×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

CISPA Seems Dead In the US Senate

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the in-the-senate-dead-is-a-good-disguise dept.

United States 76

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Daily Dot: "A Senate committee aide, who requested to not be named, told the Daily Dot that 'there is no possible plan to bring up CISPA,' in the Senate. The aide cited the fact that the Senate tried to pass its own cybersecurity bill, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (CSA). While unsuccessful, it underscored a desire for legislation that took more explicit efforts to protect individuals' Internet privacy. 'There are just too many problems with it,' the aide said of CISPA. This is backed up by U.S. News and World Report, which has reported that a staffer on the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation explicitly claims CISPA is no longer a possibility, and senators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Poor Google (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43554947)

Poor Google they had al their hopes deposited in that nice law.

Re:Poor Google (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about a year and a half ago | (#43554957)

Really? That's interesting.

It was bad law to begin with. Trying to bend technology to a legislative solution is never advantageous for the end users of the tech.

Re:Poor Google (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555525)

why yes, google. they must be the focus. *facepalm*

obvious troll is obvious.

Re:Poor Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43559625)

Google supported it. They're not the focus but it's pretty clear they were evil.

The Senate did something right at last. (4, Informative)

Stormthirst (66538) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555003)

That's all

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555043)

Cherish it. You're not likely to see that again in your lifetime.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (5, Funny)

T.E.D. (34228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555083)

Cherish it. You're not likely to see that again in your lifetime.

Wrong! Anytime you need something to not get done, the US Senate is there for you. Its like their superpower.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555227)

Oddly true. Inaction is the one thing they're best at.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (4, Informative)

Carewolf (581105) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556067)

Wrong! Anytime you need something to not get done, the US Senate is there for you. Its like their superpower.

Actually, they are not very good at that either. They just repealed the law that made it illegal for them to do insider trading. So now the senate are once again the only people in the US legally allowed to do insider trading.

The law repealing it got accepted in record time with no objections.

So, no. Not even when what they SHOULD do is nothing, can thet manage to do the right thing.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556801)

source?

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43557337)

Google STOCK Act.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43557619)

Obama just asked everybody to take a 5% paycut too. Who needs pay when you can make an overnight fortune via an inside trade.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (2)

paulzeye (736282) | about a year and a half ago | (#43557573)

Bruce Schneier commented on this and has some links that may provide a primary source: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/securing_congre.html [schneier.com]

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555117)

I don't know if we can say the *did* something right. It's more like they didn't do something wrong.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555183)

enators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions.

Apparently you missed that part. Let me translate: "Who gave this damned thing a name? All the hippies are up in arms over it again! Scrap it, pull the wording out and we'll introduce different parts of it at different times so they don't have an easy target to complain about. Also, we'll all be able to separately oppose parts of it while supporting others, there-by shift blame all over so no-one can target any of us directly when the they realize we passed it anyway."

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (4, Insightful)

netwarerip (2221204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555219)

This.
It will just end up pieced into a bunch of farm subsidy or highway dedication bills over the next few months.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (5, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555345)

My guess is it will be the Boston Marathon Relief Act, or the Stop Terrorism Act, or some feel good sounding name that makes people want to support it just because they don't want to be labeled as supporting terrorism...or not supporting victims of Boston or whatever.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555477)

This.

And they'll sneak it in as amendments to spending bills to fund the Military and other shit. Like relief efforts in Bangladesh or some shit.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556857)

No the relief act will come in the form of an anal probe from the tsa at sporting events.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (5, Insightful)

DriveDog (822962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555349)

Exactly. Liberties usually don't get cancelled wholesale, they're chipped away until only skeletons remain. Both easier to slip each bit in under the radar and easier to avoid blame for doing so.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43556877)

enators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions.

Apparently you missed that part. Let me translate: "Who gave this damned thing a name? All the hippies are up in arms over it again! Scrap it, pull the wording out and we'll introduce different parts of it at different times so they don't have an easy target to complain about. Also, we'll all be able to separately oppose parts of it while supporting others, there-by shift blame all over so no-one can target any of us directly when the they realize we passed it anyway."

All the fourteen year old basement dwellers are up in arms over it again!

