Oh, look: a syllogism supported by a list of names and organizations, and not one fact about what's in the executive order that you haven't read, nor one direct concern about CISPA. Perhaps you could start by explaining why Tim Berners-Lee opposes CISPA. Maybe that explanation could include a firm statement about whether Berners-Lee read CISPA. It wouldn't be much of a knock on him if he hadn't; CISPA was the target of a huge fundraising effort by EFF.

Uh, the first line of CISPA is probably is big reason why EFF is critical and involved that 4th Amendment issue I mentioned (which is a direct concern about CISPA... where's your hostility coming from?). The Act is only 10 pages, I and many others read it.

"IN GENERAL.—The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."

In case it's vague which direction the sharing is allowed (it's both):

"[Private sector may] share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government."

Sharing is secret:

"shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code"

No recourse for sharing:

"No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self- protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith"

Also, quotes by everyone opposed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_...

Edit: to reply to your next comment, you frame this as centered on "attacks" but it's more generally characterized as "threats" and also includes any intellectual property theft (which broadens this by several orders of magnitude). And it also includes efforts to degrade a network. Pretty sure my cell phone provider thinks I've made efforts to degrade their network and steal IP since Android was released.

You think the government should be enjoined from sharing attack information with private companies?

You think private companies should be enjoined from sharing attack information with the government?

You thought maybe attack information for ongoing investigations should be shared with the public?

Exactly what was it that you thought was happening when banks called in the FBI after compromises?

I read the article that Berners-Lee's quote appears on and I stand by my previous statement. I think it is reasonable to ask whether he read the bill, or whether he got it summarized for him by EFF. I do not think EFF was intellectually honest about CISPA. That's a problem, because EFF opposition to a bill is a quick way to generate opposing quotes from a laundry list of Internet luminaries.

Believe it or not, I am probably just as opposed to Internet power grabs by the government as you are. I just I think I'm required to read and think carefully about measures before I stridently condemn them; I did that here and came to different conclusions than you did.

I think the supporters of a law should be required to demonstrate that the problem it supposes to solve is real and even conceivably solvable by government action. In the absence of that it's safe to condemn any legislation on the topic, particularly when there's such a bad track record of alternately useless and harmful laws in the subject areas.