Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Calls CISPA an "Alarming" Threat to Privacy
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Mozilla has taken a public stand against the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, saying that it has a 'broad and alarming reach' that 'infringes on our privacy.' That makes it the first major tech firm to speak out against CISPA. Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Oracle and Symantec are all included among the companies that support the bill, which passed the House late last month and is now being considered in the Senate. Google has so far declined to take a stand supporting or opposing the bill."
..."Why the hell did it take you this long?"
Google did indicate that they're lobbying on it, but won't say which way, which leads to the question. If they're lobbying against it, why would they hide it?
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/223069-google-acknowledges-lobbying-on-cybersecurity-bill-cispa
There are strong indications that Google is actually supporting the bill behind closed doors and hiding it avoid a public backlash.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/221977-gop-chairman-google-supportive-of-controversial-cybersecurity-bill-cispa
This space for rent.
The Mozila site shows no mention of this.
I am not usually up for direct action[0] etc.. but maybe Mozilla could highlight this by including an 'alert' in the next update or show a page with the details - rather than a 'Change Log / Whats New' page [Which few people read anyways]
Silly me.
0. A browser should only render html as defined - like - years ago....
If Mozilla had laid out some hypothetical scenarios where abuse or misuse could occur, that might be convincing. Just saying, "this is an assault on privacy and should be rejected" is not very.
Very simple. Because it does not matter what they say. The bill is already, almost i mean, cooked and ready to go. So now Mozzila could pretend that they are the good guys (by crying river over "privacy"), and in the same time the masters of disguise would not punish them, as the bill has already passed the most important obstacle.
And came out against CISPA after it passed Congress.
" We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation."
Unsurprisingly the main stakeholder, the one who would be most affected by this legislation is never consulted.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Thank goodness a corporation finally spoke up against this bill! I mean sure, all those citizens did too, but they're just people and that's not how we do things in America.
Perhaps this can be a catalyst for other tech companies opposing this bill; we can hope it could cause enough bad PR for companies that are supporting CISPA that they reverse their position.
One can dream...
The powers-that-be seem to have a set plan for the internet: To control everything that can be controlled, and to shut down/filter out anything that can't. It doesn't matter what the bill is called: SOPA. PIPA. CISPA. They could call it FIRECRACKER and it wouldn't matter. ---- They will keep coming back, and coming back, and coming back with the same control-the-internet-horseshit under a different name, until the desired deed is done: All user data surveilled & catalogued. All internet piracy rubbed out. All offending sites closed down. Maybe even a "War on Internet Conspiracy Theories" needs to be fought, so everyone winds up believing the - often terribly contrived - official accounts of the history we are currently living through, and the events that are shaping the world. ---- Perhaps the powers-that-be (PTB) had this plan for the Internet all along: Don't do anything to regulate it in the beginning, so it becomes a free space where anything goes, and one that grows fast and thrives. But once it has "matured" - with over say 3 Billion people online - that's when you want to regulate the fuck out of it, and turn it into something that doesn't question corporate and government, but rather bends over backwards to it. ---------- Take it from me, these powerful people follow a set agenda, and that agenda say "The Internet must be brought under control". What does it matter that CISPA passes or not. They will wait 3 months and push another bill with the same content through. ----------- It was nice knowing you, Free Internet. Too bad that future generations will never experience you, because the only Internet they know will be a bound, gagged, homogenized and filtered Internet. Farewell, old friend. You served humanity, and served it well. Too bad that the PTB don't want you to stay this way. And too bad that they are ignorant enough to want to destroy everything that made the internet useful and interesting.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
We should be as eager not to give them any more money, too, whenever we can.
expandfairuse.org
We dont need new laws... We do need new Government.
There are too many laws. Many of which do not represent the people's interests at all.
