Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Have any of you actually read the executive order? If not, did you perhaps notice who the sources were for the stories being written about it today?

There was a cybersecurity order on the table last year (it wasn't enacted). HN got up in arms about it. Some of us read it. Guess what? It concerned itself almost entirely with the operational security of the federal government itself (which operates the world's largest IT departments). The places where it stepped past instructing DOE how to secure their networks were to create educational programs to get more people doing information security. It contained no provisions at all that would have given the government access to private entities networks.

I haven't read this executive order, but if I was going to place a bet about it, it would be that everyone hyperventilating about "king complexes" on HN is being played.

View on HN

Are you talking about this? http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/White-...

The "new" EO is virtually identical to that one, yes.

(I think I got "educational programs", which IIRC was from Rockefeller's draft bill, confused with "outside consultation" from this order.)

I did a clause-by-clause comparison (you're welcome! all part of the service I provide) and while there are minor deltas (like which sentence of a clause the Attorney General appears in, or whether deadlines are 90 days or 120 days) it's the same thing:

* Coordinate better in managing FedGov systems

* Figure out a way to relay threat info from FedGov to private sector

* Inventory the US for computer systems that if disabled could kill people

* Reach out to owners of those systems to help them not be owned up over old dialup modems everyone forgot about

I remember a time not long ago when skepticism of government was considered healthy, even here on HN.

There's not that fine a line between skepticism and ignorant paranoia. Many people here on HN react in a paranoid manner to government initiatives without bothering to even read the proposals or educate themselves about the situation beyond what they hear from the echo chamber.

The government has earned a very large dose of paranoia. They keep trying to intentionally rob us of our liberty, and they've been doing it mostly as behind-closed-doors as they can get away with.

The old joke is it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. The government keeps demonstrating it's really out to get us, or specifically it wants vast new powers over every remaining corner of freedom, including the Internet.

It doesn't matter what they've earned. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You can't mitigate your wrongness by saying you came by it honestly.

(That goes for me too, of course. Totally possible I'm wrong.)

You come off as overly authoritarian in your comments such that a chance for measured discussion is I think probably often quelled by your domineering attitude.

Since the last decade our civil liberties have only been eroding -- that is the trend, not the opposite of that or something. So a good amount of leeriness is probably healthy and very well warranted. It's great that you're reading the executive orders and getting down to things, but please don't go off on those who by default take the position of skepticism. There's a reason they are that way, and that reason is a pretty good one.

This attitude drives me nuts. It's a message board. What do you want from me? We're not settling public policy, we're discussing it. How does it help anyone for me to issue prolix disclaimers about how certain I am about things? How does that even matter? If you think I'm wrong, say I'm wrong, and preferably, why you think that. If I agree, I'll say so. I'll do the same.

I have no actual "authority" on HN.

Don't you know that HN is srsbusiness.

You're dodging the point. Being skeptical does not give you license to be ignorant. That is to say it's possible to believe that our civil liberties have been eroding for the last decade* and base it on actual evidence instead of knee-jerk reactions to any government action.

*) And I tend to agree with you. The history of the U.S. has been a waxing and waning of civil liberties, and I think we're in a waning point right now. That said, the long term trend has been towards more liberty.

Are you really arguing, that we should wait for the President to issue secret orders and then sit together around the camp fire in order to discuss them? Is this your understanding of a democratic process?

Afaik only some leaked drafts have been circulating around and speculations have been going wild. After the PIPA/SOPA backslash are you honestly expecting "good intentions" when the a president is trying to get a very similar subject "solved" by circumventing public discourse?

I don't think you actually read my comment. I think you skimmed it, determined "this guy supports executive orders", and started yelling.

Even if the executive order had been a recapitulation of CISPA, CISPA has nothing at all to do with PIPA and SOPA.

But it most probably isn't a recapitulation of CISPA; it is simply a series of directives on how the federal government should secure their own networks.

If the order is secret, than how do you know how it will ultimately be worded? And if the subject is so clear cut as you are trying to let it look, than why was it impossible to pass it through a more democratic process?

