Eye, who are -already- monitoring for security threats across their many client networks, and already raising the alarm when there are widespread indications of a threat in the current threat landscape. They do this without any special legal protection, and compete to see who can do it best. because they aren't immune from privacy lawsuits, they have to actually follow privacy laws (or try to, mistakes happen).

    I seriously doubt that a government agency, with no motivation to do excellent work (but plenty of politically based mandates), would do better than the companies full of experts doing it already.

    Also, the most important thing for companies in this space is their reputation - that their brand name is trusted. They have ample motivation to do everything in their power to be sure they don't -cause- a breach and to secure their own systems. Many of us know how secure government systems tend to be - almost as if they didn't care. Perhaps that is because hardly ever does any government program lose funding or any govt employee get fired for shoddy security. A breach of Fire Eye's network, or Alert Logic's, would have immediate and significant consequences for the company and the people responsible.

  • by better_resurrection ( 4292337 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @04:09PM (#50712789) Homepage
    to the surprise of the media & the establishment, I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat. Sanders does not like the open borders policies that some democrats advocate; he said open borders is how the plutocrats drive down wages... Sanders is not all that friendly towards gun control. Sanders is an old time leftist...maybe what we need....I hope it is sanders vs trump in the general election
    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

      I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat

      This is actually the What's the Matter with Kansas [wikipedia.org] argument. Basically that Democrats sold their (largely white) working-class base down the river to "move to the center" during the Clinton "Third Way" years, so now all those folks have left to vote on is social issues (where they tend to be conservative).

      I'm not sure I buy Frank's argument entirely. For one thing he anchors it on the politics in Kansas, which is a really unique state politically. But it is a school of thought, and he could be onto somethi

  • by jasenj1 ( 575309 ) on Monday October 12, 2015 @04:36PM (#50712987)

    https://randpaul.com/f/stop-ci... [randpaul.com]

    "Therefore: I agree that the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, is non-negotiable and I urge you to Stand With Rand and oppose CISA."

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Working...