Bernie Sanders Comes Out Against CISA

erier2003 writes: Sen. Bernie Sanders' opposition to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act in its current form aligns him with privacy advocates and makes him the only presidential candidate to stake out that position, just as cybersecurity issues loom large over the 2016 election, from email server security to the foreign-policy implications of data breaches. The Senate is preparing to vote on CISA, a bill to address gaps in America's cyberdefenses by letting corporations share threat data with the government. But privacy advocates and security experts oppose the bill because customers' personal information could make it into the shared data.

Comments

"the only presidential candidate"

[ErikTheRed]

You mean besides John McAfee. Who is also certifiably insane, but at least manages to be interesting while being so.

impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another sensible and patriotic policy position by Bernie Sanders.

Re:impressed again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.

Re:impressed again.

[ArmoredDragon]

I think most people on slashdot support Bernie, so I'm probably going to get modded down, but I think he's just another one of those "hey, let's be more like Europe" politicians. And honestly, I think that would be a disaster. Income inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as it's easy to get the bare essentials, which in the US it is.

The thing is, our "struggle to the top" culture is the reason why all of the world's best tech firms are here, and why all of the world's best new scientific (especially medical) breakthroughs come from here.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when you suddenly thrust everybody into making the same amount of money, and if Bernie had things his way, we'd see a lot of this:

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

And when you apply that on a national scale, it turns into a brain drain. Right now we're the opposite; the best and the brightest tend to want to work in the US, and I'd hate to see that go away.

Furthermore, we've already seen what happens when people like Bernie get elected, namely that of Francoise Hollande, who did most of the stuff that Bernie advocates, and not only did France see a resulting massive drop in tax revenue, but a lot of wealthy people flat out left France, and the unemployment rate went way up.

Re:impressed again.

[NoKaOi]

Weird times we live in when the only real American running for President is a socialist.

You probably think that's weird because you don't know what a Democratic Socialist is. When Republicans or Hillary supporters talks about socialism, they're really talking about a different form of socialism - where everything is under control of the government - but then confuse you into thinking that's the type of socialist Bernie is. Democratic socialism is about making things fair (people making millions per year don't pay lower tax rate than their janitor) and economically secure (making sure you have access to medical care, enough to eat, housing, access to education etc without having to work 80 hours per week and not being able to save any money for retirement).

Coming out against CISA shows this. CISA is about more government control. If Bernie was the type of socialist that Republicans and Hillary want you to think he is, he would be strongly in favor of CISA. Hillary and Republicans, conversely, are in favor of CISA. Isn't that pretty much the epitome of irony?

Re:impressed again.

[KGIII]

I've established a fair reputation here and I've been pretty consistent for the duration of my stay. It should be well known that I'm a pretty staunch Libertarian though the moniker is, really, Classic Libertarian. I'm neither a follower of Rand nor a believer in anarcho-capitalism nor a conservative - by any stretch of the imagination. I've explained this, time and time again actually. I'll spare you the details unless you promise to read them and do so with an open mind but, rest assured, that the vast majority of Libertarians are nothing like the caricatures that you see on television or see people self-identifying as on the internet. I know, no true Scotsman. However, it's true. Wikipedia (just the first four paragraphs is enough) is actually pretty good - I was quite surprised.

So don't think that the angry parts of what is to come are directed towards you - they're not. I actually agree with you but will need a minute to explain. Sound fair? Okay...

Now, my beliefs are very strongly that the rights belong to the individual (and no, businesses have rights but they're really friggin' low on the list) are the most important and must be balanced with the rights of the whole. Government should be small but powerful. It needs to be. No one political ideology will ever be successful in its pure form - we're too human for that utopia and almost all of them could be a utopia if it weren't for those pesky humans.

I encourage you, and anyone else, to realize that Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model - the two are far from inseparable. Again, rights must be balanced with the favor going to the individual. An example might be that I strongly support a social safety net, libraries, roads, education, welfare, and a reasonable taxation rate. Why? Because it's cheaper in the long run and more economical to prevent harm than it is to cure it. When we, as a society, can increase ourselves unilaterally then we all benefit. It is for my benefit. I don't want raving mad, disenfranchised, horded of hungry storming my house and taking my shit. I paid for my shit because I like it and I'd like to keep it. I want you to keep your shit too.

