Who Needs CISPA? FBI Has a Non-Profit Workaround

nonprofiteer writes "What has been left out of the CISPA debate thus far is the FBI's long time workaround for information sharing with private industry: 'In 1997, long-time FBI agent Dan Larkin helped set up a non-profit based in Pittsburgh that "functions as a conduit between private industry and law enforcement." Its industry members, which include banks, ISPs, telcos, credit card companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others can hand over cyberthreat information to the non-profit, called the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA), which has a legal agreement with the government that allows it to then hand over info to the FBI. Conveniently, the FBI has a unit, the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, stationed in the NCFTA's office. Companies can share information with the 501(c)6 non-profit that they would be wary of (or prohibited from) sharing directly with the FBI.'"

Comments

In other words,

[fredrated]

who needs laws in a country ruled by money?

Re:In other words,

[girlintraining]

That's how they think. They don't see the dehumanization.

No, they see it, they just rationalize it;
They're just lazy! If they really wanted a job, they'd have one.
Poor people want to be poor.
They're oppressing themselves.
I am successful because of my ________, not because of luck.
Some are born to lead, the rest follow.
...

The rich overwhelmingly rationalize their behavior with the belief in a natural moral order. Survival of the fittest, predators verus prey, white versus black, strong versus weak. They view their every achievement through the lens of that belief, and inevitably conclude they have the fortune they do because they deserve it because of intrinsic qualities which have them at the top of the natural moral order. This thinking has strong parallels with monarchies and the concept of divine rule. It is also why the rich are overwhelmingly conservative in nature; If the difference between liberalism and conservativism was boiled down to a single ideological statement, it would be that "conservatives believe in a natural moral order, with some humans being inherently superior to others, and liberals believe in a peer to peer relational model, where individual achievement is the result of good teamwork."

If you have something others want, it's only natural as a defense mechanism to loudly proclaim you deserve it and shouldn't have to share; Whereas if you are one of the people that wants something you don't have, it's just as natural to proclaim others have to share. That's the curveball; This isn't liberal or conservative thinking, but whenever one is confronted by the other, the argument usually is an exchange of these two statements. So be careful when you hear statements similar to this, or pronunciations of "fairness" or "equality" -- they could be based on self-interest, not ideology.

In the end, neither group's ideology leads to its stated objective; Too much of either leads to societal collapse; With a strict social hierarchy, capitalism fails because workers cannot move into positions where their skills and abilities are most optimal; People who do not possess natural leadership ability would be leading, and people who did wouldn't; The net result is gross inefficiency. The reverse is also true; Large-scale democracy has never been possible in any context... it begins to break down with as little as a few thousand people, and consensus (majority vote) can take so long that the window of opportunity passes before action can be taken.

I would like to think that anyone who takes the time to critically consider these two ideologies, as well as the problem of wealth inequity, would come to realize that our system, as corrupt and inefficient as it is, is mostly the correct one. I say mostly because it has become too top-heavy; There will (and must) be a stratification of wealth -- there will always be poor people, and will always be rich people, however the majority of the wealth in the system should be concentrated in the middle. For as many millionares as are generated in a year, the number of people who are economically destitute should be the same; It should ideally resemble a bell curve, and with the GDP in this country, the median income is about $42,000 right now -- that's what most people should be making as well.

The system has become unbalanced; And it actually has nothing to do with ideologies, but instead is the result of investment. Compound interest is what has caused the problem -- and the solution is to prevent cash from becoming stagnant. There should be a limit to the amount of unsed assets a person (or organization) can possess; Companies and individuals shouldn't have billions in cash reserves sitting there, doing nothing. For an economy to grow -- and for wealth inequity to cease, money needs to change hands. There needs to be an increase in trade. It's macroeconomics 101, but sadly, it's been "overlooked" by certain social elements to the detriment of us all. That is the real culprit in our economy.

Not news

[girlintraining]

Private organizations and citizens can collect evidence that the police cannot due to legal restrictions. This is not news. However, sharing with a non-profit can still violate contractual agreements; This is what CISPA aims to kill, along with the notion that companies can refuse until a warrant is served. By removing all risk, law enforcement can just look at a company and say "Gee, that's a really nice data center you have there. A shame it would be if we had to search it for drugs..." And viola, instant and total compliance -- company lawyers can no longer say there's a liability, so even the slightest coerceion makes surrendering the data the right business move.

Can't use in criminal case?

[ShiftyOne]

Interesting to think about whether the Fourth Amendment applies here. The Fourth Amendment only protects us from government action. This non-profit would be considered a private person, whom are only covered when they are acting in their capacity as an agent of the government. This is determined by the level of government involvement in the situation and the totality of the circumstances. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the facts here it seems like this non-profit would be considered an agent of the government, and therefore you may not be able to sue them for money damages, but the material they collect probably cannot be used as evidence in a crime.

CISPA legalizes FBI/NSA warrantless wiretapping

[mounthood]

This FBI/Private Non-Profit is no more legal then what the NSA has been doing, and its why they want to pass CISPA: it legalizes warrantless wiretapping.

Now that it's undeniable the government hasn't been obeying it's own laws for a decade, they have to either make it legal or face political consequences. Political consequences because, while people don't really care, they can no longer deny it, and they can't ignore it forever. A decade of massively illegal activity (unconstitutional!) must eventually be acknowledged and condemned by the average person.

It's like the US Internment camps for Japanese citizens during WWII -- the government gets a decade long 'free pass' to do whatever, then we either make it legal or fix it.