Slashdot Mirror


Google, Apple Lead Massive List of Companies Supporting CISPA

redletterdave writes "TechNet, the trade association representing and led by dozens of prominent technology companies including Google, Apple and Facebook, has formally come out in support of CISPA, sending a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives. The letter said: 'We commend the committee for providing liability protections to companies participating in voluntary information-sharing and applaud the committee's efforts to work with a wide range of stakeholders to address issues such as strengthening privacy protections. As the legislative process unfolds, we look forward to continuing the dialogue with you and your colleagues on further privacy protections, including discussions on the role of a civilian interface for information sharing.'" The White House won't support the bill in its current form, but they plan to work with legislators on a compromise. The current text of the bill is available online.

42 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Google hates privacy by drinkydoh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not surprised to see Google as the main supporter of CISPA. They have a long track record of privacy violations and lessening privacy of internet users. They are, like we all know, worlds largest advertising house.

    Google has also been heavily pushing it's real-name policy. They are trying to convert YouTube users to using their real names instead of nicknames. They want to (but don't succeed) have people use their social network Google+, and they want to link everyones searches directly to the real names. Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.

    The Internet as we know it is coming to an end. Everyone sees this but doesn't act. They just let Google steal all of their privacy. Google and CISPA must be stopped and it's your only time to act!

    1. Re:Google hates privacy by White+Flame · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.

      The least you could do (besides an adblocker, assuming you haven't already got one and are whitelisting slashdot) is disable all cookies, enabling exceptions for sites you want. It's scary seeing how many cookies from how many different sites a single page tries to set nowadays. By disabling all by default, I end up enabling only the one(s) required for login, and it leaves all the other tracking cookies blocked. Sure, there are non-cookie ways to track, especially by IP and browser version/feature fingerprint, but Google no longer remembers my searches with just blocked cookies.

    2. Re:Google hates privacy by Bigby · · Score: 5, Informative

      The GP is an ad itself. No need to reply to it. Notice the new ID and the posting at the same time article was posted.

    3. Re:Google hates privacy by Synerg1y · · Score: 5, Insightful

      have you thought for one second... to stop using google?

      It's not like there's not other mail providers, search providers, and little applets floating around the web that have nothing to do with google. If google's behavior is becoming unacceptable STOP USING IT.

      How you people continue to knock a service that is completely free for you to use is beyond me.

      Ignorance check: did you know there were major search engines that aren't US based and thus are not subject to CISPA?

    4. Re:Google hates privacy by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Informative

      Took me under 5 seconds to put "firefox prevent google tracking" into my google toolbar and that brings up:

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/remove-google-tracking/

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/gdc/

      and a hella comprehensive guide for thick tin-foil hats:

      http://www.leavegooglebehind.com/how-tos/how-to-build-a-firefox-privacy-arsenal/

    5. Re:Google hates privacy by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google CEO: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

    6. Re:Google hates privacy by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about the people that actually like the loss of privacy? I search for something on my work computer, and that search is in my history on my home computer and even my phone. Seamless computing experience. The actual usability is why people like it. It just works, and gives value.

    7. Re:Google hates privacy by misanthropic.mofo · · Score: 4, Informative

      have you thought for one second... to stop using google?

      Exactly, DuckDuckGo FTW.

      --
      --There are two kinds of people in this world. I don't like either of them.
    8. Re:Google hates privacy by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hell, have you noticed how Google's advertisements on other sites like Slashdot change based on what you've been recently searching on Google.

      The least you could do (besides an adblocker, assuming you haven't already got one and are whitelisting slashdot) is disable all cookies, enabling exceptions for sites you want.

      Of course the other alternative is to contribute a small amount to the costs of running a website like slashdot by becoming a subscriber. Then you can see no ads what so ever if you so chose.

      Seriously, running and hosting a website is expensive. If you completely removed all adverts from the web then many websites would simply have to close as it is impossible to reliably host something popular without incurring costs.

