Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Could Be Classified As a 'Cybersecurity Threat' Under New CISPA Rules
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes "The cybersecurity bill making its way through the Senate right now is so broad that it could allow ISPs to classify Netflix as a "cyber threat," which would allow them to throttle the streaming service's delivery to customers. "A 'threat,' according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available. So, high-bandwidth uses of some types of information make other types of information that go along the same pipe less available," Greg Nojeim, a lawyer with the Center for Democracy and Technology, said. "A company could, as a cybersecurity countermeasure, slow down Netflix in order to make other data going across its pipes more available to users.""
When Netflix is outlawed, only outlaws will have Netflix
Wouldn't throttling Netflix count as making Netflix "less available," thereby making the ISPs themselves a "cybersecurity threat?"
Pretty sure Time Warner is great at making "information unavailable or less available".
Politicians write a bill for our "safety" and "protection" that just so happens to benefit major campaign contributors!
Wow! I tell you, some of the random things that just happen!
According to the bill a threat is anything which is anything which is part of an unauthorized effort to deny access. Netflix streaming which inadvertently leads to a denial of access would not be part of an effort to deny access.
Here is the bill.
http://www.feinstein.senate.go...
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Surely that would mean that the ISP would then be considered a 'cyber threat' for making the information from Netflix less available
DRM also makes "information less available". Finally a bill that makes EME, HDCP and alike illegal!
I have a cheap Time Warner "High Speed" Lite connection. My Netflix is already so throttled I literally do not beleive a lower quality stream is possible.
Netflix is unauthorized effort. Intentional? Maybe not. Never the less, it is an unauthorized effort to deny access.
See?
That's why there are courts because no matter how much verbiage you put into a bill or law, someone will figure out a way to interpret said law to their advantage.
Of course, non of this would be necessary if politicians didn't have to protect their campaign contributors.
I really empathized with Herman Cain's suggestion that all laws shouldn't be more then 3 pages or 3 paragraphs - I've forgotten - when he ran in '12.
It seams as though the more verbiage, the more loopholes and ways that the law can be interpreted beyond its scope.
And at 39 pages this bill, if it becomes law, will be used in many ways to hurt us - the consumer.
It always works out that way. No matter what the good intentions are, we the people always lose because we don't have the money for the legal council to make these things work for us.
the PATRIOT Act being the poster boy.
I just canceled my subscription. Had it since 2006. When I called to complain that my Wii, my Roku, and my computers were having trouble...in addition to them not having a Linux client...they told me to contact my ISP so that they could 'speed it up'. I have a commercial line...and every other streaming service in full HD works just fine. They refused to open up a ticket to have it looked into, so I cancelled.
I give zero @#'s about their problems.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
Okay then, Google and the rest should be saying: we'll find a way to directly hook into the home as if this were the early days and we owned everything except the dirt we buried the cables in though sometimes we own that too. Silicon Valley needs to grow up and swing its weight. A tax protest from just a few major corporations would be costly, and if they encouraged their employees to join, the impact would be ten fold. It's time we got together and, as a people, told the government it is not taking another step without our damn permission.
Wouldn't, by doing this, the ISPs also meet the same definition of "cyber threat," as they are making data "less available"? I certainly hope so. :-P
"..."A 'threat,' according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available...."
Not only the Motion Picture Association of America, but the entire World Patent structure, makes information less available. So does the CIA, MI6, GCHQ and pretty much every politician.
They're going to be very busy...
Do let people legislate something that they clearly don't understand.
"that may result in an unauthorized effort to adversely impact the security, availability, confidentiality, or integrity of an information system or information that is stored on, processed by, or transiting an information system."
It's not an effort (authorized or unauthorized) to adversely impact any of those things. It is an effort to deliver video.
You changed "effort" to "impact". You're changing the meaning of the sentence.
If someone were to hijack Netflix' traffic to create an effort to deny service, then that would be a denial of service attack and ISPs could counter that, as ISPs already counter DoS attacks.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Politechnician? Re-Engineering the internet for political reasons.
I am sure we will all be pleased to see that politicians have finally taken a stand to rid the interwebs of those damn cat videos.
So not upgrading your pipe with the ludicrous sums of money you've extracted from your customers makes ISPs themselves cyber threats?
Makes sense.
The government said every needed a telephone many years ago and the service providers needed to make that happen, now they're saying the same thing about packets.
Move to Canada, where our laws are still a bit more sane.
For now, anyway.
Dear Sen. Feinstein, please don't hand-wave "cybersecurity" when what we all know what you really mean here is "Anti-trust exemption for (some, so-called, Wall St.) ISPs", and finally ramming home CISPA. "Cybersecurity" is not just a magic buzzword you get to use to sanction whatever policital scam you happen to be pulling at the moment.
IETF and network operators require RFC's, not legislation. Please leave the engineering to the engineers, and the security, as well.
Thanks for listening, and good luck with your next election.
I have not read all the comments or the FA, but my knee jerk thinking is this is another in a long history of 'thin edge' moments.
So many negative and 'unforeseen' consequences would follow something like a law including wording of a 'cyber threat', once the framework is in place allowing things to be classified a such, the whole game changes to what is or isn't a cyber threat, and the root problem(the law) is forgotten. Much like what happened with DMCA, Patriot Act and so much more.
Its been my experience that the 'internet' takes care of itself and when there are attacks we all find ways to fix them and don't need a law to 'help' with doing that.
What do you think?
If unusuall high traffic from any source threatens to disrupt many other users, then an ISP should be able to take some actions including throttleing. BUT, they should also be required to report to regulators, the traffic originators and customers:
- What they did.
- Why.
- What they plan on doing to fix this long term.
- When full servce will be restored.
