Cyber Security Law Fails To Pass Senate

ekierce said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did say exceptions. But if they do have such regulation, they should have a standardize way of doing it, and someone to actually look to see that it is working. Standardizing security will screw everyone over once the first gets hacked. And overlooking it will cost so much money, that tax will rise beyond the roof. If they don't and leave it to the companies, it'll just be another failure.

That said, if we had strong regulation that were enforced, there probably won't be much a "land of the free" left... if there is any left, anyway.

There are limits, and this is one of them. Not to mention all those fucking riders. Fuck you, you unpassable laws, fuck you to oblivion.
 
^ What's wrong with you?! How can you not want to be even more controlled than you already are!?
Submit slave! :D

Vote for Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
Constitutionalist ftw :cool:
 
*I* will decide how I secure my networks, not some pen-welding bureaucrat in Washington.

Government is inept at almost everything it does (except killing people and stealing people's money; they are very good at those things). Having a bunch of crusty old congresscritters that know nothing about computers set "security regulations" is just asking for trouble.

A better way to improve security (and a lot of other problems that corporations cause) is through the elimination of limited liability for corporations (using state coercion to avoid liability for torts); the people that run a corporation need to be personally accountable for the actions of that corporation, up to and including criminal prosecution if the corporation commits crimes.
 
damicatz said:
the people that run a corporation need to be personally accountable for the actions of that corporation, up to and including criminal prosecution if the corporation commits crimes.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this for those at the top of S and C Corps.
 
damicatz said:
*I* will decide how I secure my networks, not some pen-welding bureaucrat in Washington.

Government is inept at almost everything it does (except killing people and stealing people's money; they are very good at those things). Having a bunch of crusty old congresscritters that know nothing about computers set "security regulations" is just asking for trouble.

A better way to improve security (and a lot of other problems that corporations cause) is through the elimination of limited liability for corporations (using state coercion to avoid liability for torts); the people that run a corporation need to be personally accountable for the actions of that corporation, up to and including criminal prosecution if the corporation commits crimes.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that most Congresspeople have no idea what they're talking about in regards to computers. I'll disagree with the inept part but it won't matter because you won't listen or care.

That said, I completely disagree with eliminating the limited liability clause. You do that and companies will go to extremes to police worker activities resulting in a corporate owned civilization. I'm not saying these guys should get off scott free if it involved them directly but removing the liability would be ridiculously dangerous.
 
SockMan! said:
Huh? What Cybersecurity act? Oh, you're all talking about the Anti-abortion, Gun Control, and Cybersecurity Act.

Riders are complete BS.
Click to expand...

I thought it supportted abortion...
 
damicatz said:
*I* will decide how I secure my networks, not some pen-welding bureaucrat in Washington.
Click to expand...

I agree, and further, if I decide to also physically secure it with weapons, using high capacity magazines, that's my choice, don't mess with me.
 
Thank god this bill died. These bills are regulatory nightmares for business and shouldn't be foisted onto businesses at all. Let businesses deal with their security as they see fit and if they fuck up that security, let them be at the mercy of the legal and private sector.
 
ekierce said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's right, they are interchangeable. Go read Das Kapital and understand that you have ZERO clue what any of those philosophical/political systems of ideological thought mean. We wouldn't be having this conversation because a government wouldn't allow the concept of a corporation to exist and therefore they would control all the means of commerce and production and considering that if they fail, then what do you have as a citizen? Nothing, since you wouldn't have the ability to criticize the government that operates under any of these ideologies considering you would essentially be a property of the state. Those aren't buzzwords, those are the realities of living under such concepts. Do you need examples or are they self-evident. Furthermore, understand what a corporation is at it's fundamental level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
 
ekierce said:
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.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between ISO and the FDA?
 
I'm glad this bill failed to pass simply because the typical antigun pussy politicians were trying to attach a magazine ban to it.
 
ekierce said:
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.
Click to expand...
Personally, not having read this bill, I would question what it would accomplish. A business generally has vested interest to protect the data of its users (because it preserves their user base and furthers their main goal--keep customers and to make money)--of course we have issues/leaks, but most of these intrusions are due to hackers/crackers with malicious intent to acquire data and penetrate the data infrastructure. A lot of "hacked" data that's leaked online is usually already protected in some fashion. It's not as if user data is just sitting available to anyone without some security measure. Most companies already spend money on data security. How much more is practical?

This would be synonymous with a bank being punished because some whack job blew a hole in their secure vault with C4 and stole the money. What else could you realistically expect them to do?
 
Isn't this the one they tried to tack some anti-gun stuff on?
 
I do agree there needs to be some kind of law/regulation to ensure companies who store user info have a certain level of security. Look at it like health regulations in the food industry. Companies should get security audits and get infractions when they fail, just like restaurants and such do if they are not following health regulations.

There has been lot of companies lately who neglect security and leak out personal info. There is no excuse for this. It's time for companies to stop outsourcing IT/programmers and get people who know what they are doing.
 
BBA said:
I agree, and further, if I decide to also physically secure it with weapons, using high capacity magazines, that's my choice, don't mess with me.
Click to expand...

If it is private property, then yes.

I would also point out that a lot of data centers actually have armed guards patrolling them.
 
damicatz said:
If it is private property, then yes.

I would also point out that a lot of data centers actually have armed guards patrolling them.
Click to expand...

You got that right. Go check out the Koch Bros data center in Wichita and Green Bay. Prepare for a cavity search! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top