The people have already spoken... however its the corporations that have the power to shut the people up, and lock them up. ... and they're working on that right now.
they would cut their ties with Google since Google is in bed with the NSA and other government snoops
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Microsoft is in a bad position: from a legal and business strategy view, CISPA is untenable for liability and privacy reasons. The bill ultimately puts us into a "bad cop" role doing things that customers perceive as hostile to security of their personal and business data. In the middle of a huge push toward cloud services, do we want customers distracted by the idea that putting their data and processes in the cloud means that everything they have becomes fodder for data mining for p2p music shar^h^h^h^hdomestic terrorists? We're going to do this just to try and save a dead music biz model? Aw hell no. However, certain brand-focused marketing strategy geniuses have decided it's bad for msft to be seen as changing positions, so they stood up on Monday and declared "All's well, full steam ahead!" without even exec consensus. It's embarrassing.
Why, when so many tech companies were opposed to SOPA, are they behind CISPA? What benefit are they now being offered that they weren't before?
I'm confused now, about a year ago everyone here was begging for the DNC's version of Net Neutrality. I looked it up and it was basically putting three guys at the FCC in charge of which web traffic should be blocked. (I know what everyone else says net neutrality is, but I'm going on what was actually proposed). You all here kept bashing the GOP for opposing it and now we see bill after bill named something else that basically does the same thing and NOW everyone is against it?
Anyways, I thought increased government regulation was the solution to all our economic and social problems. Why is it that now regulation is suddenly a bad thing? When you want to tell eveyone else how to live while no one has the right to say anything about you, that is called a dictatorship.
Anyways, my point is that you all are begging for stuff like this and do everything you can to get people elected to do things like this. Why are you upset when you finally get what you want?
>>> turn it into something that doesn't question corporate and government
They can't take away our first amendment right to speak & publish our thoughts. And if they manage to succeed..... well we still have the second.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I finally got up the courage to try taking a look at the actual bill; fortunately it's not very long, and isn't too dense, but may leave a few loopholes that could be of concern. A few thoughts:
In Sec. 2(b)(1):
`(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes--
`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and
`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.
Sounds like individuals are at least allowed to own/use security systems/software for protection and testing of their own network, so no reduction to rights in that regard.
In Sec. 2(b)(3): Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--
`(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;
Any information shared by an entity must be treated in accordance to the desires of that entity; so a lot of the privacy issues fall to the sharing entity itself for protection. Possible loop-hole here: what happens if information is not well-protected by a sharing agency? Does this give the government open reign on information if it's not explicitly forbidden them? Or worse, the final part of this section states:
In Sec. 2(b)(3): Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--
`(D) shall be exempt from disclosure under a State, local, or tribal law or regulation that requires public disclosure of information by a public or quasi-public entity.
If a business chooses to share personal information about customers, there is no way for customers to find out or be aware it is happening. I'm sure there are good reasons to put an exemption like this in the bill, but the lack of explicit protection to the individual customers and citizens is glaring.
As for the limits on what can be done with the information:
Sec 2(c):
`(2) AFFIRMATIVE SEARCH RESTRICTION- The Federal Government may not affirmatively search cyber threat information shared with the Federal Government under subsection (b) for a purpose other than a purpose referred to in paragraph (1)(B).
I'm not familiar with the legal-speak here; what is meant by "affirmatively" searching?
There are some good things I found too. The remainder of Sec 2 is a good start, but it's hard to know if it is sufficient protection for individual rights and privacy or not. Overall, I'm really not sure how I feel about this bill. I don't see anything obvious that tells me its a bad idea, but I don't fully understand all of the nuances of what could happen with it. It seems any government that wants to exploit its citizens will do so, regardless of the legal code, so I'm not sure how this bill would make that kind of abuse any more likely.
Don't feel too bad.
They can regulate wired connections to a point. Obviously, because it takes major corporations to own and operate those physical connections .
When the Internet becomes so un-free that everyday people begin seeking an alternative, one will be found. Have people stopped smoking weed because it is illegal? No. Stopped speeding? No. Will they stop enjoying a free Internet because it becomes illegal? Hell no.
You can design an infrastructure to be anonymous and private from the very beginning, and we are starting to do this on many fronts. While there have been some fights against such infrastructures with moderate successes, it has been against a fledgling infrastructure with pitiful participation by everyday people.
Look at TBP, Kazaa, Limewire for example. People have demonstrated that they will find a way to engage in the behavior they wish to engage in. Period. You have an entire generation growing up that started with a free Internet, and a generation behind that created it. Neither will sit back and accept destruction.
