
CISPA Just Got Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote - llambda
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml
======
panarky

        Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all.
    
        Incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it
        accomplishes the exact opposite. This is very, very bad.
    
        Far from the defense against malevolent foreign entities that the
        bill was described as by its authors, it is now an explicit
        attack on the freedoms of every American.
    

Can someone with legal expertise tell me if this is this hyperbole or reality?

~~~
rayiner
Hyperbole. The 4th amendment never applied online (except in 1 Circuit with
respect to e-mail).

~~~
newman314
Why shouldn't it apply? That's what I have a hard time coming to terms with.

~~~
rayiner
The 4th amendment encompasses: "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects..."

The literal text applies to your house and your person. You can make certain
analogies from there, but even paper mail is a bit of a stretch (it was found
to be protected because the Constitution creates the postal service). For
example, one analogy might be: if I go everyday to the local news stand, the
4th amendment doesn't prevent the government from asking the news guy what
magazines I look at without a warrant. So why should the government need a
warrant to ask Google what things I search for on their service? I'm not
saying that its the right analogy, but rather that people who say "oh the 4th
amendment obviously covers information online" are starting from the result
they want and working backwards.

The problem is two-fold. First, there is no general right to privacy in the
Constitution. Privacy is a pretty modern concept. People in the 1700's had
very little privacy even in the physical sense.[1] What the 4th amendment
protects is a narrower right: the sanctity of your home and personal effects
and freedom from physical government harassment. Second, we don't have a well-
defined idea of privacy even today. Why should the Constitution protect
information I freely give my credit card company, Google, Facebook, etc, with
the knowledge they use that information to sell me crap. Why should the
Constitution protect information third parties collect about me from their own
observations? There might be good reasons to institute those protections, but
we don't have a well-defined idea right now where the lines should be drawn.

[1] There is an interesting documentary I saw once about how hallways are a
pretty modern concept that arose contemporaneously with ideas of personal
space. In houses from the 1600's you'd through bedrooms to get to other parts
of the house--the expectation of private space was just a lot less.

~~~
newman314
Given your statement that privacy is a relatively modern concept, I find it
interesting that the EU has comparatively stronger data protection laws.

Those countries in general are way older and have older laws than the US. So
if they can have strong data protection and privacy why should the US not have
an equivalent?

Giving up protection in the name of commercial interest is not a good solution
or compromise.

------
raintrees
For the good of the children, the <del>Internet</del> Congress must be shut
down. You don't hate... Children... do you?

------
Bud
Obama will slap this down before the dust settles on his desk from CISPA
hitting it. Nice little veto penmanship workout.

~~~
cubicle67
<http://imgur.com/Tb5GM>

------
Tangaroa
Looking at the Apr17 version of HR 3523 on thomas.loc.gov (the amended version
is not out yet), it seems that it says:

* The government is allowed to share "classified cyber threat intelligence" with private parties.

* Private parties are allowed to share data with the government, and the government is not allowed to "affirmatively" search it except for specific categories of crimes.

* These categories include warezing, which is probably upsetting a lot of people.

Does anyone know what an "affirmative" search is? Is this where it is assumed
that the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement is being dropped?

I don't see anything in there about collecting data other than what is given
to the government by private parties. Of course, "contractors" can be used to
offset the blame. The government could pay telcos to tap their wires and
forward everything to Langley, which is also a nice way of corruptly sending
public funds to the already wealthy. However, I believe this could already be
done without this law.

Does anyone know how the law compares to what existed before? If a network
provider sniffed their own wires and came to the government with evidence of
warezing, an imminent terrorist threat, kiddie porn, a script kiddie DOSing
someone, or script kiddie porn, how would it have been handled before this
law?

