Cyber Security Law Fails To Pass Senate

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
A last ditch effort to pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 has failed by 8 votes. The bill would create a set of standards for companies to meet for security protocol. The bill will be revisited sometime next year.

Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and head of U.S. Cyber Command, said there had been a "twentyfold" increase in cyberattacks on critical infrastructure from 2009 to 2011.
 
The bill fell eight votes shy of the 60 votes needed to move past a Republican filibuster. . . Senate Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), still opposed the bill, siding with business lobbyists who claimed that any security standards would unfairly saddle businesses with costly regulations.

What that means is that the bill itself was never actually voted on. The Republican filibuster prevented the ending of debate on the bill and thus prevented it from being presented for a vote on the bill itself.

God forbid that a business should have to spend money to make sure that their systems are secure and as invulnerable as possible to attacks.
 
God forbid that a business should have to spend money to make sure that their systems are secure and as invulnerable as possible to attacks.

I find it very cute that you have no idea what the costs are, what the other elements of the bill are (and the costs associated with them), but yet use the phrase "God forbid" in a trite comment. You need to understand a very simple concept...if a human made it, a human can break it. This law is pointless since it is has no reasonable evidence other that it will "do good".
 
What that means is that the bill itself was never actually voted on. The Republican filibuster prevented the ending of debate on the bill and thus prevented it from being presented for a vote on the bill itself.

God forbid that a business should have to spend money to make sure that their systems are secure and as invulnerable as possible to attacks.

I find it very cute that you have no idea what the costs are, what the other elements of the bill are (and the costs associated with them), but yet use the phrase "God forbid" in a trite comment. You need to understand a very simple concept...if a human made it, a human can break it. This law is pointless since it is has no reasonable evidence other that it will "do good".

+1

Putting these kinds of systems in place would be cost prohibitive for many companies. Are, you, the consumer ready to have a nice hike in prices to cover the installation and support costs to offset the costs of such systems.

Plus, this is another "we tell you what you have to buy" type of bill. If the supply/demand is arbitrarily changed due to laws like this, then the companies making/selling these products can charge whatever they want for such systems. If people are forced to buy, then there is no reason for competitive pricing.
 
+1

Putting these kinds of systems in place would be cost prohibitive for many companies. Are, you, the consumer ready to have a nice hike in prices to cover the installation and support costs to offset the costs of such systems.

Not to mention that it will not even be effective. The sole purpose of it is to be able to fine companies when, not if, a breech happens. That has only one real effect: Drive prices up for you and me while letting the government rape any company it wants to.


Plus, this is another "we tell you what you have to buy" type of bill. If the supply/demand is arbitrarily changed due to laws like this, then the companies making/selling these products can charge whatever they want for such systems. If people are forced to buy, then there is no reason for competitive pricing.

Exactly. The whole thing wreaks of lining someones pocket at the expense of cusumers while at the same time having the side benefit or causing companies to go out of business, which democrats like because it adds voters to the 'welfare' system.
 
"The Cyber payback for recent political donations of 2012 Act"

More donkey dung into the fire. May this and many other bills
like it follow the same glorious path. The best thing to happen in
Congress is when nothing at all happens in Congress.
 
I find it very cute that you have no idea what the costs are, what the other elements of the bill are (and the costs associated with them), but yet use the phrase "God forbid" in a trite comment. You need to understand a very simple concept...if a human made it, a human can break it. This law is pointless since it is has no reasonable evidence other that it will "do good".

Are you kidding me? Let's take this to its logical conclusion.

We should have no security standards anywhere on the net. This is what you said, this is what you are advocating. You don't see a problem?

To use an analogy outside of the net, humans create doors and locks, too, right? So "a human can break it" and since that's the case we may as well not even use locks! They will just be broken anyway!
 
Nevermind, I just read the rest of the posts.

I'm out. No hope exists here.
 
Hmm, one of the comments from Domo's link got me searching about this one.

Breech2muzzle
46 Fans
1 minute ago ( 4:32 PM)
S.A. 2575 states, “Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection. “

The vote to include S.A. 2575 on the Cybersecurity Act or not is expected next week. If S.A. 2575 gets included in the Cybersecurity Act, and the Cybersecurity Act passes, it will be illegal to produce new high capacity magazines. The White House has supported the Cybersecurity Act, stating, “The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012.”