      I have nothing to do with slashdot, but I do work as technical lead for a site that probably has nowhere near as much traffic and I know we have to pay a fair whack for our hosting even before you pay my colleagues and myself to actually develop the site. There are free or very cheap hosting companies but they either don't guarantee enough uptime or don't let you go above bandwidth caps.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    9. Re:Google hates privacy by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      I don't care either to be honest. The seamlessness is nice, but as a choice between evils, microsoft offers similar usability. And I think if google truly went to the dogs, OSI competition would rise up in the constant rise and fall of internet empires to challenge and one day succeed google. I don't think google's patented immortality last I checked. They just happen to have a lot of wiggle room to fuck up with years and years of green.

    10. Re:Google hates privacy by djdanlib · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. So I guess we have to go back to pre-Internet life according to that guy. I'll stop arranging surprise birthday and Christmas gifts for the people I care about, then. And I'll stop booking tables for my dates online. I'll also wait to consult my doctor for things that look like minor medical concerns, and stick to the offline first-aid book when I can't remember how to treat some minor injury. I'll also just use the old-fashioned phone book to look up each store I want to comparison-shop and call them one by one.

      My point is in agreement with yours... Some things just aren't other peoples' business, but that doesn't make those things nefarious.

    11. Re:Google hates privacy by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      have you thought for one second... to stop using google?

      Sounds good. OK, quick: Link ten major websites that don't have embedded Google tracking code (including javascript embeds from Google, Google Analytics, Google APIs, Google Code, GStatic, etc). You'll be able to find ten, I'm sure, but it won't be the first ten you try.

    12. Re:Google hates privacy by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      How about I link you to a google free internet experience instead?

      http://noscript.net/

    13. Re:Google hates privacy by AlamedaStone · · Score: 2

      Google CEO: If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

      +1, bleak unavoidable future

      Although I suppose we might hit singularity first, in which case who gives a fark.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    14. Re:Google hates privacy by Cederic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Running and hosting a website is not free, but IT IS NOT EXPENSIVE. It is just electrons, no trees cut down to make paper, no postage, no fat lazy postmen delivering magazines, no delivery trucks burning gas and needing repairs, no distribution centers, etc.

      I agree. I mean, it costs Google a mere $4bn a quarter to run and host their sites. If you only want reliable hosting with failover, uptime, bandwidth and performance SLAs and security patching then the costs are utterly trivial.

    15. Re:Google hates privacy by BenoitRen · · Score: 2

      Seriously, running and hosting a website is expensive. If you completely removed all adverts from the web then many websites would simply have to close as it is impossible to reliably host something popular without incurring costs.

      Ads aren't the only way to financially support a website. Also, $DEITY forbid that a website would cost something to keep online. The horror!

  2. really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "providing liability protections to companies participating" - So that's why Google was resisting? We are boned.

  3. "Oh noes! The people keep voting it down!" by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I guess we just have to try EVEN HARDER!"

    Seriously, who are these people fooling? ..Then again, people get awfully tired of fighting the same battle over and over again, and often eventually just concede. We need to propose legislation outright forbidding this kind of shit. It's really the only way, else they will just keep shuffling commas and semicolons around in the text, and resubmitting.

    1. Re:"Oh noes! The people keep voting it down!" by PFactor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That will only work for maybe 200 years. Example: the 2nd amendment's "shall not be infringed" bit that's been blatantly ignored for the last few decades. The founding fathers made that as clear as they could, yet we're still screwing it up. What makes you think we can make our intentions any clearer for any longer?

      --
      Don't believe anything I say. I crash test crack pipes for a living.
    2. Re:"Oh noes! The people keep voting it down!" by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is how laws are done today. You think a law gets voted down and that's it? Think again. Whenever you see some company not getting its way, be it due to public outcry or be it because even politicians could see that it's not a good idea, rest assured that they won't drop it. It will come back again. In some other form, maybe with less public exposure and much more hushed up, but it WILL COME BACK.

      Companies don't back down when it comes to getting their laws approved. They will keep pushing more money into Capitol Hill hos 'til they have enough to actually get it passed.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:"Oh noes! The people keep voting it down!" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Seriously, who are these people fooling?

      Easy enough to answer. Watch:

      Isn't this CISPA crap evidence enough that the type of government we have today has either been designed to abuse the People or is of a flawed designed, such that such abuse cannot be prevented?

