Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA
by gojomo on Sunday February 17, 2013 @07:56PM
(#5237517)
I've read the EFF write-ups, the 2013 proposed bill text, and other sources carefully.
If after CISPA, federal agencies can receive more private data than before – in ways that were previously prevented by liability under the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communication Act, contractual obligations, and other court precedents about expectations of privacy – then that's a 'new power' for law enforcement. Even if the way the new power is created is indirect, through immunized information 'sharing'.
Re:Unite with Namecheap in the fight against CISPA
by snowwrestler on Monday February 18, 2013 @09:32AM
(#5238432)
I guess we'll just have to disagree about the meaning of the phrase "law enforcement power." SOPA would have given law enforcement a legal right to compel certain behavior. CISPA does not grant any right to compel behavior.
The language of CISPA explicitly prohibits the government from using such protections to force companies to give up data. Again--read the EFF article. It does not even use the phrase "law enforcement" at all, nor the word "force". The only usage of the word "power" refers to the power of private companies to collect data related to cybersecurity (which of course they already do).
The EFF is right to raise questions about privacy in the context of cybersecurity coordination. Where I part ways with them is that they seem to have taken a maximalist approach that any and all sharing of data is wrong and should be prevented. I happen to think that there is a role for the federal government to help coordinate cyber threat information.