Those are the kiddie pool versions. Darknets and Mesh Networking can usher in a new age where shutting down dissenting opinion and punishing people will actually require roving vans triangulating signals like in Pump Up The Volume.
The PTB has just started, but so have we. The war has not even begun yet and you are throwing in the towel. Don't be that guy man. Hack the Planet! :)
Mozilla is an NPO, not a "major tech firm" as the summary claims. There is a massive, massive difference.
Let your Senators and congressman know your feeling on this issue. Only through a widespread outcry will the legislators understand that our freedoms and privacy (which is a cornerstone of freedom) is dear and we understand the implication of this legislation. Given the track record of say Bush in office who directed the Justice Department to try and bring cases against Democratic Legislators (so much so that several quit, others fired), we can't trust the government to always act in our best interest (mostly but not always). Once a privacy is pried open, its hard to get the sardine can closed again.
The powers-that-be seem to have a set plan for the internet:
I, at the risk of doffing my tinfoil hat (the z rays might get me), would suggest that the plan is for Us, and Includes the internet.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
(Bitter)
Of course they can.
You seem to think the Constitution means something.
However Corporations now have Sudo powers over the Constitution.
(/Bitter)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Oh! Oh! I know this one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbvTvExxrvY&feature=related
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
We need to get people fired up. Once people are sufficiently abuzz about this issue, the corporations will take notice. Question the tech companies about their stance on this bill. If they won't divulge their involvement one way or the other, assume they're pro CISPA and blast them for it. If congress will only listen to corporations, then make sure corporations are on our side. Make sure they know that if they aren't with us, they're against us. Make sure they know we hold them accountable and there will be backlash. All the while, keep nipping at your congressman's heals. I personally had a debate on Facebook with my representative, and now we're scheduling a personal meeting so I can voice the concerns *we* all share. Understand that your congressman probably thinks he's protecting us from foreign super-hackers, rather than handing us over to corrupt corporations and greedy law enforcement agencies. Give them alternatives. We see all too well that they don't know jack shit about the Internet, so educate them. Tell them how we go about recognizing and preventing attacks. Tell them about the challenges we, the community, face. Tell them what could be done to help us work better. Explain to them how things work, and teach them why CISPA won't. Don't just yell, "Guvment stealing my tubes" at the top of your lungs, or you'll quickly be tuned out. Be intelligible and treat it for what it is: teaching some old dude how the Internet works. If after all the politeness and slow-talking they still refuse to listen to reason, then they are stupid or corrupt and should be exposed as such. Write about your experience. Spread your findings far and wide. Make sure they understand just who the fuck they're fucking with. We are the Internet. We are the largest community the world has ever seen. If you threaten us; fear our retaliation, for it will be great.
Have you all been asleep for the passed decade, MS as been collecting data on every computer user for years, They have the monopoly. The first thing that happens when you boot up a new computer for the first time is activate windows by giving ms all your personal details, then every month the computer phones home telling ms what you have installed in the system, that comes before registering the system with the manufactures for the warranty
Google is another collecting personal details, and flipping round the streets, collecting data on wireless systems, Then there is the willingness for every face book user to stick their mug shots on the world wide photo wall, Facebook has been used by the police for identification, Every website you joint you give your personal details, Ever wondered why you get adverts pinpointing your town/city of residence
Everybody should start using Tails (Tor) with encryption or the US own mobile security system LSP, downloadable from distrowatch dot com. or sourceforge dot net, Through the fact is they have the full blown lowdown on everybody world wide now
The next thing will be, you have to couple up to your mobile phone or computer before you go to sleep so that they know what you're dreaming about.
Mozilla!? Isn't that run by a bunch of freedom loving hippies.
46137
They can't take away our first amendment right to speak & publish our thoughts.
As for out first amendment rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, well, fuck that, amirite?
If you truly feel that you are not pissing on my first amendment rights, then please explain how me and a couple hundred others all collectively lobbying against our government for a shared goal that we all support is different from what the EFF, NRA, and PETA do.
