Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Muz]

funny thing is, we vote them in, then we bitch about how big a bunch of morons they are.

The alternative does the same thing. Pretty much a theme I've been thinking about lately is that when people fuck up, you can fire them. But when the government fuck up, you can't. I mean, hell, I'm paying my government to handle this stuff, but fire them (vote for someone else) and the replacement still does the same thing.

[EveryZig]

The alternative does the same thing. Pretty much a theme I've been thinking about lately is that when people fuck up, you can fire them. But when the government fuck up, you can't. I mean, hell, I'm paying my government to handle this stuff, but fire them (vote for someone else) and the replacement still does the same thing.

Except modern corporations do the same thing with their leaders.

[PTTG??]

Edit: goddamnit, look at all the cosponsors.

That's a truly beautiful website.

[nenjin]

The alternative does the same thing. Pretty much a theme I've been thinking about lately is that when people fuck up, you can fire them. But when the government fuck up, you can't. I mean, hell, I'm paying my government to handle this stuff, but fire them (vote for someone else) and the replacement still does the same thing.

Except modern corporations do the same thing with their leaders.

Which doesn't really change anything. It's not the people per se....it's the culture in which they operate. If you don't change the culture that surrounds a business/government.....you can hire and fire as many people as you like, the responsibility for being different will always get delegated to someone who doesn't actually have power.

[Duuvian]

From here: intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/HR3523.pdf

It's hard to copy and paste from that but it appears the bill would 'encourage' the director of National Intelligence to appoint corporate and possibly other interested private sector representatives to be privy to cyber threat intelligence.

This information may be

(A) shared by an element of the intelligence community with-
 (i) certified agencies; or
 (ii) a person with an appropriate security clearance to receive such cyber threat intelligence;

(B) Shared consistent with the need to protect the security of the United States; and

(C) used in a manner which protects such cyber threat intelligence from unauthorized disclosure.

In addition if oversight wasn't lax enough, it also requires the Director of National Intelligence to establish guidelines that provide for the head of an element of the intelligence community to grant security access and use of facilities at will to employees of certified entities. Luckily for the corporations though they totally destroyed even the limited promise of oversight or clarification the word 'certified' added by using the following phrase; and I quote despite the difficulty of copying and pasting their document:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(C) expedite the security process for a person or entity as the heads of such element considers necessary, consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States.

The entity mentioned could be any one of the heads of one of the 'elements' of the intelligence community.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(4) The term “intelligence community” includes the following:
(A) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
(B) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(C) The National Security Agency.
(D) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(E) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
(F) The National Reconnaissance Office.
(G) Other offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance programs.
(H) The intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Energy.
(I) The Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State.
(J) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of the Treasury.
(K) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security.
(L) Such other elements of any department or agency as may be designated by the President, or designated jointly by the Director of National Intelligence and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence community.

Also it says corporations are allowed to hack into networks and computers if they believe there is a security risk. They are then allowed to share this information with the government. In order to share that information with other interested parties the government must respect the original sharer's right to anonymity foremost as well as respect their request to limit information shared with others. Also the original sharer along with anyone involved in the process except the average citizen is legally protected from any potential backlash caused by either acting on information or by not acting as long as they can prove they were 'acting in good faith.'

The language used for the bill's likely target of filesharing is

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(B) Theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

The bill also prevents government regulation as a result of any uncovered information. What this applies to specifically I'm not sure but I assume it's been tailored in case corporate practices are discovered that would normally warrant regulation. This is after the information becomes classified under section 552 of title 5 United States Code which I didn't look up; and additionally becomes property of the government and is not to be shared outside of the Federal Government except by the authorization of the entity originally sharing the information with the government.

[darkrider2]

So, you're saying that a corporation could hack into anonymous, share some information, then sic the government on them, and be held completely unaccountable?

Corporations are considered people under US law, but what if a regular person were to do that? I'd be thrown in jail faster than that hacked electron could reach it.

And while I'm talking about anon. Anon should just become a corporation ('person'), that way it can reap the benefits of all the lobby laws being put through, and simultaneously troll all of the big businesses that hate them.

