> but the truth is that we really do need some improvements and clarifications of certain laws to help companies improve their security.
Oh, well, since you put together such a persuasive argument.
Oh, well, since you put together such a persuasive argument.
What you see from groups like the ACLU, EFF, Demand Progress, etc. is opposition to the specific language in CISPA, not opposition to the concept of a cybersecurity bill in general. They did not oppose the Senate bill last year for instance.
Please try to be less obvious about your lack of arguments.
So I take it that you don't realize this is a logical error called Argumentum ad populum?
"The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed" is more directly argumentum ad hominem, and, particularly, abusive ad hominem.
http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/abusive.htm
Its also, simultaneously, petitio principii since claiming that disagreement with an argument can only be due to ignorance to support an argument is equivalent to claiming that the argument is true to support the argument.
The argument that only a minority of misinformed people hold a particular view is a negative version of Argument ad populum. Apart from that, I agree with your analysis.
It is harder to make a substantive case against the need for a cybersecurity bill because to do that, one would have to actually know what one is talking about.
Here is an example of the sort of distortion that the current legal environment is causing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732488360457839...
I hope you will consider the idea that if companies feel forced into going to lawyers for network security advice, the system might benefit from a bit of tweaking.
(Ah, recursion...)