      Now check the replies to this comment, defending 'democracy', hollering on about Somalia, blood in the streets, cats and dogs living together, and you'll have your answer.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:"Oh noes! The people keep voting it down!" by RazorSharp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The assault weapons ban only lasted ten years. So much for only having to win once. Also, calling your political opponents 'bad guys' is childish. They may be wrong, but people don't want to ban guns out of malice. Hell, for the longest time I wanted handguns and assault rifles banned because they really are terrible things. I didn't change my mind because I stopped seeing them as terrible, I changed my mind because I realized that banning such things is impractical in this country. Too many already exist and the technology is too basic to stop enthusiasts. My contempt for tools designed exclusively to kill human beings is still as fervent as ever despite the fact that I no longer support weapon bans.

      The way I look at it, owning an assault rifle is like owning a guillotine. Sure, I could use it on an animal, but that wouldn't really be practical as there are many other better tools for the job. It only does one thing well: kill people.

      I sympathize with those who want to ban such things, it's pretty easy considering I once felt the same way, but I recognize legislation as a poor solution. I think the main appeal of such weapons to most people is their taboo nature. We'd probably have a lot less handguns and assault rifles in this country is no one was trying to ban them. It's like when you tell a child that something is bad. They immediately want it.

      Bad laws rarely die unless those pushing them finally give up.

      This doesn't seem very logical to me. My guess is that most laws that are proposed in the legislature 1) are bad 2) die quickly 3) die without those pushing them giving up. What ever made you say such a thing?

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  4. The anal-probe industry likes it by Animats · · Score: 4, Funny

    All the companies named are from the anal-probe sector of the tech industry.

    1. Re:The anal-probe industry likes it by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Funny
    2. Re:The anal-probe industry likes it by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't see EA on that list. No anal-probe industry is complete without the kind hand of Electronic Arts.

  5. Frustrating by moeinvt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the only reason we were able to beat SOPA/PIPA was that there were some big corporations on our side during that fight. Obviously they've now re-written the bill so that all of the big corporations will profit and only the little people will suffer.

    I find this really frustrating. We're forced to fund the federal government under threat of violence and they turn around and use the fruits of our labor to make our lives miserable. They can afford to be relentless in their efforts because it costs them nothing. We defeat SOPA/PIPA (using our free time and after tax income), they just turn around and re-introduce even more sinister legislation in its place.

    If you have the slightest wish to give government more wealth and more power e.g. to ban guns, to regulate free speech, to provide healthcare or to fix "climate change" you're out of your bloody mind! Washington DC is literally INCAPABLE of passing ANY legislation which benefits the average working American. Their stated intentions are meaningless. The substance of any new law will be to your detriment no matter what. Just say "No" to everything they propose.

    1. Re:Frustrating by Maltheus · · Score: 2

      As you've noted, saying "no" over and over again isn't enough. There needs to be more structural limitations in place, to confine our government to a small set of permitted functions. We weren't quite explicit enough in 1776.

    2. Re:Frustrating by Maltheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't vote for shitwaffles, but they are the only viable choices out there. Try getting involved in local politics sometime. Once you see how they operate, and filter out all the decent people at an early stage, you'll understand why shitwaffles are the only thing left on the menu.

  6. It's the infromation sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "We commend the committee for providing liability protections to companies participating in voluntary information-sharing and applaud the committee's efforts to work with a wide range of stakeholders to address issues such as strengthening privacy protections," Ramsey said

    It's the information sharing - and possibly getting it wrong - that has folks really worried.

    It's not so much that Google knows where you have been browsing (extremely creepy and worrying as that is), it's also that they can share the information with Facebook and vice versa. And they can that with 2 companies and they their information with 2 other companies and so on and so on and so on and with government.

    And as we have seen with the stupidity and incompetence of government and the private sector, individuals get hurt and sometimes devastated for life and these mega-corps walk away no harm done to them.

    And this law, is about making sure no harm comes to them. If by their information sharing, I get wrongfully arrested or worse, I would have no recourse. Even if I get acquitted, I'll have tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, at least and no recourse to recover any it from these companies if this becomes law.