Executive orders are a clear signal, that a President is unable to get a majority of delegates behind a specific agenda point. We have seen over and over again that under the cover of good intentions bad things are sneaked upon the public - and presidential orders are the ideal tool to accomplish this.

Yes, the fact that Obama can't get consent from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a sure sign that he's up to no good.

Your first statement on that subject that I wholeheartedly agree on.

I can completely understand that he is trying to circumvent the House on partisan issues (e.g. welfare, health care, etc) and avoiding compromises on his key agenda points.

But if he is unable to create consent on a deeply hawk'ish issue such as defense, then there is something seriously wrong - either with the president or with the proposal. Considering that there he is still part of an active political process - even across party lines (e.g. fiscal cliff) - the problem is not with the president - but apparently with the proposal.

He can't even get his (Republican) SecDef candidate confirmed. I'm sorry, I know that in the frictionless intellectual void that is message board arguments, it makes sense that Obama should be able to get bipartisan consent for defense measures, but in the real world that simply isn't so.

The controversy on Hagel's nomination has very little to do with his party line. Instead his questionable views on Israel are making him a choice that is difficult to sell - both to Republicans as well as Democrats.

Not saying that Hagel is such an outliner, but it is easy to nominate a fringe candidate of the other party and then pointing fingers when his own party does not support his views. Of cause something as sneaky as that would be unimaginable in real-world politics, and I am probably just watching too much House of Cards.

I'm not sure where the executive order is published, if anywhere, but it's a direct response to the failed CISPA in Congress. EFF criticized CISPA as violating 4th amendment rights by giving government new powers to spy on the public. Also opposed: Tim Berners-Lee, ACLU, Demand Progress, Reporters Without Borders, Mozilla, ACM.

Oh, look: a syllogism supported by a list of names and organizations, and not one fact about what's in the executive order that you haven't read, nor one direct concern about CISPA. Perhaps you could start by explaining why Tim Berners-Lee opposes CISPA. Maybe that explanation could include a firm statement about whether Berners-Lee read CISPA. It wouldn't be much of a knock on him if he hadn't; CISPA was the target of a huge fundraising effort by EFF.

Uh, the first line of CISPA is probably is big reason why EFF is critical and involved that 4th Amendment issue I mentioned (which is a direct concern about CISPA... where's your hostility coming from?). The Act is only 10 pages, I and many others read it.

"IN GENERAL.—The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."

In case it's vague which direction the sharing is allowed (it's both):

"[Private sector may] share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government."

Sharing is secret:

"shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code"

No recourse for sharing:

"No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self- protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith"

Also, quotes by everyone opposed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_...

Edit: to reply to your next comment, you frame this as centered on "attacks" but it's more generally characterized as "threats" and also includes any intellectual property theft (which broadens this by several orders of magnitude). And it also includes efforts to degrade a network. Pretty sure my cell phone provider thinks I've made efforts to degrade their network and steal IP since Android was released.

You think the government should be enjoined from sharing attack information with private companies?

You think private companies should be enjoined from sharing attack information with the government?

You thought maybe attack information for ongoing investigations should be shared with the public?

Exactly what was it that you thought was happening when banks called in the FBI after compromises?

I read the article that Berners-Lee's quote appears on and I stand by my previous statement. I think it is reasonable to ask whether he read the bill, or whether he got it summarized for him by EFF. I do not think EFF was intellectually honest about CISPA. That's a problem, because EFF opposition to a bill is a quick way to generate opposing quotes from a laundry list of Internet luminaries.

Believe it or not, I am probably just as opposed to Internet power grabs by the government as you are. I just I think I'm required to read and think carefully about measures before I stridently condemn them; I did that here and came to different conclusions than you did.

I think the supporters of a law should be required to demonstrate that the problem it supposes to solve is real and even conceivably solvable by government action. In the absence of that it's safe to condemn any legislation on the topic, particularly when there's such a bad track record of alternately useless and harmful laws in the subject areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com