SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Thursday October 22 2015, @06:09PM
from the the-ever-expanding-government dept.
from the the-ever-expanding-government dept.
Apple and Dropbox said Tuesday that they oppose a controversial cybersecurity bill that, according to critics, would give the government sweeping new powers to spy on Americans in the name of protecting them from hackers.
The announcement by the two companies comes days before the Senate expects to vote on the legislation, known as the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, or CISA.
"We don't support the current CISA proposal," Apple said in a statement. "The trust of our customers means everything to us and we don't believe security should come at the expense of their privacy."
Dropbox said that the bill needed more privacy protections in order to win its support.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple and Dropbox Say They’re Against a Key Cybersecurity Bill
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 52 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
sillema sillema nika su
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday October 22 2015, @06:54PM
They've been peddling that "Choose privacy or security!" story for so long that now they just assume that security is synonymous with violating your privacy. Personal insecurity is personal security. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:03PM
Yes. It's gotten to the point that whenever you see government talking about "cybersecurity", you should just substitute the word, "surveillance".
The whole thing is so transparent, in the most opaque way possible.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:05PM
But Obama was gonna change all that. bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Stupid fucking liberals.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Francis on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:12PM
Because the GOP candidates that were explicitly promising this sort of bullshit were less likely to do this?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:16PM
Which candidates were those exactly? And were they voted in as president on a "hope and change" platform?
Oh, and FYI, I would never vote for a GOP candidate. Sorry to burst your bubble their liberal boy.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Francis on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:19PM
FYI, I'm not liberal, I'm just not a right-wing nutjob.
Bottom line here is that the choice is basically what the GOP offers or what the Democrats offer. The last candidate that wasn't from one of those parties to manage more than 10% of the popular vote was H. Ross Perot. And he just barely got more than that.
Voting for somebody else is basically just a cop out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:21PM
FYI, I'm not liberal, I'm just not a right-wing nutjob.
Neither am I. Which is why I've never voted for a right-wing candidate. You do realize there are people in politics who aren't liberals or conservatives, right?
Bottom line here is that the choice is basically what the GOP offers or what the Democrats offer. The last candidate that wasn't from one of those parties to manage more than 10% of the popular vote was H. Ross Perot. And he just barely got more than that.
So bottom line is that these mythical GOP candidates you reference didn't exist. Thanks for confirming.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tramii on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:49PM
Voting for somebody else is basically just a cop out.
How is voting for a third party a "cop out" exactly? What kind of crazy logic is that?
You must view voting as some sort of weird competition where the object is to "win" (have your candidate get elected). You must not actually care about *who* the person is or how capable they are at doing the job, just that *your* candidate won and thus you won. This is why the US government is so screwed up. We have people participating that have no clue what they are doing.
Voting for a lesser of two evils simply keeps evil in charge.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @01:08AM
"They" play the us versus them game all of the time, and there are a handful of "one issue voter" issues that are brought up every election cycle, to ensure a given side gets their base out and voting... I am not surprised that there are people that do not understand the value of having a different point of view. They are focusing on something specific and not the whole picture.
You can certainly lose if you only care about one thing and don't win. But such goals are ephemeral because those issues will come up again and again, but it won't bring about any wisdom for such people to realize this. It takes a lot of effort to vote for things you may not like personally and can benefit others but doesn't benefit oneself directly.
Consider those that demand smaller government but keep your hands off my social security crowd. That's a very basic premise but there are tea party types that do not entirely understand that when taxes are cut and social services are scaled back, that retirement one is counting on may otherwise need to be delayed as a result of reducing the taxes and cutting spending across the board.
Nothing is wrong about fiscal responsibility, but there is something wrong with hearing some fairly loud folks demanding change because someone else lost their job and they shouldn't be entitled to welfare while my social security check is too small because I retired early when the manufacturing plant closed and the jobs went overseas. Describing the irony of this doesn't seem to win votes, and often these beliefs simply do not resolve themselves (no need for facts when one truly believes) without a localized epiphany of some sort.
Note that I do applaud their desire to form their party; and that they expressed disgust with the republicans (that they expressed disgust with their original party at all and did something quite provoking about it is worthy of merit). They would do a service for us all if they broke away from the republican base. They can pursue the agenda they want and the republicans can pursue theirs. But it seems that both of those groups are so frightened at the aspect of a loss to the democrats that they don't want to encourage people to vote for a third choice, because it would be a waste of a vote that would let the other party win...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 22 2015, @11:20PM
Voting for the same crazies, whether on Team Red or Team Blue (same league), is the cop out. It is accepting a never-ending acceleration of crony-ism, war, surveillance and overreach.
Spoken from a perspective of liberal bias.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Friday October 23 2015, @01:37AM
voting does not work.
the candidates are pre-chosen by the elite and so, no matter who you pick, the top rich elites will get what they want.
mostly, if you like xtian religion being shoved in your face, you vote GOP. if you don't like that, you vote Dem.
other than that, they are mostly the same. ie, both are bad for all of america.
but a 3rd party? can't ever win. 'they' wont allow it.
do I like that? NO! but I also realize that the system has been setup to only support 2 parties. to fix it is to create america 2.0 and that is NOT going to come easy/cheap/painlessly. few americans have the stomach for a revolution and nothing short of that will fix us (I truly deeply believe that.)
