×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who Needs CISPA? FBI Has a Non-Profit Workaround

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the one-goal-many-routes dept.

Government 79

nonprofiteer writes "What has been left out of the CISPA debate thus far is the FBI's long time workaround for information sharing with private industry: 'In 1997, long-time FBI agent Dan Larkin helped set up a non-profit based in Pittsburgh that "functions as a conduit between private industry and law enforcement." Its industry members, which include banks, ISPs, telcos, credit card companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others can hand over cyberthreat information to the non-profit, called the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA), which has a legal agreement with the government that allows it to then hand over info to the FBI. Conveniently, the FBI has a unit, the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, stationed in the NCFTA's office. Companies can share information with the 501(c)6 non-profit that they would be wary of (or prohibited from) sharing directly with the FBI.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

79 comments

OSDev is morons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39822969)

God says...
C:\Text\QUIX.TXT

nts that day, and the first thing that came before him
was a question that was submitted to him by a stranger, in the presence
of the majordomo and the other attendants, and it was in these words:
"Senor, a large river separated two districts of one and the same
lordship--will your worship please to pay attention, for the case is an
important and a rather knotty one? Well then, on this river there was a
bridge, and at one end of it a gallows, and a sort of tribunal, where
four judges commonly sat to

In other words, (5, Insightful)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#39822993)

who needs laws in a country ruled by money?

Complain or act? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39823111)

I love to hear people complain about how corrupt and hopeless government is. And then do nothing about it.

Sure, you can't get your politicians to fix it for you because they are the problem.

So why aren't more people working on getting rid of the politicians [metagovernment.org] . It is a long and difficult road, but... what precisely is the alternative?

Re:Complain or act? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39823317)

And besides posting a link what have you been doing?

Re:Complain or act? (2)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#39823349)

So why aren't more people working on getting rid of the politicians

They need to vote to do that[1].

However given that >90% of those who actually vote, vote for one of the Two Parties, go figure. The people are voting for what they want. If the people actually want something different they should vote accordingly. Just because you think what the people want is stupid doesn't mean your vote should be worth more than theirs. You should educate and convince them to vote differently.

[1] And if you think people should use bullets instead, you'd just end up with a Dictatorship. When violence is the method of choosing leaders, you usually end up with a leader that has proven himself willing and capable of exerting the most violence. And not surprisingly no one else in the country can stop him from doing whatever he wants. And that is why most Communist Revolutions end up as Dictatorships.

Re:Complain or act? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39823545)

Voting for third party at the Legislature, governor, and Congressional level is appropriate. We have established history where third parties have won seats in all these positions.

Re:Complain or act? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39823737)

I see you are continuing to confuse "it is worth it to vote 3rd party" with "this 3rd party guy has a chance of winning".

Thank you for continuing to be a part of the problem.

Re:Complain or act? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39824563)

Voting for another politician does not get rid of the politicians. It just gets rid of the current lot. It makes no difference in the end. Third party politicians are still politicians (and usually totally insane ones at that).

People vote for the major parties because that is all they are exposed to, and they are constantly reminded that doing anything else would be useless and un-American. And it might let the greater of two evils win. Ew.

People shouldn't use bullets. They shouldn't use votes for politicians. What we need is something new. Good thing we have this internet thingy. It is new. And it allows people to collaborate in entirely new ways. We now use it for every kind of collaboration: except the most important one. Try clicking the link in the OP: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Main_Page [metagovernment.org]

Re:Complain or act? (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 2 years ago | (#39825253)

However given that >90% of those who actually vote, vote for one of the Two Parties, go figure.

I get what you're saying, and you're absolutely right, but I'll tell you something, I voted my conscience twice, in both 2000 and 2004, and we ended up with that fucking asshole Bush both times. You'll have to forgive the proles if they're reticent to keep bashing their heads against the wall and "voting their conscience". I've argued and debated and circulated petitions and fact-checked and provided evidence until I've been blue in the face and it doesn't fucking make a difference, not because people are unintelligent necessarily, but because the fact that they're working their fucking asses off and trying to keep their heads above water precludes the majority being informed on the issues even cursorily. All they get is the couple hours between dinner and bedtime to get their information and then it's back to work. If they've got young kids, forget it.

This entire country is caught up in a giant Prisoner's Dilemma, and unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime soon, and certainly not peacefully. Nobody wants it to get to that point (nobody sane, anyway) but I really honestly believe we're in a positive feedback loop now. Civil disobedience begets the curtailing of our rights in the name of 'security' which begets civil disobedience and on and on we go. Hell, Thomas Jefferson thought revolution was a sign of a healthy society [foundersquotes.com] .

