Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Backs Away From CISPA Support, Citing Privacy

suraj.sun writes "CISPA, the hotly-contested cybersecurity bill making its way through Congress, has been supported by Microsoft since it was introduced. However, the company now tells CNET that any such legislation must 'honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers,' while also 'protecting consumer privacy.' As you may recall, the U.S. House passed CISPA on Thursday. The Obama administration has threatened to veto the bill. Quoting CNET: 'That's a noticeable change — albeit not a complete reversal — from Microsoft's position when CISPA was introduced in November 2011. To be sure, Microsoft's initial reaction to CISPA came before many of the privacy concerns had been raised. An anti-CISPA coalition letter (PDF) wasn't sent out until April 16, and a petition that garnered nearly 800,000 signatures wasn't set up until April 5. What makes CISPA so controversial is a section saying that, "notwithstanding any other provision of law," companies may share information with Homeland Security, the IRS, the NSA, or other agencies. By including the word "notwithstanding," CISPA's drafters intended to make their legislation trump all existing federal and state laws, including ones dealing with wiretaps, educational records, medical privacy, and more.'"

4 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Microsoft has always been pro-privacy by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please - the only reason Microsoft is backing away from it now is because they were caught supporting it. Look for them to happily support the next anti-consumer bill to come down the pike if the bill benefits them... and just like this time, and SOPA before it, they'll quietly hope that this time, nobody notices.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. Re:What is wrong with you americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It happened because the public is too involved making sure their party gets elected, right or wrong, to give a fuck about what their party is actually doing. This kind of thinking has all the trappings of a high school football game. The sooner that people abandon their party the sooner we get back to being where we need to be. The current division in American trust is split along party lines and even when both "sides" agree they refuse to come to terms because they see it as taking on the banner of the enemy.
     
    People planet wide will suffer for what has happened for decades to come.

  3. Re:Microsoft has always been pro-privacy by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsofts business is to sell software

    They also have a substantial and growing online services division, and they are still in a precarious position when it comes to antitrust laws. Microsoft does not want to endanger its relationship with the government -- a relationship that basically resulted in the punishment for their previous antitrust case being completely ignored. They also sell technology to law enforcement agencies that helps in the gathering of computer evidence.

    A business built on privacy violations? No, nobody can accuse Microsoft of that, at least not without some real evidence to back it up. A friendly and valuable relationship with the government, that has allowed them to continue to dominate various markets? Absolutely, and that is why they supported CISPA -- it basically gave them a free pass to cultivate that relationship.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  4. Re:This is the same old pattern by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What someone should be doing is introducing legislation that enumerates, codifies, and protects specific rights and expectations of privacy that citizens have

    You would have to amend the constitution for that. Here is how I would word such an amendment:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Of course, there is no way anyone would dare to include such language in our constitution, at a time when we are surrounded by enemies who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. We could be attacked at any time; how can we even think of codifying such a right in our constitution?

    --
    Palm trees and 8