Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

CISA passed the Senate with almost 3:1 bipartisan support in October.

PCNA, the House's (worse) version of CISA, passed with similar margins in April.

Obama has publicly supported the bill all year.

As much as HN and Twitter wants to believe CISA was enacted in some shady backroom deal, the process that actually occurred, including publicly available amendments and months-long review, is pretty close to "Schoolhouse Rocks".

The debate on CISA was over. Thankfully. The only debate left was how close CISA would come to PCNA, with its broader law enforcement ties and vaguer language (EFF claims PCNA would have in some cases authorized large private companies to "hack back" computers they believed had been trying to hack them). Instead, Senate's CISA is the law of land almost verbatim to what they passed --- in a drawn out, public process --- in October.

Later:

Someone downthread asked for a summary of the bill. I did my best to strip the legalese out of it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10763827

View on HN

The 14 votes against, FWIW:

    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Booker (D-NJ)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Markey (D-MA)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Warren (D-MA)
    Wyden (D-OR)

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/10133932597/cisa-...

I'm honestly starting to think sander's is our last hope -- I was on the fence until seeing this. Meanwhile he is getting undermined by the media.

Not so on social media, however, which makes this election really interesting: we'll be able to see to what extent the old guard (broadcast news networks) reigns supreme.

and to what extent the twittering classes does or does not really effect things.

Not to mention the DNC.

"Remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair" http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/remove-debbie-wasserman?sou... 40,491 signatures so far

There's a group of tech volunteers working on apps to try to help out his campaign. I'm sure they would welcome any additional help from HN people.

links? i just signed an acceptance letter for a FT job but would be willing to help remotely if possible.

There are a lot of people building their own projects, as well as volunteering time to official campaign projects. https://coders.forsanders.com/

When do I remember hearing that before.... back in 2008. Everyone was saying the exact same thing. If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself.

If anything he is being undermined by the DNC, not the media. The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for thier blatant support of one candidate over the other(s) .

No candidate is going to be perfect. Even if there was an hypothetically perfect candidate (for any definition of perfect) he/she will have to compromise when in power.

The thing with Sanders, I think, is that he has been around for so long and he has been so consistent, that you can know what he think about most issues:

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sande...

> If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself

i don't recall obama being an actual socialist or talking about breaking up the banks. i do recall obama being a dem and giving the banks bailout money though.

> he is being undermined by the DNC

agreed.

I do expect Sanders to be different because he has a 20 year record of being incredibly consistent in his political views.

His ideological framework hasn't changed in the entire time I've been following him (I'm from Vermont) and that includes going from mayor of Burlington up through US Senator.

He's also not saying things to get elected. He'd have a much better chance if he dropped some of his more socialist rhetoric, but he genuinely believes it.

Assume he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Judging by the way congress operates right now, not much.

> he wins and becomes president, what could he do?

Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. If someone like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders got into office, a little would be different, especially with regards to foreign policy, but without a pliable or cooperative congress, literally nothing would get done. It would be a waste of 4 years. People overestimate just how much power the president has. Even with executive orders, there's only so much a president can do within the law. If you want universal health care, or MJ legalized, or CISA repealed, a president can't do that by himself, that requires congress.

Presidential elections are a red herring I'm afraid, and that's no exaggeration. If you want true and real governmental change, it requires you to vote the right congressmen and senators into the government.

>Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale.

I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against.

I understand why you feel like you're correct in naysaying and feeling like you're adding something to the conversation by being contrary. Unfortunately you're setting up a bit of a strawman, as if people who support Bernie feel like somehow he's going to magically change everything by himself. Bernie himself said that will not be the case, and you're mostly just arguing people who have little understanding of government, who honestly aren't even taking part in this conversation.

Bernie is probably the most likely candidate to promote the idea in your comment anyway, as he's the only candidate who I feel truly wants to change the system. So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Bernie. He's the only one talking about political revolution, which is what would be necessary for real change.

> I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against.

Sometimes I forget that hackernews has a slightly more intelligent user-base. Unfortunately, I participate on reddit as well, and there, political supporters have a slightly naive view of how politics and the government works (that's putting it nicely). Sometimes I confuse the two websites.

> So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Bernie. He's the only one talking about political revolution, which is what would be necessary for real change.

Well, real change means electing the right congressmen. To up-end our current republic, the first-past-the-post system, and to reform campaign finance requires electing senators who would do just that.

