Facebook Responds to Outrage With Continued CISPA Support

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
I'm confused as to how I feel, personally I feel that its a bad thing for the government to snoop, but I also think... its facebook they are already snooping and anything you don't want to get caught doing shouldn't be posted.

I'm not really against it but I'm certainly not for it.
 

stingstang

Distinguished
May 11, 2009
294
0
18,940
5
Why is it the company which has this stance, instead of just saying Zuckerberg? It's not like he isn't the deciding factor in this. I'd love to see that a majority or workers for facebook would overthrow his stance for facebook's take on this.
 

kristoffe

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2010
47
0
18,580
0
I see a future where facebook gets canned for invasion of privacy, misrepresentation of terms of service, tax evasion, and fraud. Then some new thing will pop it's head up.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"More than 845 million people trust Facebook with their information," Kaplan said

LOL of the week
 
G

Guest

Guest
Facebook: You're not the Customer; You're the product being sold.
 

teddymines

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2011
44
0
18,580
0
I was not terribly concerned about hackers or other people using my information from Facebook; I was more concerned with backdoor data mining that the government is almost certainly doing with Facebook's permission (although neither will ever admit). For this reason, I cancelled my Facebook account years ago.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
778
0
18,930
1
I am wondering how a site the size of Facebook is going to check EVERY posted link to see if it is in violation of a copyright.

Ah yes, do judges know that a server can redirect a link visitor depending on where the visitor is from ? i.e. if I suspect a 'link checker' is checking my link I do not transfer him to the illegal content but to something 'legal' !
 

TeraMedia

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2006
185
0
18,630
0
Of course Facebook is pro CISPA. They're terrified that an Anonymous or similar is going to shred them, disgruntle their users and take away their market value. The current largest risk to Facebook right now is probably some type of hacker attack. Whether that attack reveals user data, corporate proprietary data (such as their data sharing practices), or even just disables the site for a week, it doesn't really matter all that much. If it happens, it will have a big impact on FB's top and bottom lines. Any law that enables FB to help prevent or prosecute such an attack, they are going to support.

I don't condone it; I just understand what their motivations might be.
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
14
I'm... Not sure of this. Honestly, I don't like it much but it seems to be different from SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/OPEN and any other that I missed, at least in some ways. For example, it doesn't directly relate to copyright infringement. It does make sense that if companies and governments share data they collect from attackers, that they can solve the problem(s) faster and more thoroughly.

However, this CISPA seems to be very vague, so it might be able to be used for purposes other than what was described by the supporters.

If it does not impose new obligations on sharing the data, then that seems to be optional. In theory, the government or other companies could simply put pressure on someone who refuses to share until they have no choice, so although there is supposed to be a choice in the matter, that might not be the case in reality. It also doesn't specifically state that it involves monitoring for copyright infringement or really monitoring for anything more than what they already do.

All it seems to do is allow companies to share information that involves cyber attacks on them that might have otherwise been protected by privacy laws and such. To be honest, that does seem reasonable, at least to a point. However, even if this were to pass into law and be used in the manner described by Facebook, the next question to ask is whether or not it will make a difference. Most attacks on companies, agencies and other organizations don't seem to use the exact same method for getting in every time. Just by using a different operating system or even just different software, the same attacks shouldn't work on all of the companies, so this would probably help companies using the same types of computer systems, operating systems, and software the most.

Basically, if I use a lesser known type of system, then the same attacks that would hurt other groups probably wouldn't hurt me, depending on the type of attack. So, if I use a system that is incompatible with most of the others (IE using operating systems and software that aren't common such as using Haiku or a distribution of Linux with a small user base compared to the others), then most attacks won't be able to do much damage to me. Of course there could still be stuff like DDoS and all of that, but if you're smart, then that really isn't such a big deal. Having highly redundant and fairly powerful systems can keep the risk associated with that to a minimum.

However, if DDoS is the main problem, then sharing data and all that doesn't seem like it would make much difference. Seriously, the best that I would expect something like sharing data from DDoS attacks to do is figuring out who did it, not how they did it. Even then, how could it not already be legal to share DDoS attack info such as who did it and all of that? None of that should be protected by any law. It's not privacy infringement to tell another company the IPs that did the DDoS and the other info like that, is it?

