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This discussion has been archived.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.
Your love life will be happy and harmonious.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @06:12PM
How dare they! Obama is bringing us Hope and Change. He's the best president ever.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 23 2015, @05:58PM
Did you know that the President doesn't write bills? (apparently not)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Thursday October 22 2015, @06:30PM
there is a big difference between security and snooping. security protects you from other people. snooping ensures you are vulnerable to attack.
(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. I have always been here. ---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..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:09PM
That's as far as I have to read to know I oppose it as well.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:29PM
While a reasonable dig at Feinstein this is something that will have broad appeal to both parties. I'm surprises none of my congress critters have gotten behind it although since this is in the senate one of my senators won't dare take a controversial position before a vote and the other seems to like to hang back and be quiet after getting elected. If it were in the house my representative would be on it like flies on shit.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:57PM
I got the impression that the house version passed a few months ago.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday October 22 2015, @11:03PM
Damn it. I was looking to provide citation, but I instead found this: *sigh* [techdirt.com]. Figures. Both senators from the backwards state I call home voted for it.
So, everybody, click the link and see whether or not you need to vote against the incumbent next year. Here's a helpful diagram [wikipedia.org] so you can plan ahead. Match the names in the class 3 column to the 83 names listed in the first link. Also note that Sanders (I-VT) has today voted against this crap.
Heck, why don't I just do it for you? That's how disgusted I am right now. Regex here :w incumbents, regex there :w traitors, cat traitors | xargs -n1 -I '{}' grep {} incumbents, regex to add li../li, and nyan~!
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday October 23 2015, @01:17PM
And low and behold both Klobuchar and Franken voted for it. Figures Amy Klobuchar is all about bigger nanny state government with broad support from both parties it is a pretty non controversial position to take.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday October 22 2015, @08:01PM
I'm hoping that the last few years of revelations have inspired a little more caution. Feinstein has always been pro nanny / authoritarian state. Maybe a critical mass will form and some consciences will spring into being to slam the US into a sharp U-turn to its ideals... Or just the leaking of their private lives will shake them up enough.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:22PM
Maybe a critical mass will form and some consciences will spring into being to slam the US into a sharp U-turn to its ideals...
It's adorable that you think this. I bet you're soft and cuddly!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 23 2015, @06:03PM
While a reasonable dig at Feinstein this is something that will have broad appeal to both parties.
Yeah, unfortunately they are very willing to cross the aisle on this issue. Where's the partisan politics when you need them?
Proponents CISA include the bill's main cosponsors, senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Richard Burr (R-NC).[8]
The sliver lining:
Some senators have announced opposition to CISA, including Ron Wyden (D-OR), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).[18]
(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!"
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(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?"
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @12:06AM
Yes, regardless of leanings, she is not leaning in to be a part of club we want to be a part of. She's a clear example of how she forgot that she was voted in to act as a democrat party member, and she is not supposed to reveal she's a marionette of the present control apparatus. Each party has to play their part. (there are, of course, good people trying to make a difference in many elected office positions. I think she is trying to get half-strength vampires under her control after biting them.)
The various freedoms that one comes to take for granted in a democracy are something she's tolerated and rarely seems to have endorsed. At least... in recent times. I wasn't paying attention to her until she got involved in how our liberties are to be preserved.
I recall her deciding to be against spying for a while, when a drone was caught spying on her. Prior to then it was only a little people problem, so when she was no longer immune to the problem, then, there ought to be a law to prevent that.
The clipper chip initiative did not work then, but there appears to be great success to get it to work now, in future proof fashion. Only criminals will have privacy if this sort of law passes.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday October 23 2015, @12:11AM
(I missed a span of years there in my haste to press next to continue and post the message. This is an addendum to my post...For those of you that do not remember, there was a Big Brother Inside logo campaign going on to bring attention to the government proposal to make everyone safe by putting in a government controlled encryption chip that by the means of which was not described to the public would for some reason never ever be crackable by anyone else and was purely to keep you and your fax machines and PDAs and storage devices totally safe and readable without requiring to beat you with a $5 wrench first because they could just get into it.
That initiative was defeated by many good people across the operating system ideology spectrums of the time [linux/windows/mac people, dos holdouts and then normal people like privacy advocates and so on]. It looks like the chip is no longer necessary for the government to compel organizations to get what they want, though.)
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:16PM
I hope they have a game-plan and they will put their money where their mouth is. Otherwise this is just a "we tried our best dear customer" PR stunt.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:15PM
This is just one more reason not to trust companies with unencrypted files. Or if you're really worried, not even trust them with the encrypted copies.
Does anybody have any recommendations for something like encryptfs that works on Windows, Linux and FreeBSD?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:47PM
Both Apple [arstechnica.com] and Dropbox [gizmodo.com] retain keys to your cloud data, and hand them over fairly freely when the cops come calling.
As far as I am concerned, neither one of these companies make good spokesmen for anti-CISA legislation. How serious can Congress take their advice, when they insist on maintaining their own back-doors?
SpiderOak would make a better privacy advocate. Even they are worried by this CISA legislation.
If It comes to pass, I'll probably move my stuff to https://tresorit.com/ [tresorit.com] (Zero Knowledge, and out of reach of any CISA backdoor requirements).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.