The issue is that CISPA is fundamentally flawed; I have no doubt that there are well-meaning people who believe we need something to address the problems CISPA allegedly addresses. But any solution which consists of "first, we stop caring about the Fourth Amendment" is a non-starter and must always be.
no.
no.
not at all. please read the bill. it says nothing of the sort.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-...
CISPA's true motivation is becoming very clear. It's needed to expand a pilot program for dragnet surveillance by the NSA and defense contractors. You know, the same thing they've been doing for ages and getting sued over by the EFF. If you read the letters in support of CISPA by the defense contractors who are lobbying for it and funding Mike Rogers who authored it, they even acknowledge this program by name (it's called the DIB cyber pilot).
That's why the bill is so vague, and why they refuse amendments to narrow the scope. It's a get out of jail free card for complicit companies and they can claim virtually anything is related to "security". They can also be wrong, as long as they claim it was "in good faith". It's more or less the "state secrets privilege" equivalent, but for companies cooperating with the "data sharing".
It solves nothing, because it's already legal to share threat data. You just have to scrub it of private or protected information. If its protected, it's because we passed a law for something we felt was worth protecting. For CISPA to just undo all of those laws wholesale is outrageous.
What horseshit! Even your own link describes the program as applicable to private networks of the participating companies. That's why there's a quote from an email wondering (emphasis mine) "Will the program cover all parts of the company network -- including say day care centers (as mentioned as a question in a [deputies committee meeting]) and what are the policy implications of this?"
There are a lot of advocacy organizations (EPIC, etc) that like to bluster about what it does. Right now EPIC is blustering that it's part of authorizing a secret program.
What they didn't tell you is that this is their real goal is to gain possible congressional support for the FOIA request they filed, they are just trying to tie it all together so they can gain support from CISPA haters.
A lot of these advocacy orgs that lobby are good in the sense of trying to do what they think is right but they often present pretty extreme (IMHO) interpretations of bills/laws and viewpoints to support this.
Full disclosure: I have interned at one of these advocacy orgs before (CDT).
It's true the government would be happy if they could monitor everyone's activity, but that isn't CISPA, and crying wolf repeatedly about every bill just makes people less likely to care. If they really wanted to monitor everyone's activity, they'd just do it, and clean up the mess later.
If the search is reasonable, you don't need anything from a judge.
This doesn't mean you can go busting into places, but ...
I'm not sure how you are coming up with what you think is th analysis, but every law school textbook, supreme court opinion, etc, will tell you that you start with whether the search was reasonable.
If the search was reasonable by law , there is no 4th amendment violation. Period. Maybe you are confused because they often say these are not searches? For example, you will read that doing helicopter flyovers, even when looking in people's fields, is reasonable (which at the time, meant it wasn't a violation of the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy), and thus, not considered a search that is subject to the rest of the 4th amendment. This isn't because it's "not a search" in reality, it's because the 4th only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches and seizures, and thus, for the rest of 4th amendment purposes, it's not a search.
If the search was not reasonable, it either has to fall into an exception, or requires a warrant.
Now, current jurisprudence considers most searches without a warrant unreasonable (subject to plain sight, automobile exceptions, etc), but that is irrelevant to the steps in the analysis.
You seem to be mixing a lot of the analysis and requirements around.
I should be able to share the md5s of malware I found on my system with my direct competitor without being hit in the face by the Sherman Antitrust Act. I should also be able to disclose to my users/the public that I was hacked in the first place, without fear of being sued.
Are you seriously saying these aren't problems?
Again, that makes it a bit of a non-starter, regardless of what problem it's attempting to solve.
Furthermore, you don't have to invite anyone into your home if you don't want to, and yet even further you can tell the people you ask to come into your home to not share the information they find with the police. No idea why you would do that, but you absolutely can.
What they can't do, is give someone like me private info from user accounts. And they don't need to. And that's the way it should be. Do you really want me reading your private messages with impunity because I'm investigating a security incident? And do you want me to then share it with all of the other companies involved in the breach? Do you care if I leave dirty messages between you and your wife on an unencrypted hard drive somewhere, and people read it? Under current laws, I'd be liable for that (if I actually needed it in the first place).
You shouldn't.
Under CISPA, I can't be charged or sued for any action taken in good faith. I'll just say "oops, sorry, it was an honest mistake while investigating a security incident".
(Not that this use case has anything to do with what is actually motivating CISPA anyway, but I will refrain from repeating myself)
Also, for what it's worth, I've worked with AV industry groups and they all share not only hashes, but actual samples as well. Every single one of them. I'm not talking passing around an interesting sample or two, but full, multi-gigabyte feeds. I don't know where people get the idea that they can get sued for this; it's silly and it's not true.
And Facebook has no obligation to disclose breaches, not legally, anyway. Where did you get that information? And even if they somehow do have a special obligation, most companies do not, so it's not really relevant. The example is apocryphal.
And AV isn't who this is about, it's about the people who make a living off of having indicators you don't have. I shouldn't have to hire a company who's been hired by everyone else to get the collective knowledge of what hackers look like. They're criminals, and the government takes care of criminals.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_breach_notification_la...
For someone repeatedly making demonstrably false assertions, you are oddly sure of yourself. You're not even challenging a viewpoint here, you're just straight up talking out of your ass. You should stop doing that.