If Bernie wins the nomination, he's definitely getting my vote. Unfortunately, that's a near impossibility. And he also said he wouldn't run against Hillary if she wins the nomination. Bernie recognizes the fact that he would damage the party and take votes away from Hillary if he runs as an independent. He's a pragmatic & logical man and understands that a Clinton presidency is orders of magnitude better for our country than a Bush or Trump presidency. It's simply the lesser of all the evils.

And unless you run for office yourself, it's always, always going to be choosing between the "least evil" because no candidate will represent your views 100% unless, again, you run yourself.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Western-Illinois-U...

Read that, not so crazy.

> Read that, not so crazy.

Unfortunately, I read the same exact thing about Ron Paul in 2008 & 2012. :)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1106/R...

and

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-in...

A trump presidency would be horrific -- I'm very opposed to it happening, but if he took power I wonder if it would wake up the swindled masses.

Don't forget that the next President will almost certainly have to nominate one or two Supreme Court justices.

Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin are pretty consistent when it comes to supporting privacy and the internet. They were actually the only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] who also supported net neutrality [2]. Both also voted against the "Patriot" Act in 2001, while they served in the House [3].

[1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

[2] http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/press-releases/us-senator-tamm... & http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/to-protect-...

[3] http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

Don't forget Rand Paul

Rand Paul is actually fighting against net neutrality http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-neutrality-id...

Net neutrality, as it's currently being implemented, grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. This regulatory power has the potential to be abused. So, Rand Paul being against it is consistent with his general philosophy of less government intervention.

> grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies.

How would net neutrality work without that regulatory power? The FCC needs teeth to do its job. Net neutrality without anyone to actively enforce it is the same as no net neutrality at all.

Rand Paul (or his supporters) are just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue.

The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality.

I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this many of T-Mobile's more pro-competition moves in the wireless telecom space, though it's also easy to argue that the FCC is more necessary there as wireless spectrum is a much more finite, common resource than fiber in the ground (theoretically, you could run an unlimited amount of it).

As an aside, of course, many see T-Mobile's moves as bad for net neutrality based on principle, despite the fact that they're actually good for the consumer today.[1] I might argue that those people are making the same argument you are about Rand Paul: that they're " just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue".

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...

The magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure.

For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into account.

Part of what the recent net neutrality rules did is ensure that power utilities must lease pole/conduit access to internet utilities at the same rates they lease to cable tv and telephone utilities. This helps reduce cost to enter the market.

Unregulated free market theory works. When you say it's instantly distorted by reality, I think that's true if you take a small picture view of the world. But if you look at it from a 5 year, 10 year, or even 100 year perspective, the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi. I think the free market has done a great job.

> the free market is what brought us Dialup, DSL, Cable, FiOS, WiFi and whatever's after WiFi

Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.

> Government research and subsidies brought us these. The market only sold them.

You do realize that the government pays (with private company tax dollars) other private companies to do things for them, don't you?

Either that or it hires private individuals and pays them to do it. What is your point? In either case, the govt is making the resource-allocation choice.

Your point is well taken, but if memory serves, the specific technologies listed were developed by private corporations and industry consortiums. Would be interested to see a fact checked history on this, however.

A large portion of the costs of building last-mile infrastructure come from regulations imposed by local governments.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-jus...

which may serve more big investors building yet more sprawling suburbs than regular people

> Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys

Except, all the evidence throughout history has shown this never to be the case. It never, ever works. It's what the big companies want you to believe to you'll buy into whatever ideology they're selling. It's libertarian nonsense with no basis in reality. It's a Koch brothers talking point - they literally live by that mantra.

Net neutrality has been the status quo on the internet for 30 years without regulatory intervention. Whether or not there's a credible threat to that status quo is something that's very arguable: there are potentially more forces working against the ISPs' ability to engage in content-based discrimination than working in favor of it. The organizations with the most de facto power on the internet seem to be the ones which stand the most to lose from any breach of net neutrality: the Googles and Facebooks and Apples of the world seem quite a bit more influential than the Comcasts and the Verizons. On the other hand, agency capture is a very real phenomenon, and the Comcasts and Verizons certainly do have disproportionate influence over the FCC: it's entirely possible that the thing most likely to undermine net neutrality in the near future is making its preservation the responsibility of the FCC.

The solution to the problem is to support organizations and institutions that have real substantive incentives to protect net neutrality -- not merely an inherently co-optable political mandate -- and to work in parallel to diminish the actual capacity of ISPs to actually abridge e.g. by promoting widespread end-to-end encryption of everything, etc.

The mindset of "we've got to address this potential problem by giving monopolistic coercive power to this single centralized institution" has just got to go away.