The 2nd Amendment isn't much help. The people who actually care about that, and are armed, are also usually the same people that actually like bills like this. They'll get in a big huff about Obama's birth certificate or abortion or whatever, but they don't give a shit about online freedom or First Amendment rights, and most would prefer to rescind the 1A, especially the bit about religion, as they want to establish a theocracy.
Now of course, this obviously doesn't describe all 2A supporters, but the ones who believe in free access to firearms and who also believe in freedom of/from religion are a small minority.
Have people stopped smoking weed because it is illegal? No
Does a majority of the population smoke weed? No. Does a large enough portion of the population believe in legalization to get it done? No (it's not even a majority). So, it remains illegal because most of the population either wants it to stay that way, or because they don't care, and the politicians are following along to get votes. Just look at what happens if you criticize any Obama fans about his record on marijuana prohibition.
Stopped speeding? No.
Same thing. A majority of the population doesn't care or thinks the status quo is fine and that we don't need higher speed limits, so that's the way it stays.
Will they stop enjoying a free Internet because it becomes illegal? Hell no.
Don't be so sure. The only really anonymous way of using the internet I've seen is TOR, and that has serious problems: namely, if you use it, it's pretty obvious that you're using it, even though "they" can't tell what you're doing on there or see any of the data that you might be sharing. So you're only allowed to use it as long as the authorities allow it. All they have to do is ban it, and actively enforce the ban, and your anonymity is gone. The internet was never designed to be anonymous, only resilient, and all the attempts at anonymity seem to depend on misdirection (e.g., directing traffic through computers in other countries where the authorities don't have access).
It was only a minority of the people who spoke. The majority doesn't care, and just wants to watch Survivor or whatever the latest reality TV fad is.
Well, then let's use technology, and our knowledge of how things work underneath to create a new system. Initially, it could be based on an overlay network like I2P, bur really beefed up. Over time, create completely separate links outside the main Internet. They can regulate all they want, but they can't technically control what they can't see. Even more, let's use cloud software (like open source CloudFoundry for example) modified to exist only within that domain, so new applications and services can thrive within the alternative network. Nobody is liable because they are everywhere and nowhere. Let's use advanced display protocols like SPICE to remote access virtual "screens" that exist only in the alternative network. No records. Any way, there may be hundreds of possible ways to slice and dice this problem from the technical perspective. If you can achieve a system with strong plausible deniability, we are on to something.
Microsoft pulled their support a little bit ago.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/28/1549251/microsoft-backs-away-from-cispa-support-citing-privacy
Pulsed Media Seedboxes
Now of course, this obviously doesn't describe all 2A supporters, but the ones who believe in free access to firearms and who also believe in freedom of/from religion are a small minority.
[citation needed] Most second amendment supporters are strongly against "big goverment" and anything that takes away from constitutional rights. There may be a lot of people who are conservative and/or religious (though not nearly as many as you clearly believe), but that has nothing to do with whether or not you value online freedom or the first amendment. I'm really not sure where you're pulling this drivel from that all or a majority of second amendment supporters are birthers, want the goverment to limit freedom of speech or privacy, or want to establish a theocracy... You've clearly got some pretty strong bias and not a lot of information or exposure.
Once the internet has all our data, where is all this profit coming from, precisely? We have an economy that can't seem to grow in the last decade or more. We have infrastructure falling apart. Where, precisely, are these dollars coming from that are going to benefit companies that support this?
They're thinking about the next 4 quarters of profit and not about the fact that they value our future at about $0.
-
Unfortunately my experience with second amendment supports hasn't been that good, they may not be the majority but they are the most visible. A lot of them claim they are against big government but what they want is big government that they like. Quite a number of the ones I met believed that Bush was a small government president. These were the same people who wanted government to step in with he Dubai Ports World purchase, as well as the "Ground Zero" Mosque.These individuals also want bigger government to go spread the American Way to every country and seem to think that it would be a good idea to go into Iran. The ones like this I know also believe that Obama is a secrete Muslim communist/socialist born in Kenya who is going to take their guns.
Time to offend someone
>>>armed people that actually like bills like this.
