House passes CISPA bill

[Mars7411]

House passes CISPA bill http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47196773/ns ... 5qD89VfJ6c

[LoGiCaL__]

I don't understand why they think that someone worthy enough to be called a legitimate threat would be careless enough to leave personal identifying information about themselves carelessly laying around and able to be found without much effort on the internet. So, really the people that get affected by this are the ones who think that information is always protected no matter where it goes on the internet (aka naive users). Which really can't be considered much of a threat.

This is just more leverage the government gives their self(without a democratic vote of the people) to have the upper hand so they don't look like fools in the event of more incidents that we have recently seen in the past. IMHO. They should start focusing more on the technical side rather than these bs bills.

In the private sector, corporations could alert the government and provide data that could stop an attack intended to disrupt the country's water supply or take down the banking system.

Notice how they put water supply and then mention banking system right after it. As if the water supply was damaged it would be the equivalent to the banking system being damaged. Always concerned about money. I'm sure if the water supply was damaged it would be a physical attack. Not sure why it would be accessible through the internet. We will live longer without a banking system then without a water supply. That's just the powerful and rich being concerned about themselves IMO.

[limdis]

[anarchy420x]

Here is another article on the matter. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml

[tremor77]

Instead of passing some stupid ass bill, can't we require that public works have some standards and practices for their technology infrastructure.. and as for banks, those are private institutions, they should be driven by market motivation, their shareholders and the customers who use them, in order to provide the best possible security.

To be perfectly honest government needs to stay out of the computer security business. If they are going to start regulating that companies need to have x,y,z in place in order to meet some type of government IT security compliance standard.. then you've given a company a bare minimum to live down to, and an excuse when shit hits the fan.. "well, we met our government required compliance so we're not at fault." The last thing I want as someone who works in the private sector is for the government to say how I should protect my network. My network is more secure than the god damn FBI. Hell, in case you didn't know.. the FBI has a honeypot, and on the same subnet, only a few digits off from their well known honeypot.. an open smtp relay server... are these the people you want defending your country from cyberthreats... lulz.

[LoGiCaL__]

Instead of passing some stupid ass bill, can't we require that public works have some standards and practices for their technology infrastructure..

What do you think this is, some kind of democracy? I totally agree that they should not be the end all and say all of network security. So lets have them(who already proved they are not capable) set the standards. I mean, look what happened in the past year or so to the governments sites and related private sector companies.

<sarcasm>"Hey, my buddy just set up a website that got his customers info stolen.... He knows what he's doing some I'm going to have him set up a website for me."</sarcasm>

[tremor77]

I also find it funny that Republicans even consider backing this crap, but I guess they get all on the nationalist ideology bandwagon instead of their de-regulation bandwagon. I thought the Republican mantra was to keep the government's hands out of the private sector cookie jar. I guess when there is enough money greasing the wheels for more regulation they're all for it.

[Ampyre]

I am severly dissapoint