This is what stopped the bill and for good reason.

http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?tag=the-cybersecurity-act-of-2012

July 30, 2012
Cybersecurity Act and the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act
Filed under: Industry News — Tags: Industry News, large capacity magazine ban, Senator Frank Lautenberg, Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 — CTD Suzanne

New Jersey Democratic Senator, Frank Lautenberg has helped introduce two new pieces of anti-gun legislation. Lautenberg authored two bills in the past attempting to close the “gunshow loophole” and the “Terror Gap.” He was co-sponsor of the Brady Law and wants the Assault Weapons Ban reinstated. Senator Lautenberg says, “The American people demand and deserve strong, common-sense laws to prevent gun violence.”
Senator Lautenberg pushes his anti gun agenda.

Senator Lautenberg pushes his anti gun agenda.
The Cybersecurity Act

On Thursday, July 26, 2012, the Senate passed an 84-11 vote to move the Cybersecruity Act forward. The Act is to help prevent cyber terrorism on America’s infrastructure such as water departments and our power grids. The Cybersecruity Act would make critical private industries meet security standards set down by the Department of Homeland Security. Soon after approval to move forward, so was the approval to allow the addition of amendments to the bill.

Along with Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer from California, Jack Reed from Rhode Island, Bob Menendez from New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, Chuck Schumer from New York, and Dianne Feinstein from California introduced S.A. 2575, a large capacity magazine ban, to the House of Representatives to be added to the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. The wording of the amendment does not define what high capacity means.

S.A. 2575 states, “Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection. “

The vote to include S.A. 2575 on the Cybersecurity Act or not is expected next week. If S.A. 2575 gets included in the Cybersecurity Act, and the Cybersecurity Act passes, it will be illegal to produce new high capacity magazines. The White House has supported the Cybersecurity Act, stating, “The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012.”
The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act

Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York has joined Lautenberg in introducing the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, which would prevent online sales of ammunition and force dealers to report large sales of ammunition to local police. Lautenberg says, “If someone wants to purchase deadly ammunition, they should have to come face-to-face with the seller.” The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act would also restrict individual ammunition sales, requiring ammunition be purchased only through licensed dealers, force buyers to present photo ID at the time of purchase, ban online and mail order sales of ammunition, require dealers to keep records of all sales of ammunition, and require dealers to report people who buy more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition in five days.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112zbHAM6:e0:

SA 2575. Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. REED, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3414, to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Definition.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

``(30) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

``(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

``(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.''.

(b) Prohibitions.--Section 922 of such title is amended by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

``(v)(1)(A)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

[Page: S5403] GPO's PDF

``(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

``(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to import or bring into the United States a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

``(A) a manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

``(B) a transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such a licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

``(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon that retirement; or

``(D) a manufacture, transfer, or possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.''.

(c) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(v) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.''.

(d) Identification Markings.--Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ``A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured after such date of enactment, and such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe.''.
 
Thanks for that, ninjaturtle, you just saved me about 20 minutes. Maybe you can start doing a [H]ard column?

I really do wish politicians would stop dicking around by attaching irrelevant language to bills. Of course, I also wish people didn't lie, cheat, or steal, and (other absurd desire contradicted by reality).
 
Huh? What Cybersecurity act? Oh, you're all talking about the Anti-abortion, Gun Control, and Cybersecurity Act.

Riders are complete BS.
 
I find it very cute that you have no idea what the costs are, what the other elements of the bill are (and the costs associated with them), but yet use the phrase "God forbid" in a trite comment. You need to understand a very simple concept...if a human made it, a human can break it. This law is pointless since it is has no reasonable evidence other that it will "do good".

I find it cute that you don't know what I do for a living and don't realize that part of my responsibilities is budgeting for cyber security.
 
Hmm, one of the comments from Domo's link got me searching about this one.

This part I agree with . . . the time for attaching unrelated riders to bills has to come to an end, both parties do it and they're all bullshit.
 
Everything the government gets their hands on turns to absolute crap sooner or later. Why would this be any different.

The way they have run social security, medicare, and soon to be obama care? All shining beacons of the fairness, efficiency, and well thought out plans.

Fact is no matter how much you spend, no matter how much security you have there will still be accidents. Look at automobiles -- no amount of airbags, restraint systems, or computer aided braking has prevented every possible accident. Why? because humans are part of the equation.

Should a mom and pop business be required by law to have $150,000 worth of firewalls and encryption hardware to safeguard the people their business services?

Boil all the big brother and BS good intentions away and you will see it's just a money grab. Look at the hundreds of billions that have been spent on the TSA and homeland security Worth it? Hell no.