Libertarian support for limited government turns into a grey area when it comes to infrastructure. Efficiency is not gained with competing infrastructure, even Hayek says as much http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/24/were-all-i...

I am pretty sure Rand Paul just votes against Budget bills in general and this has nothing to do with CISA being part of it.

This is precisely what happened; CISA was an afterthought in his letter to Time. The crux of his argument is that he wanted to reduce the size of government by 15%.

http://time.com/4154635/rand-paul-paul-ryan-omnibus-spending...

No, he voted against CISA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10764280

Can you explain why you think Bob Kahn is against net neutrality (whereas Vint Cerf is for it)? I am not that familiar with this issue and the other sides arguments (against), but there are prominent people there.

Older article, but his stance is basically the same today

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_...

Has he taken a stance against net neutrality recently? He seems to have taken a stance around 2007 that regulation might be detrimental to innovation. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on the FCC's 2014 ruling, and if he felt those regulations specifically were negative or positive.

People may be on the list to be against the budget, not net nutrality. Downside to a 2000 page bill. What parts are everyone for and against?

I'm a very liberal persion, but I really like Rand Paul. I just wish he didn't think gays were going to burn in hell for all eternity, or at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live.

The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live according to his religious beliefs.

I've always felt that was how Paul believed. He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman but doesn't think the government should be involved in defining it.

In my experience, people with those beliefs (conservative views on marriage && thinks government should not be involved) tend to protect the status quo. It's nice to say that the government shouldn't be involved, but meanwhile it would be really great and really easy if we just allowed same-sex couples to have the same rights. But that's the arbitrary (read: not at all arbitrary) point where "government involvement" becomes too much for them.

He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.

That's the big-government position. You can be in favor of a particular issue without subscribing to this view.

State governments deciding is what led to federal Supreme Court action.

The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out.

The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.

I suppose technically it could be worse -- he could take Ron Paul's position of forcibly exempting the states from having to respect guaranteed basic rights (Ron Paul has campaigned on literally rolling back that part of the Fourteenth Amendment).

I'm fairly sure he is content with the states defining it. I'm not sure I've heard whether or not he'd do anything concerning what the supreme court decided.

Follow up: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rand-paul-comments-gay...

Always interesting to note that:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."

is exactly what Obama "believed" in 2008.

> at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live.

Paul is a libertarian and believes that Government should not be involved in the private space, including marriage. I think that's a very reasonable position to have - and I don't think I have seen him saying anything against gays, but please provide a source if you have any.

Exactly, he (unfortunately) feels like he has to say these types of things to pander to the typical Republican voter. However, he's one of the only people out there talking about the real issue: should government be involved in the marriage business at all? Sure, Paul says some seemingly nutty stuff, but if we judge based on his voting record, he's easily the strongest Republican on personal liberty and right to privacy (not to mention a sane foreign policy).

The simple problem is that 99.999999999999999999% of self-professed libertarians I've encountered who simply say "the government should get out of the marriage business" only ever say that. They never lobby for (or introduce, if they're in a position to do so) bills to actually achieve that end, and in fact usually do nothing and let the status quo -- which until very recently was "keep the discriminatory laws on the books" -- stand.

So in extensional terms, such "libertarians" are often indistinguishable from theocrats on key social issues (i.e., regardless of what different set of inner philosophical principles they might claim to be following, the outward result in terms of lawmaking is identical). Which in turn means they're not going to get my vote.

"They never lobby for (or introduce, if they're in a position to do so) bills to actually achieve that end, and in fact usually do nothing and let the status quo -- which until very recently was "keep the discriminatory laws on the books" -- stand."

How many self-professed libertarians are there in the Congress? Paul's not even self-professed libertarian. The only one I know is Justin Amash, and he couldn't introduce any of type of bills you reference because under Boehner's regime only bills blessed by his team could ever make it to the floor.

Very true—what libertarians should do is promote common‐law marriage, which is permitted in 9 states. Unfortunately, over time fewer and fewer states have allowed forming new common‐law marriages. And in those states where it’s still possible, same‐sex common‐law marriage has always been illegal. So “get the government out of the marriage business” still requires active effort to change the laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_U...

Wow, this is terrible, common law is just great for tax and separation ("divorce") purposes regardless of orientation, an excellent way to provide a measure of equality.

every liberal has to draw a line somewhere. he might think aborting is murder, so he puts the same restrictions you (hopefully) put on murder.

For what it's worth, Paul was one of only 8 Republicans who voted against rescinding funds from Planned Parenthood.

