Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by Wazowski on Saturday February 16, 2013 @05:09PM (#5233230)

This is something new; a combination of marketing, propaganda, and demagoguery. Namecheap says that "If CISPA is passed, the US government gains the power to shut off Internet traffic." That wrong, and so provably wrong that it may be a lie. The bill is here. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523/text There isn't a word in there about shutting off Internet traffic. More reputable sources--like EFF, for whom Namecheap is fundraising--don't make that outrageous claim. Namecheap is trying to make a buck off the gullible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by tptacek on Saturday February 16, 2013 @07:29PM (#5233702)

EFF made a series of outrageous claims about CISPA. If all your information about CISPA came from EFF, you might indeed think that CISPA was an attempt to reintroduce SOPA.

EFF is not a trustworthy source of information about CISPA. I believe they're using it as a vector for fundraising. They're certainly not trying to educate about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by gojomo on Saturday February 16, 2013 @08:57PM (#5233901)

Can you provide more detail about the "outrageous claims about CISPA" made by the EFF? (That's a strong accusation without details.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by tptacek on Saturday February 16, 2013 @10:24PM (#5234069)

A starting point:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/cybersecurity-bill-faq...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by gojomo on Sunday February 17, 2013 @12:26AM (#5234302)

Are you saying that whole FAQ is 'outrageous claims' about the 2012 CISPA, or can you highlight the most 'outrageous' claim? Has anyone written up an explanation why?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by gojomo on Saturday February 16, 2013 @09:11PM (#5233935)

Namecheap's claim seems overly definitive, but after a quick skim I think one area of concern might be the proposed new Section 1104(b)(4)(B), granting everyone involved civil and criminal immunity "for decisions made based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this section."

That's a vague and broad grant that might enable many abuses: essentially, a government agent might say, "we'll share cyber threat info with you if you promptly turn off the threats we point out, and you'll be safe from any liability... or you can refuse to coordinate with us, and risk prosecution without this immunity". I would welcome more clarification from a legal expert with CISPA concerns.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by busterarm on Saturday February 16, 2013 @06:43PM (#5233556)

It's not any different than the marketing that companies on the other side of these bills use to get public support for them. It's a game of lies and honesty doesn't pay.

I'm just glad to be using a company that is consistently (thus far) on the right side of this issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by tptacek on Saturday February 16, 2013 @07:31PM (#5233711)

My 13 year old son, who is not exactly a lodestar of ethical and moral judgement at this point in his development, understands intuitively that other people's lies do not actually build a space for him to comfortably fill with his own lies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA by busterarm on Monday February 18, 2013 @03:29PM (#5240435)

If you think I'm approving of the practice, you're wrong.

They're doing it though because it works and because there is no likelihood that they will actually be held accountable in a way that affects their bottom line.

We're talking about marketing here. Truth has no place in marketing. If your truth has any impact, you wouldn't need to market.

[ Parent | on HN ]