I'm only 30 years old but I was raised with he mind set of handling your own problems, taking care of yourself and not relying on a corrupt governing body to rule and regular every part of my life or business. Seeing large portions of the population effectively "give up" and want the government take care of them would make the founders of this country spin in their graves.
 
Everything the government gets their hands on turns to absolute crap sooner or later. Why would this be any different.

The way they have run social security, medicare, and soon to be obama care? All shining beacons of the fairness, efficiency, and well thought out plans.

Fact is no matter how much you spend, no matter how much security you have there will still be accidents. Look at automobiles -- no amount of airbags, restraint systems, or computer aided braking has prevented every possible accident. Why? because humans are part of the equation.

Should a mom and pop business be required by law to have $150,000 worth of firewalls and encryption hardware to safeguard the people their business services?

Boil all the big brother and BS good intentions away and you will see it's just a money grab. Look at the hundreds of billions that have been spent on the TSA and homeland security Worth it? Hell no.

I'm only 30 years old but I was raised with he mind set of handling your own problems, taking care of yourself and not relying on a corrupt governing body to rule and regular every part of my life or business. Seeing large portions of the population effectively "give up" and want the government take care of them would make the founders of this country spin in their graves.

So it's your opinion that left entirely up to the discretion of individual companies, they would always act in the best interest of everyone? Or would they only act in the best interest of their bottom line?

If you removed government regulation completely, you'd be truly surprised how many things you use and/or do daily would be adversely affected.

As an example of how regulation can do GOOD things, take Los Angeles county. As a result of emissions regulations and other smog prevention steps, they went from 102 Stage 1 smog episodes to only 62 in 1998. Sounds like a good thing to me.

It has nothing to do with "wanting the government to take care of them," it has to do with th government "promoting the general welfare" (you may have heard that term somewhere). The intent of that phrase is to state that part of the responsibility of government is to take steps to insure that they take actions (be it laws, regulations, whatever) that benefit the populace as a whole.

It's a pretty simple concept.
 
As an example of how regulation can do GOOD things, take Los Angeles county. As a result of emissions regulations and other smog prevention steps, they went from 102 Stage 1 smog episodes to only 62 in 1998. Sounds like a good thing to me.

Ooops, typo, it was only 12 episodes in 1998, and only 1 since 1999. That's despite a marked increase in population and the number of cars on the road.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thewideangle/item/the_progress_is_invisible_20120720/
 
So it's your opinion that left entirely up to the discretion of individual companies, they would always act in the best interest of everyone? Or would they only act in the best interest of their bottom line?

Though there are exceptions, acting with the best interest of their bottom line is in the interest of the people, because people would stop using their service and that would put a big dent in their bottom line.

Of course, nowadays there is so much crap out there that makes this harder to do, because regulations, bribery for said regulations, and out of control overpowered companies that has monopolies, on service and......... patents (stupid ones at that).
 
Though there are exceptions, acting with the best interest of their bottom line is in the interest of the people, because people would stop using their service and that would put a big dent in their bottom line.

Except that's not the way it works. It never has been. That's the reason they began passing regulations in the first place.

If not for such regulation, you'd probably still have cocaine as an ingredient in coca cola. You'd also still have locks on doors preventing workers from leaving such as the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory. If you had strong regulations that were actually enforced, you wouldn't have had the tragedy at the Upper Big Branch mine.
 
Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and head of U.S. Cyber Command, said there had been a "twentyfold" increase in cyberattacks on critical infrastructure from 2009 to 2011.

When the US infrastructure is attacked, it's an act of war. Yet that same NSA feels perfectly justified in fucking with the infrastructure of sovereign nations, such as the Siemens PLC controllers in Iran's nuke facilities.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/confirmed-us-israel-created-stuxnet-lost-control-of-it/

Confirmed: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

Stuxnet was never meant to propagate in the wild.


by Nate Anderson- June 1 2012, 6:00am EDT

Hacking
National Security


The new account is unlikely to alter Iran's view of the US, seen here in a mural on the old US embassy in Tehran

David Holt

In 2011, the US government rolled out its "International Strategy for Cyberspace," which reminded us that "interconnected networks link nations more closely, so an attack on one nation’s networks may have impact far beyond its borders." An in-depth report today from the New York Times confirms the truth of that statement as it finally lays bare the history and development of the Stuxnet virus—and how it accidentally escaped from the Iranian nuclear facility that was its target.