Paul's views on immigration and refugees are also equally horrendous.

I can't see myself voting in 2016. I find the views of all the Republican and Democratic candidates to be morally repugnant, just for different reasons.

As an LGBT person myself, I refuse to vote for Paul or any other candidate who opposes LGBT rights (including the entire Republican field), and as a Jew, I refuse to vote for any candidate that opposes refugees. However, I also won't vote for the Democrats because their views on other subjects are just as repugnant, including gun control and minimum wage.

Sanders/Paul 2016!

Not a joke. I would vote for it.

One of the few concrete functions of the Vice President once elected, is to serve as a more extreme alternative to the political positions of the President. That way, nobody opposed to the President's platform can assassinate the President in the hopes of killing that platform, because it will only be replaced with a worse version.

This is not the case in an across-the-aisle Presidency. There are lots of Paul supporters who would like to see Sanders dead, and a whole bunch of them have guns and are fond of out-of-the-box thinking about their liberty. I spent a few months participating in online communities associated with Ron Paul back in 2007; It was enlightening, though it left me feeling a little soiled.

The broader problem is that the Vice President has no real power. You can't balance a Presidency with an across-the-aisle candidate because the Vice President can't meaningfully do anything without the President's assent.

The interesting thing is if the Democrats nominate Sanders and the Republicans nominate Paul.

> The interesting thing is if the Democrats nominate Sanders and the Republicans nominate Paul.

Interesting, if only due to its impossibility.

Sanders is a long shot, but plausible. Paul is well outside the realm of possibility.

How about Paul/Sanders?

What about, and this would be entirely unconstitutional, but what if they were BOTH the president?

Like, not one the president and the other one the vice president. If they were just, dual presidents. Both the singular president. ( if either died, it would be counted as the president dieing, and the vp would take the place)

I think this list reinforces the fact that there's only one reasonable presidential candidate on each party's ticket.

Note that these were the votes against the original CISA bill, NOT the bill that passed yesterday. Those votes were:

   Nay - Sen. Michael Crapo [R]
   Nay - Sen. Michael Enzi [R]
   Nay - Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R]
   Nay - Sen. John McCain [R]
   Nay - Sen. Jefferson “Jeff” Sessions [R]
   Nay - Sen. Richard Shelby [R]
   Nay - Sen. John Boozman [R]
   Nay - Sen. Richard Burr [R]
   Nay - Sen. Jeff Flake [R]
   Nay - Sen. Jerry Moran [R]
   Nay - Sen. Robert “Rob” Portman [R]
   Nay - Sen. Patrick “Pat” Toomey [R]
   Nay - Sen. David Vitter [R]
   Nay - Sen. John Thune [R]
   Nay - Sen. Bill Cassidy [R]
   Nay - Sen. James Risch [R]
   Nay - Sen. Tim Scott [R]
   Not Voting - Sen. Marco Rubio [R]
   Nay - Sen. Rand Paul [R]
   Nay - Sen. Mike Lee [R]
   Nay - Sen. Tom Cotton [R]
   Nay - Sen. Steve Daines [R]
   Nay - Sen. Deb Fischer [R]
   Nay - Sen. Ted Cruz [R]
   Nay - Sen. Dan Sullivan [R]
   Nay - Sen. Joni Ernst [R]
   Nay - Sen. Benjamin Sasse [R]

   Nay - Sen. Jeff Merkley [D]
   Nay - Sen. Joe Manchin III [D]
   Nay - Sen. Jon Tester [D]
   Nay - Sen. Claire McCaskill [D]
   Not Voting - Sen. Barbara Boxer [D]
   Nay - Sen. Ron Wyden [D]
   Nay - Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D]
   Nay - Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I]

Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s339

Another way of wording this: a list of people to consider re-electing. :)

Not Voting - Sen. Marco Rubio [R] Not Voting - Sen. Barbara Boxer [D]

Cowards.

Rubio is too busy campaigning to actually do his job.

If he had something to gain from voting he would have, but he can use the excuse that he is campaigning (even though that's not much of an excuse).

> Nay - Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I]

Not voting for the bill is effectively a "no" vote.

It is likely this was intentional. If you don't want to be present for a vote for some reason, you can find someone else who would vote the other way (usually reaching across the aisle) and both agree not to participate. Happens all the time.

Senator Boxer is retiring after her current term, so I doubt that cowardice explains her non-vote.

Yeah VT!

I must disagree. I believe you are overstating things.

