It is not the way conference committees work that there's a whole new open public process. By the time a bill has passed both houses of Congress, the incentive is declare victory and get the thing over with. The only reason there even is a conference committee is to get the House and Senate to agree on language.
I've explained repeatedly why the legal immunity language in CISA is not only reasonable, but in fact most of the impetus for the entire bill.
I'm a little annoyed at how you're asking me to explain it again, because that once again puts me in the position of being perceived as a supporter of CISA, which I am not. I'm very tired of people --- like, respectfully, you --- equating "effort taken to understand a complicated issue" with "partisan support for one side of that issue".
The "tell" that that's what's happening here is the language you chose to use: "you're not worried at all that...?". In sales, language like that is referred to as "an assumptive close". It is literally a mind control technique. Here, you're trying to deploy it on me to put me on the wrong side of an issue being discussed on HN.
PLEASE STOP DOING THAT.
Thankfully? In the sense that at least it wasn't close to PCNA or that you think this bill will do anything to actually benefit "cybersecurity"? Because if it doesn't serve its purpose, then it doesn't really matter how close was or wasn't to the PCNA, does it?
Also, you're not worried at all about the legal protections companies get for cooperating with the NSA? If they "aren't doing anything wrong", why should they need legal immunity?