The article is adapted from journalist David Sanger's forthcoming book, Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, and it confirms that both the US and Israeli governments developed and deployed Stuxnet. The goal of the worm was to break Iranian nuclear centrifuge equipment by issuing specific commands to the industrial control hardware responsible for their spin rate. By doing so, both governments hoped to set back the Iranian research program—and the US hoped to keep Israel from launching a pre-emptive military attack.

The code was only supposed to work within Iran's Natanz refining facility, which was air-gapped from outside networks and thus difficult to penetrate. But computers and memory cards could be carried between the public Internet and the private Natanz network, and a preliminary bit of "beacon" code was used to map out all the network connections within the plant and report them back to the NSA.

That program, first authorized by George W. Bush, worked well enough to provide a digital map of Natanz and its industrial control hardware. Soon, US national labs were testing different bits of the plan to sabotage Natanz (apparently without knowing what the work was for) using similar centrifuges that had come from Libya's Qadaffi regime. When the coders found the right sets of commands to literally shake the centrifuges apart, they knew that Stuxnet could work.

When ready, Stuxnet was introduced to Natanz, perhaps by a double agent.


Getting the worm into Natanz, however, was no easy trick. The United States and Israel would have to rely on engineers, maintenance workers and others—both spies and unwitting accomplices—with physical access to the plant. “That was our holy grail,” one of the architects of the plan said. “It turns out there is always an idiot around who doesn’t think much about the thumb drive in their hand.”

In fact, thumb drives turned out to be critical in spreading the first variants of the computer worm; later, more sophisticated methods were developed to deliver the malicious code.

When Barack Obama came to office, he continued the program—called "Olympic Games"—which unpredictably disabled bits of the Natanz plant even as it told controllers that everything was normal. But in 2010, Stuxnet escaped Natanz, probably on someone's laptop; once connected to the outside Internet, it did what it was designed not to do: spread in public. The blame game began about who had slipped up in the coding.


“We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”

Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.”

Once released more widely, the Stuxnet code was found and then disassembled by security researchers.

Please don't follow our example

As the International Strategy for Cyberspace notes, these sorts of electronic attacks are serious business. The US in fact reserves the right to use even military force to respond to similar attacks. "All states possess an inherent right to self-defense, and we recognize that certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners," says the report. "We reserve the right to use all necessary means—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—as appropriate and consistent with applicable international law."

Yet the US had just gone on the cyber-attack, and everyone knew it. Speculation has long swirled around government-backed hackers from nations like China and Russia, especially, who have been suspected of involvement in espionage, industrial trade secret theft, and much else. Would something like Stuxnet damage US credibility when it complained about such attacks? (China has long adopted the "you do it too!" defense on Internet issues, especially when it comes to censoring and filtering of Internet content.)

Obama was at least aware of the likely answer—yes—but pressed ahead, even accelerating the Olympic Games program.


[Obama] repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons—even under the most careful and limited circumstances—could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks. “We discussed the irony, more than once,” one of his aides said.

Stuxnet is old news by now. Even the newly discovered "Flame" malware was developed some time ago. While details about these two targeted attack packages are finally emerging, the next generation of attack tools has no doubt been developed and likely deployed.

Then you have the Secretary of State spying on the UN security councel members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_United_Nations_leaders_by_United_States_diplomats

In July 2009, a confidential cable[1] originating from the United States Department of State, and under US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's name, ordered US diplomats to spy on Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and other top UN officials.[2] The intelligence information the diplomats were ordered to gather included biometric information (which apparently included DNA, fingerprints, and iris scans), passwords, and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.[2][3] It also included Internet and intranet usernames, e-mail addresses, web site URLs useful for identification, credit card numbers, frequent flier account numbers, and work schedules.[2][4][5] The targeted human intelligence was requested in a process known as the National Humint Collection Directive, and was aimed at foreign diplomats of US allies as well.[5]
 
If a company wants to store my personal information in their database, they should be required to properly secure it. If they are incapable or unwilling to properly secure it, they should not collect and store it. The costs aren't my concern. It is up to the company to decide if the security costs are less or greater than the potential increase in revenue from having my personal information.

But the riders on this bill are complete BS and I don't have a problem that it did not pass.
 
To use an analogy outside of the net, humans create doors and locks, too, right? So "a human can break it" and since that's the case we may as well not even use locks! They will just be broken anyway!

