At the end of the day, there's one thing that should always be at the back of your mind. .
Your opinion doesn't really matter it's your action that does.

Quote from Zed

No they can't. CISPA says that they can legally give their data to the government. It absolutely does not let them just publish all their data for the public to see.

Who said it would be public? Oh wait.... dox.

Allow me to clarify:

They could distribute the info to major protestors...

Again, still illegal. They can only give that information to the government, and if the government subsequently shares that information they have to make it anonymous.

Quote from Zed

Again, still illegal. They can only give that information to the government, and if the government subsequently shares that information they have to make it anonymous.

But what if they think they are the shit and can do whatever they want and release the so called private information with the personal details for the person it concerns, what would happen then or don't you think they can do that?

I'm not intimately familiar with US corporate law, but I imagine at the very least the company would be fined. The executives may be liable for criminal prosecution.

Quote from Zed

I'm not intimately familiar with US corporate law, but I imagine at the very least the company would be fined. The executives may be liable for criminal prosecution.

nor am I but I know this is very unlikely to happen but I seen some companies get away with some pretty gruesome crimes after they've been fined. The court rules finds them not guilty even though they are or it's just the case of a crooked judge. But none the less I have also seen some companies not drinking the government's kool-aid so to speak get fined and shut down with immediate effect. What I mean by not drinking the kool-aid is that in some companies the government of that state or country own a stake ( some part of the income or profit) and some companies are private owned by individuals.

Quote from Apex93

I seen some companies get away with some pretty gruesome crimes after they've been fined.

If they've been fined then they didn't get away with it.

The companies will have to weigh up whether they get more benefit from maliciously sharing data than it costs them in fines. I'm not sure how they could. What benefit does a company gain from giving out it's customer data? Unless they sold it, in which case the fines are clearly going to be a disincentive.


Anyway, none of this has anything to do with CISPA. Giving out your customer data is illegal now and will remain illegal after CISPA.

Quote from Zed

If they've been fined then they didn't get away with it.

The companies will have to weigh up whether they get more benefit from maliciously sharing data than it costs them in fines. I'm not sure how they could. What benefit does a company gain from giving out it's customer data? Unless they sold it, in which case the fines are clearly going to be a disincentive.


Anyway, none of this has anything to do with CISPA. Giving out your customer data is illegal now and will remain illegal after CISPA.

Yeah I understand but the word illegal doesn't stop people from doing the deed though anyways, this has been lovely. Learned quite a few things here so thanks guys (Zed, Grimm).

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

Who said it would be public? Oh wait.... dox.

Allow me to clarify:

They could distribute the info to major protestors...

Who, the government? The legislation doesn't give them the authority to do that, it explicitly prohibits it:

In an April 16, 2012, press release, the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announced the approval of several amendments to CISPA, including the addition of a new provision "to permit federal lawsuits against the government for any violation of restrictions placed on the government’s use of voluntarily shared information, including the important privacy and civil liberties protections contained in the bill," the inclusion of an anti-tasking provision to "explicitly prohibit the government from conditioning its sharing of cyber threat intelligence on the sharing of private sector information with the government," and the prevention of the government from using the information for "any other lawful purpose unless the government already has a significant cybersecurity or national security purpose in using the information."

So I'll say it again. Why are you trying to debate something that you barely understand?

Quote from Apex93

Yeah I understand but the word illegal doesn't stop people from doing the deed though anyways

This is a debate about pending legislation, so I'm not sure why you're making blind assumptions about how the government might act in a way that's blatantly illegal. I guess it's possible, but what does that have to do with what we're discussing?

Quote from Exilement

This is a debate about pending legislation, so I'm not sure why you're making blind assumptions about how the government might act in a way that's blatantly illegal. I guess it's possible, but what does that have to do with what we're discussing?

I just think they shouldn't get away with modifying a bill that has already been protested and fought off by the people then renaming it and calling it some new. BTW did anyone know that Obama was planning to sign the bill without the knowledge of the american people <<< I am not speculating or jumping to conclusion I heard it from a highly reliable alternative new source.

Quote from Exilement

Who, the government? The legislation doesn't give them the authority to do that, it explicitly prohibits it:

In an April 16, 2012, press release, the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announced the approval of several amendments to CISPA, including the addition of a new provision "to permit federal lawsuits against the government for any violation of restrictions placed on the government’s use of voluntarily shared information, including the important privacy and civil liberties protections contained in the bill," the inclusion of an anti-tasking provision to "explicitly prohibit the government from conditioning its sharing of cyber threat intelligence on the sharing of private sector information with the government," and the prevention of the government from using the information for "any other lawful purpose unless the government already has a significant cybersecurity or national security purpose in using the information."

So I'll say it again. Why are you trying to debate something that you barely understand?




This is a debate about pending legislation, so I'm not sure why you're making blind assumptions about how the government might act in a way that's blatantly illegal. I guess it's possible, but what does that have to do with what we're discussing?

I did not say the government would release info to protesters, but the companies that support the bill could be bought off or pressed into something of that nature. They are, after all, human.

My point is that no matter how many rules and regulations are put on it, someone is bound to find a way to corrupt it. Who's to say that cyber terrorism can't be defined so broadly that protesters who say something very angrily won't be singled out for flaming at/about the government?
It won't necessarily be the government that goes too far. If something illegal starts happening, we won't know about it (and neither will the government) until it has been going on for years. Take for example, the fiasco going on with the IRS. They had been targeting conservative groups for years before it was discovered. I have a legitimate concern that the people that fight invasive practices may very well become victimized for it, if somehow their info were "accidentally" leaked to somewhere it shouldn't be...

Quote from Apex93

I just think they shouldn't get away with modifying a bill that has already been protested and fought off by the people then renaming it and calling it some new.

But their modifications address the issues that people were protesting about. If a bill says A, B, C, and D, and people protest against C, that doesn't make A, B, and D bad by association. Get rid of C and you get rid of the problem.

Quote from GrimmtheReaper

I did not say the government would release info to protesters, but the companies that support the bill could be bought off or pressed into something of that nature. They are, after all, human.

It would still be illegal. You can hire a hitman but that's not an argument against homicide legislation.

Quote from GrimmtheReaper]I did not say the government would release info to protesters, but the companies that support the bill could be bought off or pressed into something of that nature. They are, after all, human.[/quote]

What companies? This bill doesn't give companies access to private information or the ability/authority to release it publicly. I have no idea what you're talking about, the hypothetical scenario you've created is completely irrelevant to CISPA and what it's meant to do.

[QUOTE=Apex93

I just think they shouldn't get away with modifying a bill that has already been protested and fought off by the people then renaming it and calling it some new.

They did a hell of a lot more than rename it. The main concern was that "intellectual property theft" was a reason to shut down a website that's deemed guilty of it. That's been completely removed from this new version of the bill.

So again, what the hell are you guys doing here if you don't know anything about this bill. Stuff like this is the reason we made the debate section opt-in.

Quote from Apex93

I know quite a lot about it actually so I don't need you making the assumptions that I DON'T thank you very much.

What?
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, I don't know anything about this bill and can easily see you don't either. All you are doing is creating hypothetical situation that are in no way related to the bill and might happen regardless of its existence. Do you even read the counter arguments Zed and Exilement have provided?