Congress Is composed of narcissistic morons who rarely read or understand the bills they vote on. They rarely understand the intended consequences of their legislation and they probably rarely give thought to the unintended consequences they unleash on America.
They all need to go. The sooner the better. Vote against the incumbent and press for term limits.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Netflix is trying to make Hollywood content available fairly easy and reasonably priced. They must be stopped at all costs so people can go back to the Pirate Bay.
is all the sophistry and self-serving rationalizaton encapsulated in this bill.
I can only speculate that it is a perfect example of why the general welfare clause needs to be more clearly defined and limited. Not to mention making a good case for the repeal of the 17th amendment, as if one more were really needed
So what else is new?
to getting uptime web hosting with free domain at affordable pricing www.sthoster.com
ISPs could not throttle Netflix, if they made it less available then they would be making themselves out to be "cyber" security threats themselves.
Twinstiq, game news
"A 'threat,' according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available.
So ISP's themselves could be a threat if they restrict my access to information or deliver less bandwidth that they sold me?
Good to know.
99+% of the terrorists *I* see are in movies and most of my movies are from Netflix.
ISPs don't have the final say in classifying traffic priority. Customers do.
Have gnu, will travel.
Between CISPA and the ruling against Aereo restricting the rights of others is it any wonder the Republicrats and Democans popularity is at an all time low. They are so far out of touch with realitythey don't give a damn about the rights of anyone but the rich and passing laws and regulations that favor them. Because of that anyone who has voted and will vote Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines. You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government and as such you have no room to complain. You ASKED FOR THIS.
______________________________________ A vote against a Libertarian candidate is a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
Strange. You encourage people to self-censor on the one hand, while strongly implying your support for free speech (via your sloganeering) with the other. So which is it, AC? Do you want the "blessings of Liberty" or do you want those who disagree with you to, as you put it, "shut up and go sit on the sidelines?" You can't have it both ways.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
The bill or the letter criticizing it that were linked in TFS, but there are so many more important freedoms (sharing of data with the DOD/NSA, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment, inadequate protection of Personally Identifiable Information and more) at risk than throttling streaming of the latest Hollywood garbage.
It amazes me that the poster would choose to focus on something both so innocuous and so unlikely, rather than the important issues. Sigh. One can only hope that there will soon be a new Darwin Award winner. Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Finally, the issues of the real world are starting to throttle down to the legal sphere. And behold what they do about it. Also, the Sun might go nova within the next 5 billion years so lets issue a cap-and-trade scheme on hydrogen, for our Sun might need replenishment at any time.
That is one way to stop them i guess.. Then the content wont matter, just the act of engaging is enough to get you labeled.
( and bandwidth caps.. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So does that mean that National Security Letters are now considered cyber threats?
Classify satellite TV as a cybersecurity threat also. I have to pay for a "package" in order to get certain channels. Other channels are then denied to me. Also when satellite providers can't reach an agreement with a network (FOX, ABC etc.) then I suddenly lose channels. I'm not getting my information. Before you throw any rocks this way: c'mon, it's the same as the title. It's some jacked-up idea that looks great on paper to a committee making theoretical decisions of how the world actually works outside of a carefully crafted bubble they live. So tack on articles such a DRM and dipshit patents before you send this one up, because they are holding up progress all the same by denying access to information.
Actually... you know, using the internet is a cybersecurity threat. The highest security is, like, when the internet is quiet. (Inevitably someone says, Too quiet...)
It reminds me of what us sysadmins were always saying. This job would be so easy if it weren't for all the damned users.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Mayday.us is the solution. Please donate.
Strange. You encourage people to self-censor on the one hand, while strongly implying your support for free speech (via your sloganeering) with the other. So which is it, AC? Do you want the "blessings of Liberty" or do you want those who disagree with you to, as you put it, "shut up and go sit on the sidelines?" You can't have it both ways.
Of course you can.
What the fuck?
How the fuck can we keep allowing knee-jerk idiots to continue making decisions in technical areas where they have no fucking experience or knowledge?
All this shit's being driven by the same assholes who come up with ideas like "x-strikes and you're banned from the net."
Wise up.
STOP RE-ELECTING FAILURE. VOTE FROM THE ROOFTOPS.
... isn't throttling itself a "cyber security threat" under this definition?
Is then the biggest threat of them all.
Attention congressional assclowns! We view you as a cybersecurity threat, and intend to take care of it at the next election.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
fucking jesus. these government assholes are so full of crap. but then again, i repeat myself.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
""A 'threat,' according to the bill, is anything that makes information unavailable or less available."
With this definition, the whole internet is a 'threat'. If you are downloading something from site x, you are using bandwidth that could be making site y "less available". Therefore, any site that requires the use of bandwidth to access could be consider a threat.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Threat? If a cyber threat is anyone who makes information unavailable then Comcast and all cable companies are a threat to this country! I say seize their assets now and turn them over to the people!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
The language seems to suggest that they're trying to outlaw things like DOS attacks and "hacking"/revealing information on US persons, government activities and the like (so all the Snowden type stuff despite the whistleblower act, as well as identity theft or release of credit card numbers and stuff), especially on private/corporate/government networks (so target/tj maxx security breaches etc) -- rather than things like Netflix on residential connections.
I'd have thought the computer fraud and abuse act 1986 already had stuff about doing malicious things to systems (including but not limited to DOS attacks and all of the rest), meaning this bill appears... redundant, despite some of the new terminology introduced in there.
But, maybe I'm skim-reading too much and not delving in to the references cited in the bill; or maybe the language really is too broad to be safe for our "Internet rights" and I just haven't picked up on it, but can anybody point me at the passage(s) which could be interpreted to mean that high-bandwidth services such as Netflix on the public Internet would be a problem?
Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com)