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Informative) by linkdude64 on Friday October 23 2015, @06:53AM
In case you didn't know, one current candidate for President is the longest-running Independent in Congressional history.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:57PM
I'm no fan of either party but this claim sounds fishy. What mainstream GOP candidate (aka the winner of the presidential nomination or anyone that actually had a realistic chance at said nomination) has ever promised that?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:33PM
President Bush did.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Thursday October 22 2015, @11:59PM
First of all you said candidates, so your one example is pretty weak. Secondly, which Bush and what exactly did they say and when did they say it?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @12:01AM
Which Bush said he was gonna bring "hope and change" and end NSA surveillance?
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:17PM
Chicago politics. When you elect a man from a city with a long history of prominent corruption, things like the current situation are bound to happen.
Take one look at Chicago [ytmnd.com] and see for yourself.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 23 2015, @12:24AM
I fully endorse the notion that Chicago is the epicenter of evil on Earth. Its people are cruel, small-minded, torpid, dull, yet arrogant. They represent the worst of the small town crossed with the worst of the big city, as if the town from Children of the Corn had grown into a metropolis. Furthermore, its downtown is built directly over an Indian burial ground; anyone who ever saw Poltergeist knows exactly what that means. I could tell a thousand stories about the depravity and stupidity of that town's people. But suffice it to say that if we were to vote any city in America off the island, that would be it, followed closely by Washington DC. Or vaporized with a nuclear weapon. Either one works.
Obama is, however, not a Chicagoan. He was born in Hawaii. He grew up in Kansas. He went to college in Boston. Yeah, great, he got a job teaching law at the University of Chicago. But glossing that into "He's a Chicagoan, steeped in the Chicago way, corrupt to the core" blah blah blah is totally ludicrous. Chicago politics are corrupt, but he's a dude that skipped across that cesspool into a Senate seat and then straight into the Oval Office. He did not work his way up through the ranks. He didn't kiss the rings of every precinct chief and alderman in the city.
Is he corrupt? Yes. Is he worthless? Yes. But it's in that 1%-er, Wall Street worthless POS old-boys kind of worthless corruption, not a knuckle breaking, mouth-breathing Chicago thug kind of way. Everyone who repeats that chestnut instantly reveals himself as a clueless rube with no meaningful insight to offer.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gaaark on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:09PM
Hey, you're either WITH US, or agin us, Pardner.
--Retarded Bush, not Desert Storm Bush.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @11:31PM
Why is this marked flamebait?
Go back and look at the things Jr did. Fuck look at one thing, and one thing alone: Iraq war. Honestly I question the intelligence of ANYONE that voted for that idjit a second time. But that's ok. I question the intelligence of anyone that voted for O a second time. They are both some of the worst presidents we have had in recent memory.
I mean why cant we have a fucking decent president for one. Every generation before us had at least one great a generation. Washington. Adams, Polk, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, Kennedy, and maybe even Regan. I mean look at the distribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org] (Look at blues and greens). Except for the first few years its every 5 or so presidents till we get a great one. Sure there is a spurt every here or there with a couple good in a row but look at the last 8 presidents. Nixon through Big O. They all suck. All of them.
Where is our great? Why cant we have a kickass president that gets shit taken care of?
Hillary? No Fucking Way. I am really tired of the fucking passing around of our president amongst the political families. Get some new blood in there I am tired of the dynasty making going on.
Trump? Oh that would be a laugh. I might enjoy that. Some of his positions aren't half bad and I can see him browbeating some people into getting what he wants. I wont vote for him, but I will enjoy the popcorn.
Carson? Dude is a crackpot. There is no telling what this guy would get up to. Do not trust.
Rubio? Sorry not sure who he is. Wont vote for.
Bush? NO MORE DYNASTIES. Although I think he might just be smarter then his brother. Still NO MORE DYNASTIES.
Cruz? This dudes pastime is shutting down the government. Why do we want him in charge of it?
Carly? Yeah right. Whats her beef, running HP into the ground wasn't spectacular enough?
Rand? He is weirder then his dad. Has no chance whatsoever
There are no greats in there, just more dynasty building and fucking nutcakes. WHERE IS OUR GREAT ONE. Comon AMERICA. Pull your collective heads out of your asses and stop voting for one issue politicians and dynasty builders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @12:50PM
So you're voting for Sanders then?
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @12:12AM
I mentioned earlier that one can be secure and one can be secured.
If you are not feeling very secure, then perhaps you are the product that is being secured.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday October 23 2015, @01:56PM
> If you are not feeling very secure, then perhaps you are the product that is being secured.
That doesn't entirely work, though. If I convince you that vampire cows are overrunning the nation and then sell you stakes made out of farm fenceposts and blessed by St. Francis of Assisi, I have made you feel more secure without making you into a product being secured. And that is the level of a LOT of security cons out there.
Fact is, the intuitive feeling of security and the state of security are almost wholly disconnected from one another. I don't think there's a good rule of thumb for it; just use the old standards of due diligence and caveat emptor whenever someone tries to sell you something, be it a new product OR a new law.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @08:51PM
Oh I agree with that. My feeling isn't necessarily a reflection of the true reality of the situation.
Ignorance is bliss!
Do you think I could get steaks made of the vampire cows impaled by the stakes blessed by St. Francis of Assisi? Is vampirism passed between species? What if I become enslaved to a mad cow? Well, there's only one way to find out..