[nenjin]

That's the House version yeah? House bills are always whackadoo, and it has to be reconciled in the Senate. They seem to think by making this about national security instead of copyright ownership, it's going to be immune from challenge. They're sorely mistaken. I don't doubt an expansion of the intelligence community's digital information collection priveleges is on the horizon. But trying to sell turning corporations into government operatives isn't something the public will buy.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.

[Sheb]

Well, Facebook and Microsoft support that bill. what I'm afraid off is that you won't see the level of counter-lobbying from tech firms you had with SOPA/PIPA. Google is perfectly fine with being given the right to hack and search fro as much info as it can on its customers.

[Duuvian]

One thing that worries me is about whether things such as the following thread criticizing both the government and a corporation would qualify as a 'security threat' to either. Would the corporation be able to utilize government infrastructure and information to investigate those voicing their opinions?

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=57121.0

[Duuvian]

And while I'm talking about anon. Anon should just become a corporation ('person'), that way it can reap the benefits of all the lobby laws being put through, and simultaneously troll all of the big businesses that hate them.

Theoretically, Anonymous could utilize this bill as long as they aren't breaking other laws or I assume not declared a criminal organization or something. Also there was something somewhere about this bill overriding laws at the State level but it's not the following quote.

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
6
‘‘(A) CYBERSECURITY
PROVIDERS.—Not-
7
withstanding any other provision of law, a cy-
8
bersecurity provider, with the express consent
9
of a protected entity for which such cybersecu-
10
rity provider is providing goods or services for
11
cybersecurity purposes, may, for cybersecurity
12
purposes—
13
‘‘(i) use cybersecurity systems to iden-
14
tify and obtain cyber threat information to
15
protect the rights and property of such
16
protected entity; and
17
‘‘(ii) share such cyber threat informa-
18
tion with any other entity designated by
19
such protected entity, including, if specifi-
20
cally designated, the Federal Government.

9
•HR 3523 IH
‘‘(3) CYBERSECURITY
PROVIDER.—The term
1
‘cybersecurity provider’ means a non-governmental
2
entity that provides goods or services intended to be
3
used for cybersecurity purposes.

If anonymous were to claim the protected entity to be some sort of collective of internet users or even the entire userbase of the internet if that is possible they might qualify.

EDIT: Also

‘‘(7) PROTECTED ENTITY.—The term ‘protected
12
entity’ means an entity, other than an individual,
13
that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for
14
goods or services to be used for cybersecurity pur-
15
poses.
16
‘‘( SELF-PROTECTED
ENTITY.—The term
17
‘self-protected entity’ means an entity, other than an
18
individual, that provides goods or services for cyber-
19
security purposes to itself.’’.

Meaning it would have to be some form of collective signatory or something that would allow Anonymous to 'protect' them by acting against threats to their rights under this:

‘‘(B) theft or misappropriation of private
12
or government information, intellectual prop-
13
erty, or personally identifiable information

EDIT2: Portions bolded for significance.

EDIT3: This of course means that Google should probably oppose this Bill as well, as their knowledge of the fact I like spicy peppers could possibly be held as misappropriation of private information if they get it from an email I sent to someone who also likes spicy peppers. Google then uses it's ad network to advertise spicy pepper seeds to me.

[Hiiri]

don't worry, soon the US will be communist, then they'll lose any form of support, collapse, then suddenly, another country becomes communist and the cycle repeats.

Yes. That is exactly what is happening right now. Communism.

Edit: (psst... sarcasm)

[Heron TSG]

(Protip: that is the opposite of what is happening. Fewer people want more for themselves, not everyone getting a roughly equal share.)

[PTTG??]

I say let them have the internet. The Qnet will be totally secure. We just need a way to make and transmit quantum-entagled particles over long distances.

[dei]

I've signed at least four to six petitions regarding this in the past couple weeks. Seeing as everything else I have to say is kind of out there, I'm just going to state that this is going to end up like SOPA and PIPA.

Though without blondes on Facebook writing STOP SOAP on their hands. That was hilarious.