    That's the problem.

    This is just another sign that corporate America wants to ruin this country's values for their bottom line.

  7. Where's Vint? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    I got some good calls-to-action from Vint Cerf (Google's Internet Evangelist) on SOPA and PIPA, and a free and open Internet in general, but haven't heard anything from him on CISPA since last year. I wonder if he's still on payroll.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. Have any of you even read the text of the bill? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It really seems to me that most of the commenters have no idea what the bill even states. It's like reading the posts of a bunch of fundamental right wing conservatives. A whole bunch of statements which have little to no basis in reality.

    Seriously, what power do you think this bill gives the government? If it's the "They can read all my email whenever they want now and are going to see all my HORRIABLE SPAM PORN / Anti-Governemt rantings" power you would be oh so very very wrong.

    Sec 1104 (b) (3) (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;

    Can you people read? Read that. Know what that says? It says that all information shared with the government must be cleaned to not include information on U.S. Persons. Basically if they DO for some reason send your email they have to remove everything that could possibly identify you.

    To:immahurpdedur@gmail.com
    From:icanhazabrainplox@hotmail.com
    Dear Frank,

    Don't you just hate Obama?

    -
    John

    Becomes

    To:------------------
    From:--------------

    Dear -------,

    Don't you just hate Obama?

    -
    ------------------

    OH NOOOO They are gonna catch me now for sure! But in reality they likely can't even send that.

    1. Re:Have any of you even read the text of the bill? by anagama · · Score: 2

      It says whatever government lawyers say it means

      Exactly. A perfect example is the recently released white paper on drones in which "imminent" is redefined. The White House defines imminent to mean:

      First, the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.

      Merriam Webster in contrast, defines imminent as:

      ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head <was in imminent danger of being run over>

      Obviously laws are just about placating people into believing they have certain rights. That this is true should be apparent in that we have a discussion going on right now regarding whether killing people by drone strike far from any battlefield is acceptable under the constitutional provision that "no person shall deprived of life ... without due process of law." The constitution is supposed to be the highest law, but obviously, it means jack. Its sole purpose is to placate people into thinking the Feds will exercise restraint. However, anyone who expects the Feds to protect human rights or abide by its own laws, is engaging in willful self-delusion or is irreparably stupid.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Have any of you even read the text of the bill? by Harkin · · Score: 2

      Could you provide a link to the relevant executive order stating this? If it wasn't obvious I'd like to read it. Like not joking, I can't seem to find anything official which makes this definition in a legally binding way.

      Okay so the important thing here is that there are protections for U.S. Persons which the rest of the world does not enjoy. If you are a citizen of the United States of America none of what your speaking about applies as there are overriding edicts. However, if your not a U.S. citizen then well, you don't enjoy the protections of the U.S. Constitution unless you fit a specific set of conditions. Sorry. Have you considered immigration? I kid. No you have to look to the laws and polices of your local government (if you have one) to determine what protections you have (if any) under any possible treaties with the U.S. your government might have. I have a hard enough time just trying to keep current on U.S. Law to intelligently respond to international policy.

      There can be exceptions to this like Treason as committing treason is a felony and results in loss of many of the protections afforded by our system. The conviction in absence is kinda complex in this regard. Further, aiding the enemy is sufficient ground to “cap yo ass”. For example, lets say we were in a war and you decided to wear the uniform of the enemy and shoot at U.S. Troops. You will likely be treated like an enemy combatant even though your a U.S. Citizen.

  9. 4th Amendment disappears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If CISPA passes there will be no such thing as a 4th Amendment right protecting you against unreasonable search and seizure. You see, while the government has to obey the constitution, corporations are bound by no such guarantees--and CISPA makes the data-sharing (data which is already required by the government to be stored for several years for "law enforcement purposes") already commonplace explicitly legal.

  10. Apparently I've read it better than you have by Hizonner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It says they CAN clean it if they WANT to... to whatever degree the sharing entity considers to be "appropriate". So if some "protected entity" or "self-protected entity" hands something over, it can restrict downstream sharing. It can require whatever anonymization it wants, including no anonymization if it decides that no anonymization at all is "appropriate".