Schoolhouse rocks, last I checked, had one bill moving from one house to the other. Citizens could lobby at any point, including the conference committee.

Each of these were passed in isolation, then stuck together, then stuck into a budget bill. Then the only question was whether you wanted the entire bill to pass or not.

It's a fair interpretation to say that some reasonable public feedback -- if nothing else than what kinds of compromises needed to occur between both bills -- was missing from the mash-up we got this past week. Yes, majorities approved of similar bills in both houses. But there was no point in time where the public was informed "Hey, this is your last chance if you want to change what's going to go into the law"

Another way of looking at this is asking this question: if we're going to use the rules for budget bills on everything else that might be controversial, why have conference committees at all? Just pass kinda the same thing in each house and then look for the right political moment and the right combination of things to lump together so that you can do whatever you want to.

This is just leadership writing laws. If they want to do things like that, fine. I believe the logical conclusion is that we should start having direct election of house and senate leadership.

Bills get passed in omnibus spending bills all the time. For instance, as someone pointed out on the last thread about CISA: your COBRA health insurance? COBRA stands for "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act".

There was extended public debate and a prolonged amendment process for CISA and PCNA in both houses of Congress. There was intense media coverage and, once CISA passed in October, the consensus was that CISA was going to be the law of the land.

The one uncertainty about it was the extent to which the House would drag CISA towards PCNA's broader law enforcement language. Thankfully, that drama, with its attendant opportunity for "public commentary", didn't happen.

For you to make a strong case for how important a prolonged conference committee would have been to the process, I think you should start by pointing out another bill that died in a conference committee due to public outcry. Has that ever happened?

Now you're just making the case that the Schoolhouse Rock process is never followed for controversial bills. That isn't the process being followed, it's evidence that the proponents required procedural gymnastics to subvert that process in order to get the bill passed.

Yes. The "Nothing to see here, folks!"/tu quoque argument is de rigeur in this type of discussion. Combine that with a little moving of the goalposts? Guaranteed hours of fun for the whole family.

For those who are interested, this type of application is fairly recent. The Reconciliation Act was passed in 74. It hadn't even been out a year before it was being used in ways not anticipated by the sponsors, and the stretching has continued year-after-year. Relevant wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_...

IIRC, CORBA was the first big "win", providing continuing insurance privileges to folks when they left their job. A great idea, no doubt, but not a damned thing to do with the budget.

Also more information: https://www.votetocracy.com/blog/what-is-reconciliation

Interesting historical quote from the second article. President Clinton attempted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Byrd, according to Wikipedia, “insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets,”

Times have changed. Each year these things get easier and easier.

It's all normal! Schoolhouse Rocks guys!

I am sad.

CISA was probably the least controversial part of this bill. The real controversy was the budget itself; the bill involves Ryan surrendering the ability to freeze the government with future budget bills until almost after the next election. The GOP has been using that ability on and off for the last 6 years.

In message board land, the fact that the bill was finalized in the middle of the night is evidence that The Man is trying to sneak CISA past us. In reality, nobody in Congress cares about CISA; that's a done deal. It's the budget they're being sneaky about.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that CISA (and a bunch of other random stuff in the budget bill) had been scheduled to go through on the budget bill for weeks.

> The debate on CISA was over. Thankfully

Thankfully? In the sense that at least it wasn't close to PCNA or that you think this bill will do anything to actually benefit "cybersecurity"? Because if it doesn't serve its purpose, then it doesn't really matter how close was or wasn't to the PCNA, does it?

Also, you're not worried at all about the legal protections companies get for cooperating with the NSA? If they "aren't doing anything wrong", why should they need legal immunity?

In the sense that the only place the "debate" had left to go was "worse".

It is not the way conference committees work that there's a whole new open public process. By the time a bill has passed both houses of Congress, the incentive is declare victory and get the thing over with. The only reason there even is a conference committee is to get the House and Senate to agree on language.

I've explained repeatedly why the legal immunity language in CISA is not only reasonable, but in fact most of the impetus for the entire bill.

I'm a little annoyed at how you're asking me to explain it again, because that once again puts me in the position of being perceived as a supporter of CISA, which I am not. I'm very tired of people --- like, respectfully, you --- equating "effort taken to understand a complicated issue" with "partisan support for one side of that issue".

The "tell" that that's what's happening here is the language you chose to use: "you're not worried at all that...?". In sales, language like that is referred to as "an assumptive close". It is literally a mind control technique. Here, you're trying to deploy it on me to put me on the wrong side of an issue being discussed on HN.

PLEASE STOP DOING THAT.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com