Also, not being an asshole company helps incredibly, but that isn't common enough, especially among the large companies.

Of course, this whole comment thus far has been assuming that the companies and government aren't completely lying to us about what they intend to do with this law. Seeing as how it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense in when it is looked at as if they are being legitimate about it, they probably aren't being truthful. Of course, I'm not an expert and could have missed something or just be wrong, but this is how it looks to me based on what I have to go on. I won't support this and I think it's already time to try to communicate with a local congressman, not that I'm sure of that doing any good.
 

upgrade_1977

Distinguished
May 5, 2011
185
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]waltz_s[/nom]"More than 845 million people trust Facebook with their information," Kaplan saidLOL of the week[/citation]

Yeah, I have a facebook account, but I don't "Trust" facebook with my information. Thats why I never go on there. They save "EVERYTHING", post's, pics, emails, text's, ect. ect. ect. I feel that is a total violation of privacy. It's none of there business, and I bet some creeper employee's are sitting back reading everyone's stuff. Only reason I even have a facebook is cuz my friends and family want me to have one, but again, i never use it..
 

madooo12

Distinguished
Dec 6, 2011
136
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]waltz_s[/nom]"More than 845 million people trust Facebook with their information," Kaplan saidLOL of the week[/citation]
actually there are much more idiots than geeks
 

monsta

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2008
90
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]kristoffe[/nom]I see a future where facebook gets canned for invasion of privacy, misrepresentation of terms of service, tax evasion, and fraud. Then some new thing will pop it's head up.[/citation]

You could not have said it any better, well said!
 

Blessedman

Distinguished
May 29, 2001
257
0
18,930
0
If the network is vulnerable and contains personal information the network administrators and/or company that sustains the network should be held liable. Period! You cannot blame someone that either purposefully or accidentally stumbles upon a vulnerable point in a network. I know in the real world just because someone leaves their door open doesn't give you the right to walk in, but in the cyber world that lines are not so easily defined...
 

Blessedman

Distinguished
May 29, 2001
257
0
18,930
0
To add another wrinkle, I will throw in a real property issue of prescriptive easement. Where someone that continues to use your property for a purpose that is adverse to your wishes but you don't do anything to stop them, they can eventually claim an easement for the future use of your property... I honestly think the government should put their hands up in the air and say this is not our problem! This is the problem of companies and they should deal with it on their own! PERIOD! This is just absurd! I also believe the MPAA should be sued for unfair business practices and audited to find a true amount of their losses that they claim they lose on their shitty movies (and subtract from taxes they rightfully owe).
 

blazorthon

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2010
761
0
18,960
14
[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]If the network is vulnerable and contains personal information the network administrators and/or company that sustains the network should be held liable. Period! You cannot blame someone that either purposefully or accidentally stumbles upon a vulnerable point in a network. I know in the real world just because someone leaves their door open doesn't give you the right to walk in, but in the cyber world that lines are not so easily defined...[/citation]

I'd say that in the cyber world, the lines are just as well-defined when it comes to hacking into a site as the lines are defined when you walk into someone's house and go through their personals. The difference is obvious, but the morality and legal lines are still well-defined.

[citation][nom]Blessedman[/nom]To add another wrinkle, I will throw in a real property issue of prescriptive easement. Where someone that continues to use your property for a purpose that is adverse to your wishes but you don't do anything to stop them, they can eventually claim an easement for the future use of your property... I honestly think the government should put their hands up in the air and say this is not our problem! This is the problem of companies and they should deal with it on their own! PERIOD! This is just absurd! I also believe the MPAA should be sued for unfair business practices and audited to find a true amount of their losses that they claim they lose on their shitty movies (and subtract from taxes they rightfully owe).[/citation]

That is more sensible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Streaming Video & TVs 4
O Streaming Video & TVs 2
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 1
O Streaming Video & TVs 1
B Streaming Video & TVs 2
Jill Scharr Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 1
tomsguideUS Streaming Video & TVs 0
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 2
Jill Scharr Streaming Video & TVs 6
rutherfordsc Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
rutherfordsc Streaming Video & TVs 4
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
G Streaming Video & TVs 8
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 14

ASK THE COMMUNITY