Originally Posted by deprav

So Lets see how they define cyberthreat :

"
‘(4) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘cyber threat information’ means information directly pertaining to--[*]‘(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity;
‘(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network;
‘(iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or
‘(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity.

"

Or

‘(6) CYBERSECURITY CRIME- The term ‘cybersecurity crime’ means--
‘(A) a crime under a Federal or State law that involves--

‘(i) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network;
‘(ii) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network; or
‘(iii) efforts to exfiltrate information from a system or network without authorization;


Basically means that anyone expressing a negative opinion about the government or a company can be considered as a "threat". Basically everyone.
It also make investigative journalism, or the revelation of abject positions and choices of govt or company leaders, fall under "cybersecurity crime".
And i'm not sure but "effort to deny access to" could simply be seen as "setting a password"...

And people who generally hack their way to sensible informations in order to reveal those to the public, not physically hurting anyone, and trying to bring some "justice" in that money world, those people are fuckin heroes.

Anyway, I quoted only that part because a huge part of the bill is politic/lawyer giberish for me; plus it's not my mother tongue. But some lawyers and people with far more knowledges and experience in that area took the time to "popularise" its content, and explained how it is a danger for people and their liberty. If everyone had the knowledges and will to understand those bills, they wouldn't even bother trying to make them !
But thanks to the people who bother explaining to us, the mass, what's really at stake.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

No. NO.


It does not mean anyone that expresses a negative opinion is a threat.
It is EXACTLY as it says. A vulnerability, a threat to the integrity, confidentiality or availability, or an effort to deny, disrupt or destroy a system.

This is nothing to do with having a negative opinion.

Why do you quote one part then say it proves something COMPLETELY different?

i) defines it as a vulnerability, something that makes a system vulnerable to attack, for example a misconfigured ssh server.
ii) says it can be something that causes a risk of integrity or confidentiality or availability of a system to fail, for example a virus that could corrupt or steal data or take a system offline.
iii) is obviously a counter to DoS and DDoS attacks

Where the hell did you pull your garbage from?

Originally Posted by deprav

i) ok, so that would imply a threat coming from the inside of the company/gvnmt, or a mistake.
ii) "A threat to the integrity, confidentiality... of ANY information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network"

Do you know the number of informations transiting on a company/govt server ? a threat to the confidentiality of ANY information is totally retarded, even things we know are stored or transit through those servers. Means if you talk about itor express an opinion you're basically a "threat".
And "integrity" have multiple definitions : unity/"wholeness", and honesty (following a moral line). That makes it totally borderline, they could choose among a good bunch of words, they chose "integrity".
> that's a blow to freedom of speech

Originally Posted by deprav

iii) efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity

Yep the DoS/DDoS aspect works ofc, if you think about big companies n shit. But you can also read it the other way, someone's PC, e-mail adress, or a group network (an information website offices or newspaper for exemple), are private entities, and people won't allow anyone to access his/their private informations for no reasons, therefore that's denying the access to a private entity, that's a "threat".
> private informations in danger.

Originally Posted by deprav

It's purely and simply a totalitarian drift. And plenty organizations, like Reporters Sans Frontiшres (Reporters without borders) among others, are worried about it. It's not an armless bill to fight terrorism as you seem to think.

"Where the hell did you pull your garbage from?"

Critical thinking I guess, you should try it someday.
You're asking for quotes but you're reading it like a child. I'm pretty sure you were already convinced before you started reading the whole thing anyway.

Originally Posted by Velair

CISPA is just legislative backup for what the U.S. government has been already doing secretly (and possibly illegally) -- violating our online privacy rights.