Jump to content

Talk:Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Theedataenthusiast.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The founder

[edit]

Keep In Mind The Founder Of CISPA Is: Mike Rogers (Michigan Politician) (Michigan politician)

The Fact that Russian Propaganda Stimulated Much of This Debate is Important

[edit]

Russia Today is Putin's propaganda arm. There is no way to deny that at least some (certainly not all) of the protest stems from Russian propaganda. Putin kills journalists, I seriously doubt he cares about net neutrality or the fourth amendment. - ArturiusKN 00:26 April 25.

What you've just said may be true, but is Ipse dixit without any proof, and your analysis needs to be backed up by a source as per WP:NOR.174.93.163.70 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in Introduction

[edit]

You idiots do realize that half of the introduction are quotes in opposition to the bill right? So much for Wikipedia not being a platform for activism. 72.28.97.59 (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the introduction is far from objective. I think that Wikipedia as a whole should officially take a stance on the bill, i.e., post something on the front page. I realize the bill doesn't effect Wikipedia directly, but it does (potentially) go against its philosophy. Donconnery (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been doing most of the opposition because I would of thought someone would be covering the supporters list (at the time, there wasn't really a list of opposition.) I've thought of revamping the supporters list a few times, but listing 800+ companies and their associations takes up either a lot of space, or a lot of time. I'm quite sure people here can reorder lots of information here. Unfortunately, the breadth of the information that I've gotten were either opposed or incoming information about similar legislation. If anyone would be willing to add more information to the content and supporters lists, PLEASE, by all means, be my guest. Parts of the content that were token out by someone else may very well have been more suited in the supporters list. Donconnery, we can really move all those quotes at the top page down in a different section as well as the quote in support as those really don't belong there in the content section. If you are willing to make a new section dedicated to those quotes, much appreciated. I've only added those quotes as a rebuff to another quote added there. I'll be removing them. This is wiki, HELP us make it more objective. To make the page better, move the quotes and content around, I give you permission, and I'm quite sure wiki readers give you permission and that is the point of wiki, we need more than just a few people creating content.I highly recommend someone create an amendments section (or if anyone is willing to add an amendments section.) Takeruhikari (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia going to go black over this bill too? 99.251.51.217 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. How is Wikipedia not all over this? The bill is expected to pass in a few days. Donconnery (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked the lead a little. Is the NPOV tag still necessary? If so, could I get some specific lines that people take issue with? NickCT (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take 24hr of silence as meaning removing the tag is ok..... NickCT (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Sources

[edit]

How are the sources in the footnotes, specifically [5] and [6] considered valid sources? Where is the sources that back up the claims for that material? I would like to dispute the validity of the article until we get real proof that what those sources say is true.76.102.253.212 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is incomplete, citing references of those opposed, but no mention of the major corporations and organizations in support and no corresponding quotes. KermieD (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If not full black, we need should at least do a black banner over this. SOPA wrapped in the American Flag is still SOPA. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Like SOPA

[edit]

This bill is actually nothing like SOPA. You can read the publicly available legislation on thomas.loc.gov. It has nothing to do with regulating the internet. It very specifically outlines that it is a two-way, voluntary, information sharing enabler for data relating exclusively to theft of R&D or attacks on networks. Unless your are committing a premeditated crime involving disruption or destruction of a computer network or stealing R&D for commercial purposes, your information will not get to government hands. Even then, your info would have to be voluntarily shared by the tech company and sent to the government. Bob Smith who downloads pirated movies is not affected by this. - Ender3 —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