I want you to be free to do with your body what you will. If the object of your affection or lust doesn't mind then cram whatever into whatever hole you'd like. What ever you want so long as you're harming only you and the person with you - it's cheaper to just accept it and move along than to fight it. You want to be a freak? Get freaky with it. Have a good time, post pics, and slap *it* on the ass once for me.

This is your typical Libertarian but, unfortunately, our voices are drowned out by the idiots who can speak the loudest and by those who choose to opine without any actual knowledge. This is partially my fault and I apologize. See, rights come with responsibilities and accepting them is one of the most important things. That there? That's me accepting accountability and this is me attempting to change it. You won't listen. I could type for days but you won't read it and you'll just try to argue. Well, maybe not you but hopefully you get the idea.

Anyhow, I mention all that to mention this...

Of all the people who are currently running for the presidency slot - Sanders is the most likely candidate to get my vote. He is also the recipient of my money and will surely get more depending on how things go. I'd prefer to see him run as a American Socialist Party candidate, I think it would be more honest, but that's okay.

Why is he my favorite? Of all the candidates he's the only one that I've seen who puts the valuation on rights in the correct order. The individual, the group, the government, the businesses. That seems to be his thinking and I could pick at it a bit but, you know what? It's CLOSE ENOUGH. He's the best we've got and he's not even a member of our party. I'd love to have a chat with him and put him under the flaps of our tent. He'd be welcome if we could shut the mouthpieces up for a while.

Anyhow, it is

Re:impressed again.

[KGIII]

I have accumulated what you would call wealth. Not only do I pay every nickel I am obligated to pay in taxes but I spend far more than I can write off, I can not decrease my tax burden any further, just in donations to worthy causes. I consider those donations my obligation. I consider those donations to be a part of the social contract. I did not get to where I am on my own. I give back because I can. I appreciate being able to do it with donations because then I select where my 'tax burden' really lies.

However, to go further down the rabbit hole, again - you seem to think those who have accumulated some wealth mind being taxed? I will happily increase my tax burden and not let it impact my spending or my investments provided the money goes to sound investments and is reasonably spent. People wonder why capital gains taxes are so low, the reason is to encourage those people who can to invest because their money helps the world go 'round. Thus they are penalized less when they put the money to work for the greater economic benefit.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this but, no... I don't mind or begrudge my taxes. I only get taxed on what I spend anyways. I don't even get taxed much on that and I am able to reduce my tax burden to really low percentages just by doing my aforementioned civic duty in the form of donating to worthy charitable causes. There are a lot of other ways I can, and do, reduce my tax burden. If you raise my tax burden to 90% then I'd really only be paying that 90% after a pretty damned huge amount of expenditures - expenses I don't normally actually incur.

I'd probably not reach that threshold on a regular basis - I simply don't actually take my money out of my portfolio and roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck. (I don't have *that* much anyhow.) So long as it stays invested then I don't pay really a nickel on it and that's not going to change. I'll continue spending as much as I spend now (maybe a little less if I actually cared about taxes but, really, no - that's not even going to be a concern if I want something) and actually pay somewhere around the same percentage that my neighbor's pay.

Here's the bottom of that rabbit hole... I don't mind. I do mind that they're currently spent unwisely. I'd actually be happier paying for programs like Sanders offers to try to implement. (You don't think Congress is going to let him have half the stuff he wants, do you? He'd be president, not king.) If I minded taxes then, you know, I'd just "bounce up on out of this bitch." (I think that's the appropriate colloquialism.) There are other countries who will make me a citizen just for investing a few dollars. I already have citizenship in Canada by grace of birth and ethnicity - I'm more than 1/4 Native American, Micmac if you're curious, and I'm sure they'd absolutely love to have me. I already own property there.

No, we need to be taxed higher than we are. This shouldn't trickle down to the middle class. It sure as hell shouldn't affect the impoverished. We need to be taxed more, maybe allowed to write off more by donating but that's another subject entirely, and the money needs to be spent wisely. Investing money in bombing brown people is not a good investment. Investing money on a war on chemicals is not a good thing. Investing money on warehousing people for victimless crimes is not a good thing. Investing money on wasteful bureaucracies is not a good thing. I could go on.

I don't get to make the rules so I'll happily listen to the social consensus. But, really, we have so much money (as a whole) that there's no excuse for us having the issues we have. It's simply unacceptable.

