
Facebook secretly lobbying for CISA? - devhxinc
https://boingboing.net/2015/10/24/petition-facebook-betrayed-us.html
======
cryoshon
"CISA would give companies like Facebook legal immunity for violating privacy
laws as long as they share information with the government."

Whether or not Facebook is secretly lobbying for CISA, the article describes
the way the incentives look.

~~~
pdkl95
> legal immunity for violating ... laws [when working] with the government

Aka, a Letter Of Marque[1]. Facebook wants to be a modern _privateer_. Selling
plundered data and reputation is less violent than the cargo that was
traditionally the target of privateering, but it's still government-backed
piracy.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque)

edit: Wow. +5 to -1. That's more than the usual number of people using down-
votes as a substitute for rebuttal.

~~~
arkem
It's really not.

CISA is a vehicle for the distribution of Indications of Compromise and other
standard infosec threat intelligence between Government entities as well as
the public and large corporations. The liability protections are completely
reasonable if private companies were going to participate at all. The privacy
protections built in are also much more thorough than I was expecting in a
bill of this nature.

Really the only thing that really worries me about is that the things that the
Government is allowed to do with shared information includes "identifying the
use of an information system by a foreign adversary or terrorist". Which seems
a little too broad for my tastes.

In fact, I was on the CISA hate train but after reading it I feel that it's an
entirely inoffensive law and my outrage has fizzled into indifference. I'm not
going to lose sleep if this passed nor if it isn't but likening it to a Letter
of Marque is not warranted.

Here's the text for anyone interested: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-
congress/senate-bill/754](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-
bill/754)

------
onewaystreet
Neither Fight for the Future nor Boing Boing provide any evidence for this
allegation, so I guess the answer is no.

~~~
revscat
Take it for what it's worth. Quoting it here in toto.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3q1kgl/facebook...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3q1kgl/facebook_may_be_the_secret_force_behind/cwbqyjy)

"This is Jeff from Fight for the Future. I wish we could disclose our sources
for this, but unfortunately we agreed not to. Multiple sources on the hill
have reported that Facebook is THE tech company lobbying in favor of CISA,
several offices have heard from Facebook that they support CISA.

"Facebook themselves has declined to take up our offers to take a public
position thus far. The nature of this lobbying game is that people leak
information because they can't come out and reveal who they talk to and give
information to. I know that sucks, but we decided it was better to put out the
information we can than to just keep it to ourselves. And, what they are doing
now matters to what ends up happening. So, that's why we're asking Facebook to
tell us what their position is and to come clean.

"Facebook was probably the loudest supporter of early versions of CISA, until
it became unpopular. Then they went silent. Unlike all the other big tech
companies that have come out against CISA, Facebook is still silent. Their top
Senate lobbyist comes straight from the office of CISA sponsor Sen. Richard
Burr, and "cybersecurity issues" is listed on her lobbying disclosures. The
publicly available information about Facebook's position on CISA just supports
what we know -- Facebook is one of the major forces pushing for this bill to
pass."

~~~
cinquemb
Facebook is an utter joke. They have put a lot of effort over the years into
locking down easily minable api endpoints for "their" data (i.e. no
authentication tokens), only to be able to make it available for such backroom
dealing.

Luckily, humans will always be the weakest links in these systems and you can
get as many auth tokens you want for checked in public repos.

------
dogma1138
Is there any actual proof of this other than her getting a job?

Myriah seems to be quite connected and has worked for various departments
including for Obama which makes her a good lobbyists.
[https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=773...](https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=77334)

------
declan
It would not be a surprise if this is true and Facebook was lobbying for CISA.
Facebook supported an earlier version of the bill called CISPA; here's a
letter on Facebook letterhead saying we "commend you on your legislation":
[http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/f...](http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/FacebookHR3523.pdf)

And here's an article I wrote for CNET in 2013 about Facebook's earlier
position(s): [http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-unfriends-cispa-
cybersecur...](http://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-unfriends-cispa-
cybersecurity-bill-over-privacy/)

But before condemning Facebook, let's at least confirm that the allegations
are true. As evidence, BoingBoing gives us a Fight for the Future webpage,
which says: "We've gotten information that Facebook is secretly lobbying..."
([https://www.youbetrayedus.org/facebook/](https://www.youbetrayedus.org/facebook/))
There are no details in this Reddit thread:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3q1kgl/facebook...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3q1kgl/facebook_may_be_the_secret_force_behind/cwbqyjy)

On one hand, Facebook is one of dozens of tech companies that are members of
CCIA, which has criticized CISA in its current form.
([https://www.ccianet.org/2015/10/ccia-urges-senate-to-
improve...](https://www.ccianet.org/2015/10/ccia-urges-senate-to-improve-
cybersecurity-information-sharing-act/)) On the other hand, CCIA's positions
do not necessarily reflect the views of every member company on every issue,
and Facebook _has_ endorsed an earlier version.