There is nothing voluntary about it. If it were voluntary then there would not need to be a bill in place for it. And this has A LOT to do with SOPA. It is another attempt at the government trying to control the internet and what we do on it. Railfan2012 (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ender: You say this, but opponents claim that it does have to do with things similar to SOPA, although combined with other topics (like foreign espionage), as you say. They say that the bill defines "cybersecurity" and "network" in such a way as to include protecting intellectual property in general, and that bits like "information" and "research" are not clearly defined, so that they may be interpreted to include ordinary violations patent or copyright. As to their voluntary nature, Prof. Geist e.a. hold that voluntary agreements often have effects similar to laws if there is government or industry pressure. These critics may all be wrong, but it is a widely held view, so it deserves mention. There is no consensus about what the bill could really be used for. Cerberus™ (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, opponents do say this. However, I encourage them to read the legislation. It not not nearly as amorphous as all this panic would suggest. It has nothing to do with violations of patents or copyrights on the internet. It is about breach of network security, something very much defined in the bill. That is why I removed the bit in the intro about patents and copyright as it is not applicable. While that is seen by the misinformed as an issue, it is simply factually incorrect and I want Wikipedia to reflect the facts, not the rumors, so that the public can accurately make a judgement. To that end I removed that bit again and cited the text of the legislation from the Library of Congress as a reference. Ender3 (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
No it's not as bad as SOPA. It merely gives the corporations/ISPs the authority to record and share all your emails, websurf history, file or photo uploads to the Dept. of Homeland Security, and there's nothing you can do to sue your ISP (or Google, MSN, etc) for violating your privacy. They have been given immunity through CISPA. In other words you no longer have any 4th amendment protections of your electronic data, including extra-sensitive information like bank accounts, stock trades, or tax returns.
I can't believe wikipedia did not protest CISPA as they protested SOPA. To me this proves wiki is no better than Google, Microsoft, Apple, and so on. Just another corporation that doesn't care about the common people that are trampled in the process. ---- Theaveng (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC) (Added by jeff forester 10:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)TruckerTwotimes: IMO on this paragraph this is a given, as in something that is going to happen regardless of protest, Perversion is running wild in the world, simple folks burn out on fighting the inevitable. end addition)[reply]
We supported them when it affected their interests, of course they're going to look the other way now. Be sure to update you adblock exceptions. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.225.151 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This bill is WORSE than SOPA, except for the DNS stuff. This is like that indefinite detention bill the government passed recently. Congress makes laws, that's what they do. If they make a law that's vague, its intentional. For instance Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution led to some 6 million tons of bombs being dropped in the Vietnam War. Why is the government passing a totally unnecessary, vague "cyber security" law saying that corporations and the government are free to share whatever information with each other they like? This is TOTALLY ridiculous. I mean the best case scenario is that this law makes it easier for companies to share marketing information and target ads. That's the best case. I don't even want to think about the worst case and that's why its a really terrible bill. Wikipedia really needs to do the same things they did for CISPA as they did for SOPA. Very seriously.
I just finished reading the current House version of the bill. The unsigned commenter failed to notice the part of the bill that requires the government to delete non-cybersecurity related data that is presented to it and notify the presenting private entity of their submission of inappropriate data. The only problematic area I see in the bill is the exemption from FOIA requests for shared data. That shouldn't be present, as classified data can be denied from an FOIA request, if the requested information is sensitive.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Group of proposed / failed / passed internet "laws"

[edit]

With all the attempts to pass laws about the internet today, there should be a group of pages on it. What's that called? It is called Perversion

Like Project x, a group of pages about x. Portal?


Austinburk (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (sopa, pipa, etc.)[reply]

That's a good question Austinburk. Are you familiar with "list" pages? I wonder if we should have a "List of Proposed Laws related to Internet Privacy and Regulation". I'm going to take a look, see if I can find anything that's similar. NickCT (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threatened?

[edit]

Obama has "threatened" to veto it? Sounds like loaded language to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.73.230 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it his tone of voice? Did he specifically say he threatens to veto it? Is this the typical language used in this scenario? Doesn't seem very true to journalistic integrity if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.73.230 (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersecurity Act

[edit]

Anyone willing to help create a page for that bill since it is the Senate counter-part of CISPA. The civil Liberties groups are opposing that bill too (unless the Senate decides to fix and create more safeguards to the bill.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeruhikari (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help with the page creation, but here is the bill for anyone who wants to consider joining with this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this happen to all internet

[edit]

CISPA and DNSchanger would be very big trouble that means there would be no internet for infected users under CISPA. What's supposed to mean like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.101 (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who do they think they are?

[edit]
Extended content

Wow this really pisses me off! The internet was mad as a way to express yourself! If this passes, it sure as hell wont be! This is BULL-SHIT! SweetShawn999 (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to state the legal status of the bill

[edit]

The most important thing about legislation is whether it is going into effect, and when. The article fails to state the legal status of CISPA, thus failing its most important goal. For those not familiar with the bicameral system at the United States, the article is confusing. As of today, it says:

It was passed in the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012.[9]
President Obama's advisers have argued that the bill lacks confidentiality and civil liberties safeguards and they advise the president to veto it.