There, FTFY.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555203)

They're really good at not getting things done. I wouldn't attribute them not getting something you didn't like done to any particular competence. It's really just their way of letting the people who really want the bill to pass that they haven't received enough money yet. Once the likes of the RIAA offers up a few more teats for congressmen to attach to, I'm sure it'll be back.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (2)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556069)

Let's hope they will be good enough to kill the internet sales tax as well.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43562453)

Why would you want to kill that? It's a convenient way to pay a tax you owe.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about a year and a half ago | (#43564029)

Assuming you're serious, the reason is simple: because it's a bitch for small stores. Mistakes will be made and the small businesses will get into big time hassles with the sales tax board of different states. Small businesses, especially mom-and-pop stores will have one more hurdle to clear and many will fail.

I think the purpose of the legislation is to force mom-and-pops out of the internet sales because it is so onerous. Now you may say that there a technological solution could easily be made. Yes it could. But it's not in the works. The result is going to be a blood-bath.

Why is it complicated? It's not simply because there are 50 different states with different tax rates it's that different states tax different items in different ways and change them frequently. For instance NYS taxes clothes when an individual item is 110.00 and above but doesn't when it is below. Now what is an item of clothes and what is an accessory (which is fully taxed.) A pocketsquare is an accessory as is a belt buckle but a belt (strap and buckle) is considered clothing and isn't taxed if under 110.00.

To further complicate things sometimes the tax rate changes: for a while the tax was $55.00. Did the state change this at the beginning of a tax quarter? No. They changed it in the middle of the tax quarter. Not only that but NYS and NYC are different tax jurisdictions and sometimes things don't coordinate well.

What happens when state A considers item X and accessory and state B doesn't; even more what happens when they change their definitions. We can easily see a technological solution. There is a central database which all transactions refer to (kept in cache via a google API) and which the STATES are responsible to keep updated. If that happens then tax collection is simple. Of course, now you need to file in 50 states and not one and two hours work becomes 100 hours work. OK. Less than that as you will probably have some states in which there were no sales. But still - you need to file them. Think about dealing with 50 IRSs every 3 months. How stressful would that be?

TaxCloud (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43564293)

Now you may say that there a technological solution could easily be made. Yes it could. But it's not in the works.

Yes it is. It's called TaxCloud, and it's a web service offered without charge to all U.S. Internet retailers, paid for by states participating in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA).

different states tax different items in different ways and change them frequently. For instance NYS taxes clothes when an individual item is 110.00 and above but doesn't when it is below. Now what is an item of clothes and what is an accessory (which is fully taxed.)

States participating in SSUTA have simplified their tax codes precisely to minimize this.

We can easily see a technological solution. There is a central database which all transactions refer to (kept in cache via a google API) and which the STATES are responsible to keep updated.

One such database is called TaxCloud.

Re:TaxCloud (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about a year and a half ago | (#43564401)

thx. will tax a look at this.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43572155)

Why would you want to kill that? It's a convenient way to pay a tax you owe.

Not true for residents of many states. Try again.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555225)

senators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions

Death by guillotine vs death by 1000 cuts
Being on cut #549 is not much of a victory.
You're still going to end up dead..

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555233)

no, they didn't.

staffer on the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation explicitly claims CISPA is no longer a possibility, and senators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions.

translation: the senate is preparing amendments to add to totally unrelated bills that do the same thing, probably worse.. these unrelated bills will be the kind that the senators must vote for or face a hailstorm during re-election.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555515)

Too bad they did it in secret. I wrote my senators asking them to reject CISPA, and that my vote would hinge on whether they opposed it. Since everything was done in secret, I can't even remotely provide proper feedback into our broken democratic system.
Hooray broken democracy.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (3, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555913)

Since everything was done in secret, I can't even remotely provide proper feedback into our broken democratic system.

Sure you can - your democratically elected, public officials attempted to secretly alter public policy; Therefore, they are not worthy of re-election.

Apart from that, you can always hound them about their secret activities, and when they try to give you some bullshit excuse, use their own words against them:

If you have done nothing wrong...