All Americans are now required to use this door to their homes because it's safer.

vault-in-the-courtyard.jpg
 
When the US infrastructure is attacked, it's an act of war. Yet that same NSA feels perfectly justified in fucking with the infrastructure of sovereign nations, such as the Siemens PLC controllers in Iran's nuke facilities.

Of course, there are those would say that the Stuxnet incident was acceptable because it was Iran. OF course, if any nation did the same to us, those same people would want to destroy the entire violating country.

When the US infrastructure is attacked, it's an act of war. Yet that same NSA feels perfectly justified in fucking with the infrastructure of sovereign nations, such as the Siemens PLC controllers in Iran's nuke facilities.

Then you have the Secretary of Stat...ssets whose mission was counterproliferation.
 
All Americans are now required to use this door to their homes because it's safer.

vault-in-the-courtyard.jpg

If those Americans are storing the private data, personal, financial, and medical information of other citizens, I'm all for it.

Since they aren't, it's kind of a moot point.
 
For once, the Republicans have done something useful.

The Cybersecurity Act would have allowed corporations to share your personal information with the government without a warrant while avoiding liability. Contrary to popular belief, it would not have improved security, just the government's ability to snoop on it's own citizens.

How a business chooses to secure their network is not congress's business If someone is harmed as a result of their failure to secure their network, that is a civil matter.
 
It's no more overkill than storing cash in a vault.

I'm guessing you approve of that correct? Why should the electronic form of it be any different?

Well, that vault door is from fort knox where hundreds of billions are stored, mostly gold (with military guards). Just for the overkill point so no it's not the same thing, at all. Small businesses should not be required to have a fort knox vault door for a few million (or even fifty). Expecting them to do so is stupid.

Expecting small businesses with a lot less money to have the same security as too big to fail businesses is so out of touch with reality.

Last thing, they're not usually storing billions of dollars on unsecure computers, they're storing user information, company information,etc. Of course securing it is important but not as important as spending millions securing something way more important.

Plus, if you really want these computers secure, lets save the taxpayers billions/trillions and unplug the fucking Ethernet cable on these computers.

Sometimes the quickest path isn't the best path.
 
Plus as some one mentioned earlier, if it can be built today, it can be unbuilt tomorrow. Spending billions/trillions on something that will end up getting hacked for $10,000 is not a cost effective strategy.
 
Plus as some one mentioned earlier, if it can be built today, it can be unbuilt tomorrow. Spending billions/trillions on something that will end up getting hacked for $10,000 is not a cost effective strategy.

I hereby nominate AnonymousUser for President 2012. Can I get a second?

This man understands not only economics, but technology, valuable knowledge in these trying times.
 
God forbid that a business should have to spend money to make sure that their systems are secure and as invulnerable as possible to attacks.

Tell you what, you go build up a struggling business in this shit economy, then I'll have the government come force you to pay tons of money on security protocols that you probably don't need, and when you can't afford to pay them, we shut you down.

What did John Lennon call individuals such as yourself? I think he called them 'useful idiots.'
Here's a quote I doubt you could understand, but please try, because you are falling into this category:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
By Benjamin Franklin.
 
It has nothing to do with "wanting the government to take care of them," it has to do with th government "promoting the general welfare" (you may have heard that term somewhere). The intent of that phrase is to state that part of the responsibility of government is to take steps to insure that they take actions (be it laws, regulations, whatever) that benefit the populace as a whole.

Oh, so that's what they're calling slavery and communism now.
Nice spin on that. :rolleyes:
 
For once, the Republicans have done something useful.

The Cybersecurity Act would have allowed corporations to share your personal information with the government without a warrant while avoiding liability. Contrary to popular belief, it would not have improved security, just the government's ability to snoop on it's own citizens.

How a business chooses to secure their network is not congress's business If someone is harmed as a result of their failure to secure their network, that is a civil matter.

A civil matter that almost every company never has to pay a sum that even puts a scracth in their pockets, for failing to give even a small shit about securing their data. In their mind I wonder if they are thinking, "its only data and doesnt need any effort to keep it out of the wrong people hands." Companies care only about the dollar, not securing thier information, and the very last thing they care about is the people that information is about.

At some time, it will reach a point that companies become so inept at securing their data, regulations will have to be drafted to force companies to put even a minimal effort into cybersecurity. I feel it should be a coalition of companies that drafts such regulations though and not politicians, as politicians have no idea what all would be involved in doing so.
 