That's not what I'm seeing at Infowars.com and other "alt-media" sites with open comments. The people armed to the teeth hate CISPA, Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. Don't be deluded into thinking Republican Party views == the view of gunholders
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Thank you, I couldn't have said it any better myself. This is exactly what I was talking about.
The gunholders vote Republican stridently, so I see no reason to believe that the people on your "alt-media" sites are anything but a very small minority, and the majority of them agree with Republican Party views. Sure, many gunholders will vote for Ron Paul (the only "Republican" who's against the Patriot Act) in the primaries, but as soon as that's over and he loses, they'll flock to back Romney, just like they did in '08 when they flocked to support McCain and Palin. If they were really that numerous, then Paul wouldn't have had such tiny numbers at the polls, given how many gunholders there are in this country.
You may have a lot of annecdotal experience with demographics that contain people who own guns, that doesn't mean everyone who owns guns fits in those demographics. An estimated 45% of American households own at least one gun, only 35% of the country claims to be Republican. Obviously your information doesn't add up.
The gun owners, like any special interests group, pick and choose who has the best track record with their interests. Show some statistics and some facts, drop your meaningless annecdotal experiences. 45% of the households in this country own a gun. Only 31% of the country identifies as republicans, and only 41% of republicans own guns.
>>>then Paul wouldn't have had such tiny numbers at the polls
Paul is racking up states left-and-right. In just the last few weeks, he's won Iowa, Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, and Louisiana. Plus a majority of the delegates in Romney's home state of Massachusetts. (And I expect Paul will win Maine, Nevada, Alaska, and the ~10 former Santorum states.)
Furthermore according to CBS polling, in a Paul v. Obama runoff the congressman would do just as well as Romney. His support is not "small"..... you need to turn-off the TV media and start doing your own online news-gathering.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Unfortunately my experience with second amendment supports hasn't been that good, they may not be the majority but they are the most visible.
The problem is they are among the most visible gun owners and give responsible reasonable ones a bad name. They are like that problem family member that goes to get togethers, drinks way too much, and everyone feels embarrassed by. On the other side of the spectrum I have family members who believe that I have effectively murdered my children simply because I own firearms. Granted they all live out on the west coast in large cities so only people who they ever hear about owning a firearm are criminals in the news and what they see in movies. They can't fathom why a rational person would choose to own a few long guns, let alone why someone would would want a handgun. Also I no longer hunt with the group of guys who were the wacky ones that Grishnakh described. It seem every time we went out a CO would show up and one of them would be in violation of something, like having lead shot on federal land, not having their HIP certification, littering, not having the plug in the magazine of their shotgun, etc. You rarely hear about the good hunters or good firearm owners as they don't cause problems and tend not to draw attention to themselves.
Time to offend someone
Does a large enough portion of the population believe in legalization to get it done? No (it's not even a majority).
Your facts are out of date. See what the polls say.
The only really anonymous way of using the internet I've seen is TOR
We keep inventing new things all the time. I can see a wifi mesh netork independant on ICANN or the government set up. Like pot smokers, they can't put us all in prison.
Free Martian Whores!
Polls are frequently skewed, because they only cover a small subset of the population. We have another poll that actually covers the entire population, and it's called "elections". In that poll, people consistently vote for strongly anti-marijuana candidates like Bush and Obama. Don't forget, your gallup polls cover the entire population, when there's a sizeable subset of the population who simply don't matter: non-voters. The opinions of people under 18 don't matter, nor do the opinions of felons; these people aren't allowed to vote and have no say in national policy. By looking at elections, you automatically screen out these people.
Now maybe if Ron Paul actually gets elected, I'll be proven wrong, but I doubt it. Most likely, Obama is going to be re-elected, as most people who voted for him seem to still really like him, even though he's much more anti-marijuana than Bush ever was, and he's given the TSA far more powers than Bush ever did, yet liberals still love him.
There may be a lot of people who are conservative and/or religious
Probably, but conservatism is against everything Christ taught, so though they may be "religious" they're certainly not Christians.
Conservatives worship money and the people who have it. Period. No matter what else they think they worship.
Free Martian Whores!