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (0)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#43562471)

It's a broken democracy becasue isn't a democracy, idiot.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555519)

No, don't be fooled. They're just going to hide all the legislation in other bills. This controlled leak by an "unnamed staffer" is just to fool people like you and everyone that modded you up.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43556321)

That's all

No they just didn't think this one eroded our civil liberties enough. The next one will be worse.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year and a half ago | (#43557071)

... by doing nothing at all.

Re:The Senate did something right at last. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43561645)

If you read between the lines you will find that the truth is hinted at. basically, extraordinary scrutiny by the people simply requires extraordinary weaseling. you can see that they admit that they are including cispa provisions in other bills. what, are we going to read all of them? doubtful. those dumbass bastards will still screw us with just about every line in every bill they pass. if they wanted to do something productive they can pass the "imprison all employees of the federal reserve act".

For now (3, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555091)

As a governor once said: "I'll be back."

Re:For now (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556553)

Don't worry, it'll get attached as an eleventh-hour amendment to a bill funding childrens' hospitals the evening before summer recess.

Re:For now (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43566041)

As a governator once said: "I'll be back."

FTFY

Wait... we won for once? (2)

danudwary (201586) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555147)

What's really going on? There must be some other way we're being screwed here....

Asteroids (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555601)

No, see this is how bad legislation works, you have a giant angry chunk of nasty, then it gets defeated into smaller chunks of nasty, those get defeated into even smaller chunks of nasty.

Eventually the individual chunks don't seem to matter so they get passed.

In the end some rich guy strokes his dick with money.

Re:Asteroids (1)

kn9sli001 (2884913) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556845)

No, see this is how bad legislation works, you have a giant angry chunk of nasty, then it gets defeated into smaller chunks of nasty, those get defeated into even smaller chunks of nasty.

Eventually the individual chunks don't seem to matter so they get passed.

In the end some rich guy strokes his dick with money.

And then They sneak the little chunks of nasty into a bills that have nothing to do with the original nasty,and "We the People" don't even realize that our will has been circumvented. And in the end " A WHOLE BUNCH of RICH Guys are circle jerking and "WE the People" are the pivot man.

If they're drafting separate bills ... (4, Insightful)

geckoFeet (139137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555157)

... to implement the provisions, the thing may not be dead. It may be metastisizing.

Re:If they're drafting separate bills ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43580259)

If by "may" you mean "will", then yes, you are correct.

Didn't I read this about a year ago too? (0)

mmcxii (1707574) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555199)

EOM

we won (-1, Troll)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555201)

That's right, all us 14-year-old basement dwellers won, so take that Rep. Mike Rogers! (Take it, and shove it right up your ass, you ignorant fool!)

Re:we won (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555279)

Hahahaha +1 !

Re:we won (1)

grenadeh (2734161) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555617)

Representatives are not Senators.

Re:we won (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556335)

Representatives are not Senators.

I'm perfectly well aware of that. What, exactly, is your point?

Re:we won (1)

Marillion (33728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43557923)

A Representative is a representative and a Senator is a representative. Capitalization matters. Classically, as in before the 17th Amendment, a Senator was selected by the State and thus a Senator represents his/her State. However, for the past 100 years, we directly elect Senators which requires campaigning before the electorate and we can spend all day discussing the shortcomings of the modern campaign and the questions and confusions of loyalties that result from that.

You fariL it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555277)

sure tha7 by the is not prone to everyday...We

We know how this game is played (1)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555393)

They will just parse up the bill and add it as amendments to future legislation.

They have been paid far too much money by big business to let it die here.

Say what? (5, Insightful)

grenadeh (2734161) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555427)

I like the wording in this article.: "While unsuccessful, it underscored a desire for legislation that took more explicit efforts to protect individuals' Internet privacy." A desire by whom, praytell? No one who uses the internet wants any legislation PERIOD. We don't want explicit protection, we want absolute laissez faire internet the way it is supposed to be. A desire by "lawmakers"? It isn't their job to come up with the ideas behind the legislation. It's their job to do what their constituents want. While, admittedly, the majority of America is retarded and increasingly so - increasingly falling prey to mob opinion and misinformation from every level so that they are still willing to be spoonfed this Constitution-shredding bullshit, I HIGHLY doubt that each district is going out saying "REGULATE OUR INTERNETS". Not happening. Anywhere.