Hmm... I'm particularly ranty tonight. Sorry - no offense meant. I'm going to post it anyhow. Meh... Maybe someone will read it. I'm not hugely wealthy by some folks standards - not even really that rich. I'm certainly in the 1% and probably closer to the .2% if I recall the statistics posted at one point. I spend more on a bunch of silly cars and computers than I

Re:impressed again.

[dave420]

You sound like a well-educated 8-year-old arguing why his country is the bestest in the world - lots of hyperbole, lots of massive (incorrect) generalizations, and dripping with conjecture. You're not making a very compulsive argument, but you are showing everyone just how ill-informed you are about the country you live in, and how quickly you will form an opinion with the scantest of evidence or opinion.

Re:impressed again.

[DanJ_UK]

"why all of the world's best tech firms are here"

It's that kind of ignorance that gives American a bad name, fortunately over the other side of the pond here we're not so ignorant to generalise that all Americans are ignorant idiots.

'All' of the world's best tech firms are not, in America, in fact the largest one in the world by revenue is in South Korea.

Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[raymorris]

Looking at how candidates are responding to this Rand Paul has been pushing several amendments addressing the privacy concerns of CISA.

Re:Rand Paul has been pushing privacy amendments

[dog77]

Rand Paul's position on marriage is to get government out of marriage and allow everyone equal access to make legal contracts. http://www.politico.com/story/...

Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[SuperKendall]

Since Clinton opted to share everything up to top secret emails with the Russians, Chinese, or simply anyone skilled and a little curious she obviously doesn't see why it would matter to anyone if they were sharing data with a government.

Re:Well obviously Clinton backs CISA

[SuperKendall]

Not quite sure how the name of an active CIA field agent is ever a secret whose value "diminishes with time" with respect to the guy who is going to be murdered if the information leaks.

Irrelevant

[DoofusOfDeath]

I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.

Re:Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Great thing that Bernie Sanders has had a consistent voting record his entire political career then as well as his net worth is about $390,000.
His presidential campaign is being funded by the people not special interests and Wall Street hates that.

Re:Irrelevant

[fnj]

I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office. The only difference between elected presidents seems to be the way in which they'll screw over law-abiding, non-1%-wealthy citizens.

OK, cynicism does resonate with some part of me. But when is the last time the US elected a president who was not an obvious establishment sellout from long before election time? The last one I could possibly see as a possibility was JFK in 1960 - and he was debatable. One can have disagreement with various of Mr. Sanders' stands, but seeing him as a sellout is not credible.

Just because the electorate has chosen an endless series of sellouts, who were transparently obvious as sellouts at election time, is not a rational argument that all candidates would sell out if elected.

Re:Irrelevant

[Gavagai80]

We're talking about a senator who has a vote on it. It's not a campaign promise, it's a senatorial decision.

Re:Irrelevant

[ravenscar]

I'd agree with JFK being debatable. I'd say Jimmy Carter wasn't a sellout. Few would call his presidency successful, but few would call him a sellout.

Re:Irrelevant

[bobbied]

I can detect almost zero correlation between presidential candidates' campaign promises, and how they'll act once in office.

That's actually VERY true. Candidates from BOTH parties will SAY anything to be elected and what they say has largely been "focus grouped" to death. They study the exact phrases being used on the stump, weasel word their way though the mine field of diverse opinions, letting you believe what you *want* to hear without actually having said it.

HOWEVER.... There are two fairly reliable indicators of what candidates will do when they take office. First is their associations. Who where they associated with during their lives, what kind of people do they hang out with and feel most comfortable with, who are their long standing friends? Second, what have they done in the past? What did they vote for, what did they not, what types of things have they done with their lives in the past?

But your primary way to tell your candidate isn't really "on board" with what's being said is when they use weasel wording on an issue. The candidate will use similar words and phrases ALL THE TIME when they are trying to thread the needle on some hot topic. If you hear this, if you hear these pat sayings and phrases which are highly parsed and usually meaningless when you pay attention to what's actually said, be warned, they are trying to snow you...

Not needed, security companies do it without immun

[raymorris]

CISA attempts to increase the amount of shared knowledge about ongoing threats by creating a federal government bureaucracy which is supposed to facilitate communication. It grants immunity from law suits to any information shared through the new system.

