Interests supporting a controversial bill aimed at improving cyber security, set for a House vote Thursday, spent 140 times as much lobbying Congress as those on the other side of the debate and have dozens of former Capitol Hill insiders working on their behalf, an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation's Reporting Group shows.
Sunlight's review of lobbying disclosures from the last session of Congress in Influence Explorer shows that backers of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act had $605 million in lobbying expenditures from 2011 through the third quarter of last year compared to $4.3 million spent by opponents of the bill. While it's impossible to say how many of those dollars were devoted to trying to influence votes on the CISPA bill (many of those entities have multiple interests before Congress), it provides some measure of the lopsidedness of the resources available to each side.
One drone, one Hellfire missile -> no more Nork missile on launch pad. Deny everything. Drone? What drone? Oh, that crazy Kim he sees drones everywhere. Crummy Nork missile just blew up on the pad, right. Nudge nudge wink wink saynomore.
So when the user detects and presumably removes the malware, what happens to those mined bitcoins? Do they disappear? Are they still in the malefactor's account? Lastly, is there any chance of tracing and impounding the bitcoin account so that the bad guy doesn't profit?
"Stop taking DOJ’s language from back in 2011 and packaging it as something new. Based on a quick read, it seems that the amendments for 1030 in the new draft are mostly copied from a bill that Senator Leahy offered (with substantial input from DOJ, as I understand it) back in November 2011. I criticized that language here. The new circulating draft also adopts the sentencing enhancements (minus mandatories) and the proposed 1030a that DOJ advocated in May 2011. I criticized that initial DOJ language here. (There’s also a breach notification provision in the new language, but I haven’t followed that issue closely; I don’t know if that proposal is also based on old language.)
In some ways, the new circulating language is even more severe and harsh than DOJ wanted even in the Lori Drew case. For example, the proposed language would make it a felony crime to violate Terms of Service if the TOS violation:
(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity;
This language is really, really broad. If I read it correctly, the language would make it a felony to lie about your age on an online dating profile if you intended to contact someone online and ask them personal questions. It would make it a felony crime for anyone to violate the TOS on a government website. It would also make it a federal felony crime to violate TOS in the course of committing a very minor state misdemeanor. If there is a genuine argument for federal felony liability in these circumstances, I hope readers will enlighten me: I cannot understand what they are.
In short, this is a step backward, not a step forward. This is a proposal to give DOJ what it wants, not to amend the CFAA in a way that would narrow it. "
They've been trying to pass legislation like this for the last seven Congressional terms, this makes it eight.
http://www.netchoice.org/library/sales-tax-collection-myth-vs-reality/...legislation has been proposed in each of the past seven Congresses that would reverse decades of history and legal precedent preventing out–of-state sales tax collection, and another bill is being circulated for cosponsors by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY). It would impose on all states and all retailers the provisions of the now voluntary Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement (SSTA). SSTA proponents have touted this measure as a simplified, streamlined method for collecting sales tax. Unfortunately, the reality is far different – the SSTA promises to increase significantly the complexity and compliance burdens for interstate sellers.
A "right"? No, of course not. It's not a question of "having the right to commit an act of war". You commit an act of war you either win the fucking war you just started or you lose the fucking war and you take the fucking consequences.
Point taken, but I still think that "news for nerds" is meaningless with all miscellaneous "news" that gets lumped in under the "because I'm a nerd and I'm interested in this sort of stuff" banner.
Indeed they are but their scope is international, not domestic. Korea would not have standing in a case between ATT and Freddybear in the matter of my unlocking my Samsung phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Not enough to pay the electric bill.
As if Putin has any room to complain. Gazprom? Look...a squirrel!
The next product in the Google line, for people who wanted a larger battery in their Google Glasses.
Because I can totally see belief in certain gods being correlated with catastrophically negative outcomes.
Maybe they'll just stop over here for a roadside picnic. ;)
News for Nerds is just a slogan. It doesn't mean anything.
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/pro-cispa-backers-spend-over-100-times-more-lobbying-opponents/
Interests supporting a controversial bill aimed at improving cyber security, set for a House vote Thursday, spent 140 times as much lobbying Congress as those on the other side of the debate and have dozens of former Capitol Hill insiders working on their behalf, an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation's Reporting Group shows.
