Internet Freedom from What?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

At the bottom, the elimination of spyware and the preservation of privacy for the consumer are critical goals if the Internet is to remain safe and reliable and credible. - Cliff Stearns

The House passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). It now moves on to the Senate. The President has pledged to veto it in its current form. There is the usual hue and cry from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, panicky tech bloggers and the robotic signing of petitions. However, what is missing is the outcry from the public over this like there was with SOPA/PIPA.

This law is intended to allow the private sector to exchange personal information collected from the publicly accessible networks with the government to mitigate alleged threats to the publicly accessible networks by individuals. It also allows the government to use this information as necessary for covert national security operations that defy oversight.

It still contains the same perceived flaws of SOPA/PIPA. It still smacks of a lack of Due Process, suppression of free speech rights and requires no judicial oversight. As a matter of fact, the only real oversight that this requires is from the business world. This is simple law enforcement, like SOPA/PIPA was supposed to be. Am I right?

So why is there such a lack of outrage on this bill? Why aren’t there shutdown threats or wailing and gnashing of teeth? Why isn’t the publicly accessible network community looking to protect the populace from the evil government? Why are publicly accessible network companies lauding and supporting this bill? Why is everyone expected to buy into the phrase “Just trust me”?

It seems this will allow the government and private sector to invade our privacy at will without justification. Since there is an air of stealthy activity, all this can be rationalized with a claim of national security. There are also provisions in the bill that will hold harmless these private sector entities from liability, should there be litigation resulting from erroneous or malicious information exchanged.

Be aware that the bill uses the language “cyber entities” instead of internet. Loosely defined, this could also include texting, Emails, mobile phones or land lines. This could be used to eventually bypass wiretapping laws.

According to The Washington Post, the House bill would impose no new rules on businesses, a Republican imperative. If a cyber threat is found, the reporting entity will not be required to take any action to mitigate or correct the offending exploit. The scale and reach of this threat will be decided entirely by the business entity to determine if this threat needs to be reported. There aren’t even any guidelines for a business or utility to determine a cyber threat.

Conclusion.

Intellectual property is probably the most difficult property to protect. This is true whether that intellectual property is shared in the form of talent or performance with SOPA/PIPA; or it is your private intellectual property in the form of your own privacy with CISPA. The publicly accessible network has magnified this by making intellectual property more accessible, reproducible and portable.

At some point we have to determine who is going to be the gatekeepers of intellectual property when it has left our immediate care. We have to figure out who is most accountable to the American public. It has already become extremely apparent that we be wary of a private enterprise when their admitted mission is to use this intellectual property to maximize profit for their own gain. The publicly accessible network companies have shown no qualms about manipulating the public to suit their goals and will portray their own government as the adversary to do so.

Where do you want your most prized information taken and by whom?

Comments

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Well I predict Obama will once again publicly whine about it like he did with the NDAA to please his liberty-minded voters, but quietly go along with signing it into law like he intended to all along for some stated bullshit reason to obey his corporate globalist masters. Of course that's barring a public backlash against it that can push it away, but how many more such ones will they send before they give up?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Don't internet providers already determine if something constitutes a "cyber threat" to their networks and act against that threat as they see fit? They have essentially unlimited power already to ban users who are acting contrary to their terms of use policy.

This doesn’t necessarily include things that are included in terms of use regarding a cyber threat. This can also include things that are termed as incendiary. If a statement is made in a post that could be interpreted as damaging, a company can request an investigation as they do now. This statement could be something like “I will do anything to destroy Facebook”.

This bill would authorize the offended company to release information that would ordinarily be considered private by law or contract, such as billing information, purchases and information that was considered deleted by the user. This can also be combined with information obtained from other private sector sources and retained in databases by the government.