Unless there's more evidence than an advocacy group's "we've gotten
information" claim, let's give Facebook a chance to reply before assuming the
worst.

------
jayvanguard
I was wondering about the private vs. public position of companies on this.
Seeing Microsoft recently flip to the "good list" of companies made me very
suspicious.

------
fharper1961
Even if there isn't any proof yet,it does seem like immunity from prosecution
would be in FB's short term interest.

------
shmerl
Facebook thrives on the lack of privacy, so is this surprising?

------
tempodox
“ _CISA would give companies like Facebook legal immunity for violating
privacy laws as long as they share information with the government._ ”

So the Government is using sock puppets to violate its own laws. Nice.
Criminals of all continents, unite! The U.S. is your land of opportunity.

Really, why be a terrorist when you can fuck everyone over legally and even
get rich and powerful with it. As an added bonus, you get to call yourself a
patriot while you're at it.

~~~
tptacek
Yours is a content-free comment; you could replace CISA with any other acronym
and it would be just as meaningful.

~~~
tempodox
Yup. Not exactly breaking news, but it bears repeating.

------
andylei
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

~~~
bottled_poe
That's it then! case closed. No need to discuss.

~~~
smt88
I'd take GP's comment more as a criticism of these bait-y, cowardly,
speculative headlines than as the suggestion that the true answer is "no".

~~~
dang
We put the question mark in above. That's a standard moderation tactic we use
when a headline makes a dramatic statement that we have no way of verifying.

The statement in the OP's title breaks the HN guidelines by being misleading
(presenting an allegation as fact) and baity (by using sensational language
like "betrayed"). Putting "Petition:" in front does mitigate that, but not
enough in my view.

If anyone can suggest a better way of solving the problem in this case, we'd
be happy to change the title again.

~~~
smt88
Ah, interesting! Didn't know that.

I perceive the question mark at the end of the headline to mean that A) the
author believes this but doesn't want to be "on the record" for something that
lacks evidence, or B) the author doesn't believe it and just wants clicks.

An imperfect solution used by newspapers is to put the source of the
allegation at the beginning: "Montoya: You killed my father" or "Sources: US
plans to invade Canada".

Either way, some damage will be done by false headlines. The question is just
whether you can signal to HN users that the article is speculative.

------
swiley
The good news is that FB has behaved so poorly that almost no one I know uses
it or trusts it any more, so we know that in the long run at least this kind
of behavior doesn't work.

~~~
smt88
1.5 _billion_ people use Facebook at least once a month[1]. That's 50% of all
humans with access to the internet[2].

I'd say your anecdotal evidence is very, very, very wrong. Facebook's
behavior, in the long run, is extremely effective. Large companies willing to
lobby for favorable laws have been a dominant force in all societies since
there was a such thing as a "large company". I don't know what could happen to
change that.

1\. [http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-
monthly-...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-
active-facebook-users-worldwide/)

2\. [http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-
users/](http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/)

~~~
harryf
Those numbers don't include WhatsApp or Instagram, which Facebook owns.

~~~
smt88
The numbers also don't include the absolutely enormous tracking network that
Facebook operates through widgets (such as the Like button).

It's likely that nearly 100% of all internet users are tracked by Facebook
(with varying degrees of anonymity) as they browse the web.

~~~
eggie
I have so much trouble understanding their numbers in light of the persistent
decrease in interest in facebook as a fraction of total search volume
([https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F02y1vz](https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F02y1vz)).
I know the paper predicting the "end of facebook" in 2017 got a lot of laughs
but it really looks like interest is going down.

Everyone says "because mobile" but I'm not convinced. Mobile also means that
people are searching less for everything else that might be competing with
facebook. Then there is the weird jump in October 2012 that the authors of the
"end of facebook" paper corrected for.

It's hard to tell what's really going on.

Maybe the last 500 million users are the ones who get free facebook (but not
web) and think facebook isn't even part of the internet.

~~~
smt88
> _Mobile also means that people are searching less for everything else that
> might be competing with facebook._

Not true. Each service accessible on the web or on an app is separate. People
don't always switch wholesale. I still know people who use Pinterest
exclusively the web, but have switched from Facebook web to Facebook the app.

It do feel that it's possible that Facebook usage is declining as its core
audience gets older and young people use other things, but WhatsApp and
Instagram are certainly compensating for that, so the company's total users
across properties are still growing aggressively.