Re:Say what? (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555949)

I like the wording in this article.:

"While unsuccessful, it underscored a desire for legislation that took more explicit efforts to protect individuals' Internet privacy."

A desire by whom, praytell?

The fucktards commenting on Yahoo! News.

Seriously, you want to lose all faith in humanity? Go read some of the shit those ego-maniacal sociopaths post. It's fucking depressing.

Re:Say what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555981)

I HIGHLY doubt that each district is going out saying "REGULATE OUR INTERNETS". Not happening. Anywhere

I'm not so optimistic.

People don't scream verbatim "REGULATE OUR INTERNETS", but people do scream that we gotta do "something" whenever:

-some criminal/mass murder/terrorist is found to have used technology of some kind (i.e played video games, left some message on social media. etc)
-some kid gets bullied online and something bad happens (i.e commit suicide)
-some story comes up about foreign (Chinese) hackers succeeding in doing something that sounds threatening, or that there's a cyber cold war going on, etc.
-Anonymous does something that makes it to the news
-some story comes out about high tech thieves discovering ways to steal your money/identity (when half of it might just be good old social engineering)

Really, anything that the masses could and have complained about TV/movies/comic books/etc can easily apply to the Internet, even if it shouldn't.

Re:Say what? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556309)

Sounds to me that, if we need to be regulating anything, it's the knee-jerk reactionary jackasses scared of their own shadows...

Re:Say what? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about a year and a half ago | (#43558823)

Sounds to me that, if we need to be regulating anything, it's the knee-jerk reactionary jackasses scared of their own shadows...

Which is why we don't need anymore gun control.

Oh, wait, this isn't about gun control, is it? What I meant to say was "Someone was SHOT??? OMG, MORE GUN CONTROL!!!"

Re:Say what? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#43557937)

Actually, it is usually politicians who scream that we "gotta do something" whenever something happens that they see as an opportunity to expand their power. They are often able to stampede people into supporting what these expansions of power right after some tragedy, even if what they propose would not have had any impact on preventing the tragedy (for example, none of the control legislation proposed in the wake of the Newtown school shootings would have had any impact on that event). Even worse, is that often times existing laws addressed the issues which caused the tragedy, but were not enforced (Columbine and Enron were two completely different types of tragedy which led to new laws being passed. Those who were responsible for both were in violation of numerous existing laws when they took the actions that led to the tragedy).

Re:Say what? (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556275)

No one who uses the internet wants any legislation PERIOD.

Speak for yourself. If you want your email and VOIP conversations handed over to the Feds without a warrant, if you feel you shouldn't need to be notified of a server breach that compromises your financial data, if you feel that ISPs should be able to give preferential quality of service to their own partners and degrade the connection speed of their competitors, and if you want to be under constant surveillance and tracking by corporate overlords so they can extract the maximum amount of money from you and constantly harass you with advertising, then by all means you're entitled to advocate for no regulation. Let's just be clear that reasonable people might disagree with your position.

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43561317)

Speak for yourself. If you want your email and VOIP conversations handed over to the Feds without a warrant,

Encrypt your sensitive emails, run your VOIP through an encrypted tunnel, or get both services from a business that will stand up for its customers.

if you feel you shouldn't need to be notified of a server breach that compromises your financial data,

You should ask your financial service providers about their terms BEFORE handing over your data. Not everyone wants the same notifications as you do and we'd rather have more choices.

if you feel that ISPs should be able to give preferential quality of service to their own partners and degrade the connection speed of their competitors,

If the government didn't create and protect telecom monopolies, you could take your business elsewhere. The important society-changing free speech stuff is low bandwidth anyways.

and if you want to be under constant surveillance and tracking by corporate overlords so they can extract the maximum amount of money from you and constantly harass you with advertising, then by all means you're entitled to advocate for no regulation. Let's just be clear that reasonable people might disagree with your position.

Stop using Facebook, stop leaking your data, and download Adblock.

It sounds like you just suck at computers, and would rather force others to change than to change yourself.

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43562405)

... individuals' Internet privacy.