It is the bill already approved? Is it prevented from going into effect because of presidential veto? The article fails to state it. As I understand the bicameral system, the proposed legislation must be approved by both Congress and Senate - and as far as I know the Senate hasn't passed CISPA yet. It is still proposed legislation, so when the article deals with presidential veto, it must make clear that it is an hypothetical veto that could happen should the Senate pass CISPA. --Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is very difficult to give complete information in Wikipedia because any explanation given has to come from a published reliable source. Do you have a source for the information you want integrated into the article? If you do, please share. If you would like to go further and add it yourself then do that, and if you need help, you have lots of options. WP:TEAHOUSE is one option for new users. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let not laziness be our excuse. Even children are taught in school in the USA that for a bill to pass the legislative processs and become law, it must be passed by both legislative houses (the House of the Representatives and the Senate) in the same legislative session. If it only passes one of them, and then the session ends, it is as good as never having been introduced. It just has no legal standing anymore. It may have political clout, but that is as far as it goes. This should be explained in the article, in a lapidary fashion, and as for sourcing, all it takes is the Constitution of the United States. :) I am going to at least fix up the timeline in the infobox, so as to make it chronological and not misleading, and to add there a parenthetical remark that it failed to become law when it passed the House in 2012 because it did not pass the Senate in the same session. --Mareklug talk 01:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is true, then one should state that the bill has died and if it is going to be approved it had to restart the process from the beginning. However I'm not familiar with the US legislation system, so I don't feel prepared to make the edits myself. Moreover, the Senate did propose competing legislation, CISA. Should a new section be made with "Subsequent attempts for U.S. cybersecurity bills"?--Mahuzu (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is true, but ...
  • The bill was originally introduced and passed by the House during its 2011-2012 session, but it did not pass in the Senate.
  • The bill was reintroduced and passed by the House during its 2013-2014 session, but thus far it has not been passed by the Senate. The 2013-2014 legislative session is not over and so, in theory, the bill is still pending before the Senate which could still vote on the bill.
  • On July 10, 2014 the Senate introduced its own new bill, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. The full Senate has not yet voted on this new bill.
--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that theoretically the bill could still be passed (I didn't know "the session" comprised 2014). Thank you for the clarification.--Mahuzu (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So now is it finally dead? What is the terminology to express this? Mahuzu (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the bill recently passed the House, but what's the current status? Is it pending approval from the Senate? What is the next step for it to be enacted into law? Surely there's a lot more information about it out there. --Ouizardus (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sources tell me that it failed in the senate as of today, 25 April. J 173.17.58.158 (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The House bill is still pending before the Senate. The Senate didn't vote on the bill, but that isn't the same as "failing". And the Senate now has its own new version of a similar bill which is also pending. If this new bill passes the Senate, it would need to go before the House. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Updates.

[edit]

There may need to be some updated information. I'll see if I can get a hold of updating the information, but I am hoping someone else can add the information. As many of you guys may know by revisiting this page, CISPA may be having a comeback in the house. At the same time, in President Obama's State of the Union address, he created an executive order that would create some semblance of cybersecurity legislation.

Many of Civil Liberties groups at least welcome the Executive Order more so than CISPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeruhikari (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's before the House. The text is available online for all to read. Any non-cybersecurity related data passed to the government by private entities must be destroyed and the presenting private entity notified of the inappropriate disclosure of information. The only area I have some trepidation is the exemption of shared information from FOIA requests. Executive orders are well and good, however, codified law limits what an executive order can lawfully direct. Currently, the US Government cannot share sensitive information on current threats and even ongoing attacks with private entities, there also is no pathway to present the US Government with known compromises that have been used to attack US Government assets. I'm aware of that from my work in government cybersecurity, where US corporations and financial institutions were compromised by foreign actors and business plans, trade negotiation information and even sensitive technologies were found to have been transferred to that foreign nation. How the US Government became aware of that fact is still restricted information. The closest thing to monitoring of US citizens would be if a private company saw network traffic indicating cyber crimes being committed by one of their users/customers and criminal proceedings would still require a warrant.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook support?

[edit]

Does Facebook still support this? They seem to have reversed their position, or at least eased up. [1]

shotwell (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugged section of the article

[edit]

Someone may want to take a look at the "Week of Action" section. There's a problem with the references and the wikicode. Schiffy (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout?

[edit]

Why is WIkipedia not joining the blackout? Railfan2012 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Could it possibly be that Wikipedia supports this fascist law that infringes upon our rights? HMMMMM???! >:( TWMM91 (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They sure jumped on the 2012 black out for SOPA. Railfan2012 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen the main reason is that the other 2 proposals PIPA and SOPA more directly affected Wikipedia than this does. Also, I don't see Wikipedia not blacking out indicates support for this.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to opposition.

[edit]

I have tagged this article for undue weight problems. It seems like the opposition against this bill gets a lot more space in this article than the advocates for it. Especially the "Opposition"-section seems unduly large compared with the "Supporters"-section. Pretty much anyone around with something to say against this bill seems to have a sizable quote in the "Opposition"-section, while the rather large and significant supporters for this bill are just briefly mentioned in the "Supporters"-section. The lead also has undue weight problems, with three whole lines dedicated to listing all the organization opposed to the bill, while the supporters are not even one line, and a lot of large significant supporters, like Google, Oracle and Verizon, have entirely been omitted.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag. I support this being here for the reasons you stated. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa/
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
  • http://avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa_corporate_global/
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa_corporate_global/
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa/
    Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act&oldid=1206852955"