Imagine if someone bought a large amount of ammonium nitrate base fertilizer. This can be used to make bombs, fertilize a garden or fertilize marijuana plants. Since bomb making would be a threat, it would be perfectly legitimate for a vendor to report this. However, if this got cross referenced to products used to grow marijuana, it could be used in an unrelated investigation.

Also, how does this suppress free speech? You haven't really explained this either.

If a company deems a group of activists contrary to its corporate mission, it can disclose private information, such as correspondence or purchases, out of context to paint a malicious picture of this activist group as subversive to national security. The activist group would have no control over the information disclosed, and this bill would protect the business entity from civil liability.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

So why is there such a lack of outrage on this bill?

Because of fatigue? If it's not SOPA last week, or CISPA this week, it will just be CRAP next week.

[jolly-roger.livejournal.com]

Anonymity in Internet allows you to completely remove violence from relationships . You or your feelings might be offended by pictures, cults, texts or ideas caused moral damage, angry or fear - it does not matter. The impossibility of imputing pecuniary damage - one of the parties of complete mental freedom, which allows anonymity. Freedom of speech and association, and assembly of information, freedom of worship and much more. The freedom to do absolutely everything except the physical impact on people.

Anonymity - this is the fragile wall between our world of violence and world where physical violence is impossible. This boundary is very vulnerable and angering those who like to use violence and is using it with pleasure. Authorities for example. Hence the incessant attacks on the Internet and the anonymity of the Internet. Unfortunately, not without success. Most authorities are able to break this boundary easily.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Anonymity in Internet allows you to completely remove violence from relationships .

You may see it that way, but not everybody does. People with anger problems tend to gravitate to sites that echo anger problems. All this anonymity is not completely harmless. Cyber bullying is a big problem in this country. It has been cited for some teen suicides (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/girls-teen-suicide-calls-attention-cyberbullying/story?id=9685026).

Although some people use it as such, the internet is not much of an effective anger management tool. It may temporarily release some tension, but it is not a permanent solution. Cyber trolls tend to stay cyber trolls.

[jolly-roger.livejournal.com]

I didn't say anonymity is harmless; freedom is often ugly. But I never accept concept of moral damage of adults. Teens should be supervised by parents. I do so. All nessesary filters are enabled and I watch after my kids.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

With SOPA, the public had something to lose. People were afraid of losing their right to rip off intellectual property. This bill, on the other hand, might actually help to protect them against cyber threats, and all it costs them is a certain amount of privacy that, on the internet, they never really had in the first place. Maybe that's why the response is so muted.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Being accused of a crime is a necessary precondition for a reason.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Why no rebellion? "It doesn't affect me because I'm a law-abiding citizen." Most people don't realize that even if they are doing nothing wrong they can still have their lives ruined by a government fishing expedition. Law enforcement is very good at adding 2+2 and getting 9. Ask any criminal defense lawyer.

The problem with fishing expeditions is that they cast a wide net and have a large false positive result which is why we have probable cause regulations. It expends a lot of resources with little to no gain. Meanwhile, those who actually have nefarious purpose learn very quickly how to avoid getting ensnared.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It sounds like just another attempt to legalize current covert practice. As for my most prized information, it cannot be stored on an electromechanical device, so I have no worries.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

SOPA would've hurt Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, and the like. Thus, they did the blackout, which generated huge public awareness. CISPA wouldn't hurt them, since it only really affects our (individuals') privacy rights, so no blackout.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So why is there such a lack of outrage on this bill?

Because the media hasn't told people to be outraged yet. They're too busy congratulating Obama on his new enlightenment and John Edwards' silly trial.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

In regards to internet freedom and security,

Congress is acting like some barking little lapdog that won't GODDAMN SHUT UP

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Did i read that wrong or did you say that this grants the government access to publicly available information?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

this grants the government access to publicly available information

It grants the government access to private information from publicly accessible networks; as opposed to privately owned networks such as company intranets and home networks. Publicly accessible networks can be, but are not limited to, the internet, texts, VOIP and public wireless networks.