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This discussion has been archived.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.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(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...