Posted by: bittertruth May 4, 2012
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
sajha, I've read the PDF and I've never said or conveyed, that I've written it. I just drew my conclusion from what I understood. Certain use of words on the bill is little vague and it gives enough room for skepticism and assumptions. But when I said TOR could be a history, it says it right there. CISPA in it's 'current form' could see TOR as a potential threat . Did you really read the phrase 'Current Form' at my comment above?? btw, I'm not justifying this bill, I'm analyzing it and it's no-brainer. What made you think I'm justifying it? Didn't you read my comments for and against it? and why I made comments both ways??
Did you also read "CISPA could be more focused on security than privacy" the statement that I've posted in the comment above?
My original intent is CISPA be enforced.
My current intent is CISPA be enforced..
B U T, not in it's current state. If you carefully went through my posts, I've equally supported and dejected CISPA for it's Privacy concerns.
We need protection from cyber threat(read comments I made above for WHY before making another comment on this say), CISPA could be proven essentially helpful but not at the expense of endusers privacy taken down at "extreme" level, I've to say NO.
In conclusion, " We need CISPA but it should and must address Privacy Concerns of enduser so that it's not violated the way it's now"
PS:
1. How do you police and prevent an attacker........
-First off, enduser must update it's system to the latest to ensure it's free of all malwares or trojans..
-Second off, if they don't comply, their system must be taken down( That's what Government is doing,)
Well fortified system is not only hard to break in but impossible :D
This is how you can prevent an attacker from injecting malwares on to your PC.
2. And if they happen to find out about the attacker's trace, TOR could give them hard time and nobody likes to have a hard time to get job done. They will shut down TOR because it's a barrier. And TOR is a private company with very little workforce. If you are thinking any other open-source will rise up, they'll be black-listed or outlawed. This is the dark side of the impact of this bill that could happen and which in my opinion is little extreme. Like I wrote before, we need some changes and specific addressing on what their intent is not the vague one like it is now.
And, you don't need to be an egoic to prove you are right.
We all are right on our own judgements, We are only wrong when we spend our energy to prove another wrong. I've no intention to prove you wrong.
Did you also read "CISPA could be more focused on security than privacy" the statement that I've posted in the comment above?
My original intent is CISPA be enforced.
My current intent is CISPA be enforced..
B U T, not in it's current state. If you carefully went through my posts, I've equally supported and dejected CISPA for it's Privacy concerns.
We need protection from cyber threat(read comments I made above for WHY before making another comment on this say), CISPA could be proven essentially helpful but not at the expense of endusers privacy taken down at "extreme" level, I've to say NO.
In conclusion, " We need CISPA but it should and must address Privacy Concerns of enduser so that it's not violated the way it's now"
PS:
1. How do you police and prevent an attacker........
-First off, enduser must update it's system to the latest to ensure it's free of all malwares or trojans..
-Second off, if they don't comply, their system must be taken down( That's what Government is doing,)
Well fortified system is not only hard to break in but impossible :D
This is how you can prevent an attacker from injecting malwares on to your PC.
2. And if they happen to find out about the attacker's trace, TOR could give them hard time and nobody likes to have a hard time to get job done. They will shut down TOR because it's a barrier. And TOR is a private company with very little workforce. If you are thinking any other open-source will rise up, they'll be black-listed or outlawed. This is the dark side of the impact of this bill that could happen and which in my opinion is little extreme. Like I wrote before, we need some changes and specific addressing on what their intent is not the vague one like it is now.
And, you don't need to be an egoic to prove you are right.
We all are right on our own judgements, We are only wrong when we spend our energy to prove another wrong. I've no intention to prove you wrong.