Tech companies lobbying for CISA are abandoning their users' privacy

A week after the Win10 release (still seeing red because of the privacy issues), picked up an older laptop (wanted something super Linux-friendly) with legacy BIOS and haven't been this happy with an OS in over a decade.

My biggest worry now is that Open Source Software with strong privacy rights policy might be pressured by government/politicians, commercial entities and general public apathy to engage in the same kind of illegal data-mining for so-called "national security" reasons.

At the rate we're going, it's inevitable.

Apple and Tim Cook in particular have generally been on the side of user privacy, of sticking with encryption even when it's causing friction with law enforcement, but they have also unlocked phones and computers when compelled by a court order.

It stands to reason that they be forced to disclose personal information, that they may have to hand over cloud-hosted files, email, or messages, or unlock devices.

As far as I know Apple has never tapped into someone's system to retrieve information from the operating system. The equipment in question has always been in the immediate possession of law enforcement individuals.

This is a thorny issue, everyone's idea of "acceptable behaviour" varies considerably.

Plus, if in the future Apple is compelled by law to allow remote access to systems under certain circumstances, things will change considerably.

(i) No Liability For Non-Participation.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to subject any entity to liability for choosing not to engage in the voluntary activities authorized in this Act.

Reading through the bill, it seems like this is a well-intentioned attempt to promote data sharing between corporations and security agencies in the event of a widespread cyberattack. There are definite use cases for a law like this. For example, if both Lockheed Martin and Boeing are hit by a cyberattack, under this bill they are allowed to coordinate and mitigate the attack using data from both parties. But the enormous flaw in this bill is that there are only vague restrictions on the type of data allowed to be shared. These restrictions are so vague that an unscrupulous company could send all their customers' private data to the government under the context of this law.

The US needs reform on its cybersecurity defense and this bill is a step towards change. But with the potential for abuse this bill is a huge step backwards. Hopefully there are other ways to improve US cybersecurity defense without compromising civil liberties.

You can find a copy of the bill, including a short summary of each section, at the link below:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754

Government couldn't have gotten it if you didn't collect it. Why should you be held responsible for storing data in an insecure fashion (which given the long arm of the government, translates to storing the data at all). This is especially true of data the average user isn't considering as being captured/stored, such as Microsoft's grabbing everything you do and storing it.

Google image search of "PRIVACY IS DEAD" + bus didn't turn up anything. Then I dropped the quotes and replaced dead with NSA, and got a bunch of bis pics with THANK YOU EDWARD SNOWDEN, so I don't think Google is part of this conspiracy.

People use Google countless times per day for a plethora of purposes, many of which are smoothly functioning and immensely powerful tools which are given freely.

How many times do you interact with your city, state, or federal government per day? What about per decade?

I don't get this. Are people expecting companies to break the law? Is this data hand-off voluntary?

The grey zone between privacy and public keeps morphing. Problem is what kind of data/information should be public and what should not be public. And in what form? In what timeframe? Some information could be very benificial for one (company, person, government, institution, etc.) , but have horrible consequences for others.

But they seem to be orders of magnitude better at keeping it safe than, let's say, your government or health insurance companies that have orders of magnitude more data than Google.

I trust more my data with a business than with a government. Business have a lot to lose by leaking or selling your data, governments couldn't care less.

More users = more noise = more anonymity.

I believe the Microsoft case in Ireland is about this question.

Edit: see also curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-09/cp150106en.pdf

"The Advocate General considers furthermore that the access enjoyed by the United States intelligence services to the transferred data constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life and the right to protection of personal data, which are guaranteed by the Charter. Likewise, the inability of citizens of the EU to be heard on the question of the surveillance and interception of their data in the United States amounts, in the Advocate General’s view, to an interference with the right of EU citizens of the to an effective remedy, protected by the Charter."

=> therefore the "safe harbour" allowing the export of private data from the EU to US servers can and should be suspended.