Sunlight's review of lobbying disclosures from the last session of Congress in Influence Explorer shows that backers of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act had $605 million in lobbying expenditures from 2011 through the third quarter of last year compared to $4.3 million spent by opponents of the bill. While it's impossible to say how many of those dollars were devoted to trying to influence votes on the CISPA bill (many of those entities have multiple interests before Congress), it provides some measure of the lopsidedness of the resources available to each side.
Here are the lobbying totals for supporters: https://data.sunlightlabs.com/dataset/Lobbying-totals-by-CISPA-proponents/5brg-ruk9
and opponents: https://data.sunlightlabs.com/dataset/Lobbying-totals-by-CISPA-opponents/jhe8-cki6
I don't know how many are there now, so how can I say?
TFA says "large amounts of...".
How many parts per trillion is "large"?
One drone, one Hellfire missile -> no more Nork missile on launch pad.
Deny everything. Drone? What drone? Oh, that crazy Kim he sees drones everywhere. Crummy Nork missile just blew up on the pad, right.
Nudge nudge wink wink saynomore.
"News for nerds" is just a slogan, it doesn't really mean anything.
That definition applies to information that they want to access, not to information that they want to keep secret.
You can see right through them.
Because some people don't need cellphones or other distractions to be bad drivers. If it saved one life...
We supported the USSR to defeat the Axis Powers. So yeah.
So when the user detects and presumably removes the malware, what happens to those mined bitcoins? Do they disappear? Are they still in the malefactor's account? Lastly, is there any chance of tracing and impounding the bitcoin account so that the bad guy doesn't profit?
The pastor of the local Presbyterian church in America isn't likely to raise up a mob to come beat you to death if you're accused of burning a Bible.
Orin Kerr from the Volokh Conspiracy has this to say about the "new" draft CFAA:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/25/house-judiciary-committee-new-draft-bill-on-cybersecurity-is-mostly-dojs-proposed-language-from-2011/
"Stop taking DOJ’s language from back in 2011 and packaging it as something new. Based on a quick read, it seems that the amendments for 1030 in the new draft are mostly copied from a bill that Senator Leahy offered (with substantial input from DOJ, as I understand it) back in November 2011. I criticized that language here. The new circulating draft also adopts the sentencing enhancements (minus mandatories) and the proposed 1030a that DOJ advocated in May 2011. I criticized that initial DOJ language here. (There’s also a breach notification provision in the new language, but I haven’t followed that issue closely; I don’t know if that proposal is also based on old language.)
In some ways, the new circulating language is even more severe and harsh than DOJ wanted even in the Lori Drew case. For example, the proposed language would make it a felony crime to violate Terms of Service if the TOS violation:
(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity;
This language is really, really broad. If I read it correctly, the language would make it a felony to lie about your age on an online dating profile if you intended to contact someone online and ask them personal questions. It would make it a felony crime for anyone to violate the TOS on a government website. It would also make it a federal felony crime to violate TOS in the course of committing a very minor state misdemeanor. If there is a genuine argument for federal felony liability in these circumstances, I hope readers will enlighten me: I cannot understand what they are.
In short, this is a step backward, not a step forward. This is a proposal to give DOJ what it wants, not to amend the CFAA in a way that would narrow it. "
They've been trying to pass legislation like this for the last seven Congressional terms, this makes it eight.
http://www.netchoice.org/library/sales-tax-collection-myth-vs-reality/ ...legislation has been proposed in each of the past seven Congresses that would reverse decades of history and legal precedent preventing out–of-state sales tax collection, and another bill is being circulated for cosponsors by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY). It would impose on all states and all retailers the provisions of the now voluntary Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement (SSTA). SSTA proponents have touted this measure as a simplified, streamlined method for collecting sales tax. Unfortunately, the reality is far different – the SSTA promises to increase significantly the complexity and compliance burdens for interstate sellers.
A "right"? No, of course not. It's not a question of "having the right to commit an act of war". You commit an act of war you either win the fucking war you just started or you lose the fucking war and you take the fucking consequences.
Let the enemy worry about that.
Point taken, but I still think that "news for nerds" is meaningless with all miscellaneous "news" that gets lumped in under the "because I'm a nerd and I'm interested in this sort of stuff" banner.
That covers just about anything that happens anywhere, so "news for nerds" must not really mean anything.
Indeed they are but their scope is international, not domestic. Korea would not have standing in a case between ATT and Freddybear in the matter of my unlocking my Samsung phone.
All that says is that treaty law supersedes state law. It says nothing about whether a treaty can alter domestic contract law.