Oh, so that's what they're calling slavery and communism now.
Nice spin on that. :rolleyes:

I see . . . so enlighten us oh most knowledgeable one . . . what does "Promote the general welfare" mean?

Does it or does it not mean the general welfare of the populace?

Please explain.
 
Here's a quote I doubt you could understand, but please try, because you are falling into this category:

By Benjamin Franklin.

Here's a little tip for you . . . Benjamin Franklin was not, in any way, referring to the liberty of companies to not secure your personal data.

I know that might be a tad difficult for you to understand.

Here's another little tip for you . . . he was referring to individual liberty, not the liberty of corporations.

You know, like the liberty that comes with having your personal data secure from intrusion.
 
Well, that vault door is from fort knox where hundreds of billions are stored, mostly gold (with military guards). Just for the overkill point so no it's not the same thing, at all. Small businesses should not be required to have a fort knox vault door for a few million (or even fifty). Expecting them to do so is stupid.

Name one bank that doesn't have a vault. Please. Now, considering economy of scale, tell me why ANY company should not be required to safeguard the information with which they are entrusted?

For that matter, if you are against safeguards such as this, why would you engage in a banking industry where the vast majority of institutions are insured by the FDIC?
 
Oh, so that's what they're calling slavery and communism now.
Nice spin on that. :rolleyes:

And another thing . . . it would appear that you have a complete lack of understanding as to what communism is (or slavery for that matter).

See, if communism was involved in any way, shape or form, we wouldn't be having this conversation because those companies would not be in private hands.

Of course, using buzzwords and jargon is the hallmark of someone who doesn't really know what they're trying to say.

I bet you use the words communism, socialism, marxism (and most likely fascism) interchangeably as well.
 
I see . . . so enlighten us oh most knowledgeable one . . . what does "Promote the general welfare" mean?

Does it or does it not mean the general welfare of the populace?

Please explain.

Unless of course you want to use a more narrow definition which an early Supreme Court justice stated, that being that the Congress is entitled to levy tax for the general welfare of the nation. Or, as Jefferson put it, to "provide for the welfare of the union." Which is to say, if you don't like my broader definition, you REALLY won't like Jefferson's definition which basically says the Government could levy a tax to accomplish the very same cyber-security policies.

I bet that would REALLY get your Underoos in a bunch.
 
A civil matter that almost every company never has to pay a sum that even puts a scracth in their pockets, for failing to give even a small shit about securing their data. In their mind I wonder if they are thinking, "its only data and doesnt need any effort to keep it out of the wrong people hands." Companies care only about the dollar, not securing thier information, and the very last thing they care about is the people that information is about.

At some time, it will reach a point that companies become so inept at securing their data, regulations will have to be drafted to force companies to put even a minimal effort into cybersecurity. I feel it should be a coalition of companies that drafts such regulations though and not politicians, as politicians have no idea what all would be involved in doing so.

Agreed for the most part, but once again, left to their own devices (as we've already witnessed with numerous data breaches of credit card info, etc.), companies will not make any real effort to secure their systems.

Ideally, you would need the companies to meet with people actually knowledgeable about security, then present a viable solution. Unfortunately, the only way this will happen is (most likely) if there is a regulatory agency overseeing it. As much as I despise the FDA (though I have to work within their guidelines on a daily basis), the process you must undergo to meet FDA guidelines for data integrity is pretty strict. Basically, the guidelines state you can do it however you want, but it must meet a minimum standard and you must document how and why you do it the way you do.

The catch is to eliminate the ability of larger companies to unduly influence the agency {such as the case with many larger pharmaceutical companies who have been able to fast-track drugs to market, etc.).

Unfortunately, none of this is likely to occur.
 
I see . . . so enlighten us oh most knowledgeable one . . . what does "Promote the general welfare" mean?

Does it or does it not mean the general welfare of the populace?

Please explain.

It means taking everyone's personal income at gunpoint and forcing them to give it to everyone else without any say.

Here's a little tip for you . . . Benjamin Franklin was not, in any way, referring to the liberty of companies to not secure your personal data.

Here's another little tip for you . . . he was referring to individual liberty, not the liberty of corporations.
Define "corporation".
Are you talking about S corps or C corps? Or do you mean LLCs and partnerships?
Regardless, unless the government has a contract with said corporation, they should not be allowed to "force" anything upon that corporation, it is completely unconstitutional.

Here's a little tip for you: just keep being the tool you are, you're doing a great job of it. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top