This isn't necessary in order to achieve the goal. A federal program like this would be used almost exclusively by large companies, mom-and-pop shops aren't going to do 800 pages of paperwork to become a participating entity. Currently, the large companies who care about security -already- engage the services of security companies like Alert Logic or Fire Eye, who are -already- monitoring for security threats across their many client networks, and already raising the alarm when there are widespread indications of a threat in the current threat landscape. They do this without any special legal protection, and compete to see who can do it best. because they aren't immune from privacy lawsuits, they have to actually follow privacy laws (or try to, mistakes happen).

I seriously doubt that a government agency, with no motivation to do excellent work (but plenty of politically based mandates), would do better than the companies full of experts doing it already.

Also, the most important thing for companies in this space is their reputation - that their brand name is trusted. They have ample motivation to do everything in their power to be sure they don't -cause- a breach and to secure their own systems. Many of us know how secure government systems tend to be - almost as if they didn't care. Perhaps that is because hardly ever does any government program lose funding or any govt employee get fired for shoddy security. A breach of Fire Eye's network, or Alert Logic's, would have immediate and significant consequences for the company and the people responsible.

the white rural majority may like sanders

[better_resurrection]

to the surprise of the media & the establishment, I suspect that if sanders gets the Dem nomination, he will find many followers in the rural and suburban white majority that is usually not democrat. Sanders does not like the open borders policies that some democrats advocate; he said open borders is how the plutocrats drive down wages... Sanders is not all that friendly towards gun control. Sanders is an old time leftist...maybe what we need....I hope it is sanders vs trump in the general election

Re:All Well and Good...

[mrchaotica]

Flat tax. Progressive taxation is what Europe has and so many EU residents are really struggling.

Oh noes! Not progressive taxation! Never mind that back in the prosperous '50s "good ol' days" taxes here were even more progressive than they are now...

Re:Just what we need..

[Dutchmaan]

I'm just curious as to which candidate best fits your ideological stance...

You do realize that in order for "no more bailouts" to be effective in not dragging our economy down if they are required, large companies (banks) need to be broken up into smaller more competitive (i.e. less powerful) entities. Banks like power, and don't want to be broken up into smaller more competitive chunks.

..and don't even get me started on reigning in the NSA. That's probably a bigger feat than breaking up the banks!

How do you propose these be accomplished?

Rand Paul also opposes CISA

[jasenj1]

https://randpaul.com/f/stop-ci...

"Therefore: I agree that the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment, is non-negotiable and I urge you to Stand With Rand and oppose CISA."

Re:Just what we need..

[PRMan]

The bailouts should have COME WITH Antitrust legislation and a breakup. Especially since the reason we bailed them out is that they are "Too big to fail".

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[PopeRatzo]

Obama got a significant number of votes because of his skin color.

So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[PopeRatzo]

There is no way to really know exactly what the numbers would be had the color of the candidates been different, but I can assure you

So, you don't know, but you can "assure me..."?

Friend, your battle flag is showing.

Re:Just what we need..

[John.Banister]

How do you propose these be accomplished?

Create the FBIC (Federal Bailout Insurance Corporation). Banks and other organizations that are too big to fail (and any organization that wants the insurance) - and any institution having the special privilege of being a primary dealer with the Federal Reserve - have to buy Federal Bailout Insurance. Anyone who buys it can't have any transactions held in secret from the FBIC, so that they can analyze the risk and set the insurance rate. Once too big to fail means "must buy bailout insurance," they'll break themselves up by spinning off divisions so that they can avoid the burden of having to buy the insurance. Then, they'll try to gain the benefits of size w/o being big by colluding, and the SEC can put people in jail (you know, if they ever actually did that to their buddies on the other side of the revolving door).

Re:Sorry, Bernie...

[KGIII]

There are more racists in the north than the south ever dreamed of having - and yes, I'm not white. Well, not totally. They're just a little more subtle about it.

Don't take offense but the north reminds me of this "joke" which, while sort of funny, is still all too true...

Q: When does a black man become a nigger?
A: When he leaves the room.

Funny? Maybe a little, I guess - I'm part black. (I'm Native American, White, and have somewhere under 1/8 black in me. Not a whole lot but my hair shows it.) What it really is, is a sad statement of how it really is in the north. I've been all over this country - literally. There's no racism like the 'not racists.' The reason they're not racists is because there's nobody there but white people.