    Who's a "protected entity"? Hint: not you. "an entity, other than an individual, that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for goods or services to be used for cybersecurity purposes.".

    Excuse me if I don't believe that every "protected entity" or "self-protected entity" has my best interests at heart.

  11. What are the alternatives by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    and how do you get people to change from Google to something else? I can do it as I know whats at stake as a tech/nerd/whatever but how do I convince others to not use those services. Even now I'm still debating on what I should do as a business owner when it comes to dropping my site from Google local and search. I've take the stand not to involve social sites with my retail store website and at least there are alternatives to Youtube when I start producing product video but there are now easy alternatives to search.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  12. Uh... you CAN'T stop uing Google anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no opt-out for Google anymore. In fact, I dare you to not send an email directly or indirectly to a gmail user (and avoid calling or texting anyone who uses an Android phone) for ONE MONTH. You simply can't do it if you want to communicate at all these days. This is of course not to mention all the other sites that use their analytic services, ad networks, their other subsidiaries, etc.

    Please post back here if you succeed with this boycott and still have a job at the end of that month.

    It is simply no longer possible to boycott these companies (especially Google) if you want to use the Internet at all. They will have your data (and share it with whoever asks thanks to CISPA) no matter what. :/

    We need end-to-end cryptographic security to protect us from such vultures.

    1. Re:Uh... you CAN'T stop uing Google anymore by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Please post back here if you succeed with this boycott and still have a job at the end of that month.

      You're not even a good troll, get back in your hole asshat. We use in-house/the cloud if you can even comprehend what business systems look like. Some tiny businesses use google, but I can go a lifetime without dealing with those, so I think I'm safe.

      I take it from your response that you don't deal with clients/customers directly.

      (yes, I meant that both ways)

      He's right... if you need to communicate with the general public, you're going to be feeding info to Google. In order not to, you have to have no contact with:
      1) Anyone using an Android phone that's not using a private server
      2) Any website using Google tracking (this one's NoScriptable to a degree)
      3) Anyone using a Gmail account (including businesses/orgs that have their own domain)
      4) Anyone who Google has a data peering agreement with
      5) Any Google-owned service (including apps like Sketchup)
      6) Anyone using various Google-owned services (such as Google Voice)
      7) Anyone using Google DNS to find assets you own (since they'll be looking up your info, which tells Google a bit about you)
      8) Other stuff I've missed.

      Since some of this stuff's pretty opaque, you're going to have a hard time proving to anyone that you're opting out of The Google.

      Not using Google Search/GMail yourself, yeah -- that's easy, but makes almost no difference.

  13. And not a single definition of CISPA by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

    Way to go Slashdot "editors". What the hell is a CISPA?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:And not a single definition of CISPA by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      CISPA = Clinically Insane Senators Proposing Acts

  14. Solution to the whole mess by hawkingradiation · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. People are corporations. You now get all the benefit and protection under the law that corporations have. When anybody is born, they are automatically assigned a corporate number or name and they will enjoy all the protections that government and the law have built into corporations. Kill somebody through a leak of deadly chemicals: pay a fine that is a percentage point of your income and walk away. Go bankrupt: just dissolve yourself and start again with a new identity or name. Want a favourable court ruling: just argue about how you, as a corporation would have lost money. Get sued: store all your money in a holding company that you own and don't pay a cent. And if you get big enough: get your own crack legal team, harass Senators and Congressmen, lobby the government, get access to others data. All you have to do is promise to store your email for long enough enough. Heck you don't have to follow any particular country's rules. Just sign a "free trade" agreement with other nations and then you can sue them. Yep, life as a corporation would be great.

    --
    Society use your Sciences
  15. What I'd like to see is.. by AJWM · · Score: 2

    A browser plug-in that:

    (1) rotates your search queries randomly across different search sites (google, bing, etc, etc) so that no one site has all your search history, and

    (2) periodically sends random search queries to those sites (quietly ignoring the results) so that there's (a) some plausible deniability that any given search was really yours and (b) raises the noise level in the data the search hosts are collecting.

    --
    -- Alastair