You're equating internet privacy with on-line privacy. To me, internet privacy means anonymity. That is, the servers can't use cookies to record which web-pages are downloaded to my IP address. It avoids a lot of surveillance until I log-in to Facebook or Google. When I am on-line, they know exactly who buying and writing. They then want to sell this information to other people. That information is the personal effects of my on-line life and the government wants it abused so they get a free slice of the data pie.

... want explicit protection ...

Remember the net neutrality debacle? Where I can be charged more for German porn, not because its more valuable, but because I didn't buy American porn. Yeah, I want explicit protection from that.

... we want absolute laissez faire ...

Remember Enron, and Lehman brothers? These corporate disasters occurred because government reduced regulation. Your 'government is bad' mentality is instinctively right and factually wrong. Contrary to the Ayn Rand philosophy, money does not make people nice. It makes artificial persons, who can't be imprisoned or murdered, far worse than living people. Government, through its immense power acts as an artificial person too, creating a vicious circle.

... ideas behind the legislation ...

First, bureaucrats need to learn the ideas behind the problem. They don't do that, so they rely on big business choosing rules which are convenient. That is called regulatory capture.

Have they killed it with fire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555479)

You need to be sure about these things. Maybe throw some salt on there too.

In th US Senate (1)

4d3fect (1023141) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555571)

EVERYTHING is dead.

Keep Your Eye On The Ball (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43555585)

If you allow yourself to be distracted and take your eye off the ball, you'll likely get hit in the face.

For the athletically challenged: I mean that if you think CISPA is dead and don't pay attention to it, they will ram it through in a last minute push when you're not looking.

Who was Deep Throat? (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43555611)

You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment!

Are laws really this difficult to write? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43556131)

It seems to me any time Congress tries to write a patch for the legal system it's always a hack and gets rejected because it's so obviously bad. The peer review works, but the actual writing sucks. Maybe it they stopped pair programming with lobbyists and tried a little user acceptance testing we wouldn't waste a ton of time figuring out what to do about guns and drugs and the internet. Maybe if they tested their ideas first? Stopped bragging about their ignorance of the subjects of the laws they write and become informed? Maybe then the laws would write themselves.

BULL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43556249)

That is what they always say, then they find some way to sneak it under the radar. Just like they are trying with Gun Control

Allow me to quote Mr. Kim Dotcom.
"The war for the internet has begun!"

Keep fighting and don't let up a second. Write your Senators, and Representatives. Just let them know that CISPA is an attack on the 4th amendment, 5th amendment and 1st amendment and 9th amendment.

Spread the word and do not let up.

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43556287)

does this mean the end to the anti CISPA pages like the one I saw during Stop Cyber Spying Week on 4-16-13?

How is government like a slasher flick! (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year and a half ago | (#43556707)

Ooh! It's dead!
Shove that giant metal spear into it's chest to be sure!
*LIGHTNING BOLT!*
*Zombie CISPA*
It's alive! Let's give it a new name!
We shall call it FOICRRA! Fuck Over Internet Constituency Rights Rapeage Act!
Let's get a vote!

It is BACK in HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43557157)

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5

or it may be...

Unknown Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43557277)

Any news from an 'unnamed' source is not worth my time.

CNET Documents (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | about a year and a half ago | (#43560331)

Anybody else get the email about this? I'm hearing that CNET has a 1000 page document outlining that the government has already allowed companies total immunity from prosecution over backdoors for wiretapping, and they just want to retroactively make it legal with CISPA.
Am I really late on the game here, or not?

No, not "Dead" until... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43560413)

The legislature passes and the President signs off on a bill either granting the exact *opposite* of CISPA, or enacts legislation stating that such measures shall not be legislated or executivized at all.

Otherwise, as others have suggested it may come back chunk by chunk or attached to must pass legislation.... Or have we all gone so brain dead as to not remember this is the second pass at this, which shall imply a third, fourth, or as many times as needed to pass???

Online Privacy is still a concern (1)

Faizan Ali (2915697) | about a year and a half ago | (#43639775)

CIspa is dead which is Great, a bill like should have never even been inspired to come in to existence. I am glad that it is now dead. However Online privacy is still a concern and people are still very vulnerable to cyber attacks. People have started using VPNs (http://goo.gl/Ddp8U) in order to protect their privacy. the people; living in a democratic state; have to pay an extra penny for their privacy, something the govt is liable to do.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?