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This discussion has been archived.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.
The sooner our happiness together begins, the longer it will last.
-- Miramanee, "The Paradise Syndrome", stardate 4842.6
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:58PM
Because you would have been for it otherwise? Why must everything be something partisan?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @08:17PM
I fall on the left side of the spectrum (assuming a 2D spectrum) and I dislike Feinstein with a passion. Its not partisan at all, shes an all around bad person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @08:48PM
So again, why would you have been for this if Feinstein didn't support?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @08:53PM
Um you have an issue with reading comprehension it seems.
I do not like Feinstein. If Feinstein is for something my initial reaction is to be against it.
Ohh and you have an issue with getting your meaning across clearly. As far as I can tell It needs to be parsed as "Why would you have been in favor of this if Feinstein is not a supporter. " Assuming that is correct my previous post should answer your question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @08:54PM
I do not like Feinstein. If Feinstein is for something my initial reaction is to be against it.
Then you're an idiot and the reason our political system is so broken.
Ohh and you have an issue with getting your meaning across clearly. As far as I can tell It needs to be parsed as "Why would you have been in favor of this if Feinstein is not a supporter. " Assuming that is correct my previous post should answer your question.
I don't have any issues getting meaning across. My statement was perfectly clear. Why does it matter AT ALL who is a supporter or not of a bill over the substance?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 22 2015, @11:38PM
Of course it matters who supports or says something. It's this thing called "credibility" and it is important in real life and politics because it is impossible to evaluate everything down to the last detail -- you could never get on with your life if you didn't make decisions based on credibility. It would take you a week just to analyze the contents of your breakfast to decide if eating it was a good idea or not. Instead, we engage in trust because to do otherwise would make living impossible.
Simple example: a plumber who comes with a recommendation from a friend, has a number of positive online reviews, and an actual physical shop suggests you need to fix a pipe. You'll probably believe that plumber because of credibility reasons. If some random person tells you the same thing, you'll probably not act on it for _lack_ of credibility reasons, and if you do act, it is to go find someone you believe is credible and get their opinion on the matter.
Take this from the negative side: Bernie Madoff calls you up and says "hey, I have a sure fire investment opportunity just for you!" You probably just hang up the phone rather than investigate. Why? Madoff's past actions leave him without any credibility at all. This is a totally reasonable and rational decision.
So, to the statement at issue, all the GP said is that if Feinstein (like Madoff) suggests something, the knee-jerk reaction is to reject it because of her lack of credibility. It does not indicate that he would support it if someone else suggested the bill, just that given Feinstein's track record, the chance that there is anything good in the bill isn't worth the waste of life (time) it would take to investigate. That is a rational and reasonable response because again, you can't investigate every single thing in the world and you must sometimes rely on such factors as credibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 23 2015, @05:42AM
Of course it matters who supports or says something. It's this thing called "credibility" and it is important in real life and politics because it is impossible to evaluate everything down to the last detail -- you could never get on with your life if you didn't make decisions based on credibility.
This leads to extremely lazy thinking where people often dismiss others' arguments for arbitrary reasons. Examine the proposal and decide if it is good or bad based on its own merits. You don't have to scrutinize something down to the last detail; you could do a shallow analysis, such as by reading summaries. Yeah, you can't investigate everything in the world, but at least use your brain and research something for at least two seconds; that is easily possible.
Credibility itself is often subjective and arbitrary. I love seeing people debating one another claim that the other person has lost their credibility for some completely arbitrary reason, and how this means their argument is defeated. It's especially funny when this happens in a debate where all of the person's arguments are on the table and nothing is hidden in the shadows, so their opponents could just directly respond to their arguments, but they choose not to in favor of claiming that the person lost their mythical "credibility".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday October 23 2015, @04:23PM
such as by reading summaries.
Published by whom?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 23 2015, @01:31AM
Feinstein is evil. If one understands that, then one would naturally look at any proposal by Feinstein as suspicious. The idiot is the person who would accept a Feinstein proposal without examining that proposal, bearing in mind that she is evil.
Applied more broadly, all politicians in Washington are suspect. An idiot accepts that concept, and continues to support everything advanced by their favorite party.
Like the AC you are conversing with, I quite naturally view anything Feinstein says with suspicion. Feinstein is as bad as, or worse than, Hillary Clinton. These women have no love at all for honest working people. They have no love for men. They have no love for white people. They are both from the privileged class, both view us as chumps, fools, tools, cattle, or worse. Our purpose on earth is to admire and worship them, and when we fail to fill that purpose, then we are expendable.
Both those women are on the list of people who could improve the world by simply dropping dead.
And, this post should most definitely NOT cause you to believe that there are no Republicans on that same list. The elder Bush falls short of making the list, but both of his sons make it. Both are just as "entitled" as the two women I've already mentioned.
May I reiterate AC's point, "NO DYNASTIES!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @08:53PM
To put this another way to my first reply, why would some random person supporting or not supporting it matter over the substance of the bill? Are you saying if every politician you did like supported it that you'd have to support it?
Basically, you're muddying up a legitimate discussion with something completely pointless and has little to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of the bill.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by number11 on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:28PM
why would some random person supporting or not supporting it matter over the substance of the bill?
Nobody said it mattered over the substance of the bill. But when you have someone whose biases are well known (and the opposite of yours), it's not unreasonable to assume that when she sponsors the bill, it doesn't mean that she's suddenly seen the light and adopted your position.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 23 2015, @04:27PM
Are you saying if every politician you did like supported it that you'd have to support it?
No. It's an instant veto if e.g. Hitler and Stalin support something. If no clearly evil people support it, then you research it and make up your mind.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"