Skip to main content

View Diary: White House criticizes proposed cybersecurity bill (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why exactly can't an ISP be a cybersecurity (0+ / 0-)

    provider (or hire one) as well?  Also why can't the word "network" apply to the Internet as a whole.  Remember, a cybersecurity provider can collect the information to "prevent the theft of intellectual property".  There is nothing in the law that limits it to internal/private networks rather than the Internet as a whole or a company's own (or licensed) intellectual property.  The law says "the term `cybersecurity system' means a system designed or employed to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguard, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from theft or misappropriation of intellectual property.  Sounds like  a system designed to monitor an ISP's customers to prevent copyright infringement through bittorrent/mediafire/dropbox could easily be considered a `cybersecurity system'.  Is it not "theft of intellectual property" for someone to download the latest blockbuster movie through bittorrent?

    There is no saving throw against stupid.

    by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 06:28:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This bill addresses national security and crime (0+ / 0-)

      One key provision is that this bill addresses sharing of security info only after actual, deliberate crimes (disruption, theft, etc.) have occurred or when a national cyber-security emergency has been declared. These crimes are defined by other laws, not in this bill. This bill doesn't define any new crimes. It doesn't permit anything that isn't already permitted other than the ability to share information if, and only if, crimes have been committed or a national emergency has been declared.

      I suspect that a lobbyist wrote this up to get business for their cyber-security business client. It lets the government contract with private businesses without the need to go through such a huge pile of paperwork to get security clearances and such. In fact, I strongly suspect this motivation. The bill doesn't really change much of anything else.

      SOPA was defeated, thank goodness. SOPA defined new crimes that went way beyond reason. They wanted to address the problems of piracy, but they hired a bunch of idiots to write it up (ALEC, perhaps). This bill doesn't define crimes or penalties. None.

      You really have to broaden the scope of your thinking when looking at this bill. Cyber threats apply to telephone, cell, radio, TV, power grids, computer controls, your cable TV box, etc. Not just the Internet or ISP's.

      Maybe it "sounds like" a monitoring system to you. It turns out that everything is already monitored somewhere in the big cloud. This bill doesn't permit any new levels of monitoring. All ISP's monitor everything in and out. They scan your email for malware, for example. Don't like it? You can be your own ISP, then. But it's a very severe crime to capture or share private information. Even businesses that suspect that private info has been stolen or lost are required to report such things. It's a crime if they don't.

      Data mining is legal. If you collect certain data, you can analyze it all you want. Of course, this terminology scares the crap out of many people. They tend to imagine all sorts of magic goes on. The reality is boring and mundane. The foremost data miner, imo, is the Google Machine. The information is sold for marketing purposes. That's how they are valued in the $billions. Any they know how to analyze the stuff they collect. Regardless, sharing private information is a crime, even for the Google Machine.

      The CIA, DIA, NSA, FBI, etc. are interested in doing data mining, too. They have many more restrictions than the Google Machine.

      Yes, the wingers are pushing the envelope. The recent fights against unwarranted GPS tracking is an example of where we need to focus our attention.

      This bill doesn't seem to be necessary at all. The inter-agency sharing of data is already permitted by the horrible Patriot Act. This bill creates another path to privatize security, one that's already in place, imo.

      "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

      by GrumpyOldGeek on Fri Apr 20, 2012 at 08:02:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site