Re:Complain or act? (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#39829727)

As long as the elections aren't being diebolded, the voters voted for those people, and so the voters should get what they voted for, however bad it is. That's what democracy is about - the majority getting what they deserve rather than worse (or extremely rarely- better) than what they deserve.

Using nonpeaceful ways of solving the problem is likely to give you a worse problem as I have already mentioned.

Revolution is unnecessary in a democracy if the voters do their duty responsibly. Because in a democracy the voters can change the entire leadership without any bloodshed- how much more of a revolution do you really need?

The USA has a diverse voter population, so it's going to be hard for a politician to please everyone on most things - they are just going to have to settle for being the least bad choice.

The metagovernment thing one poster goes on about isn't going to solve the problem when you have diverse irreconcilable opinions - people are going to be unhappy.

The problem I see is voters are poorly educated and do not take their responsibilities seriously - and just take the time to inform themselves once every few years.

By the way that's another reason why I think the libertarians are incompetent or malicious. If they think the voters are so stupid and can't even vote well every few years, what makes them think the voters would vote optimally with their wallets every day when the corporations are way more powerful than the Government? The libertarians obsession with quantity of Government rather than quality will not serve the people well.

Re:Complain or act? (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 2 years ago | (#39832725)

As long as the elections aren't being diebolded, the voters voted for those people, and so the voters should get what they voted for, however bad it is. That's what democracy is about - the majority getting what they deserve rather than worse (or extremely rarely- better) than what they deserve.

The problem I see is voters are poorly educated and do not take their responsibilities seriously - and just take the time to inform themselves once every few years.

Poor voter education is completely intentional on the part of the people currently in power (the democrat/republican/corporate oligarchy). Ignorant people are easier to manipulate and it's easier to keep them ignorant if you make the subject matter as esoteric, opaque, and generally inaccessible as possible. You don't need to make laws in secret if you make the proceedings so boring that nobody can tolerate watching them.

Maybe we need to take the robot chicken idea and combine c-span with x-games.

Re:Complain or act? (0)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39823439)

I love to hear people complain about how corrupt and hopeless government is. And then do nothing about it.

Doing nothing is consistent with beliving that it is hopeless.

Sure, you can't get your politicians to fix it for you because they are the problem.

The single most effective thing the average individual could do about that is to get their children out of the public schools. Large numbers of people not doing this is the origin of the environment in which the politicians we known today are the most successful. We have a majority of people who care more about whether Zimmerman is a racial minority than about whether the nation is going to financially collapse. And we have a system of schooling designed to retard emotional and intellectual maturity which makes this possible (and it's pathetic anyone even considers that controversial -- it is painfully obvious).

Until you fix that, the rest is indeed hopeless.

Re:Complain or act? (1)

pipatron (966506) | about 2 years ago | (#39823655)

Yeah, I mean, just look at how crappy everything is in Europe. A democratic disaster. Obviously public schooling is the root of all evil.

Re:Complain or act? (1)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39826949)

Yeah, I mean, just look at how crappy everything is in Europe. A democratic disaster. Obviously public schooling is the root of all evil.

Hehe that's so cute, the way you can write a one-liner dismissing something in a nice smug way instead of informing yourself [cantrip.org] about it [johntaylorgatto.com] . All of that is just too much work! Besides, it makes you feel good about yourself like that other guy must just be such an idiot! I mean, actually putting forth a viewpoint and trying to contribute, what was he thinking?! 'Course, you know that's the only way a lot of people ever feel "good" about anything.

Re:Complain or act? (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 2 years ago | (#39832789)

Take your kids out of school if you want, but don't get rid of free public schools. After all, would you rather have "improperly" educated poor people, or poor people with no formal education whatsoever?

When you think about your taxes spent on public school, don't think "I'm paying to teach someone else's kid", instead think "I'm helping to prevent illiteracy and ignorance". Unless, ofcourse, an uneducated proletariat is your personal goal.

Re:Complain or act? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39823741)

Because a different set of politicians will make any difference? That they are somehow magically incorruptable?

Re:Complain or act? (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#39828769)

Do you have any idea how hard it is to find a fumigation tent big enough to cover all of D.C.?

Re:In other words, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39823171)

How do you think they make their money without the laws to protect them? Duhhhhhhhhhh.

Re:In other words, (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39823295)

who needs laws in a country ruled by money?

The film Network summed it up nicely. The protagonist, Howard Beale, meets with a tycoon named Jesson. Among other things, Jesson says to him:

"YOU HAVE MEDDLED WITH THE PRIMAL FORCES OF NATURE, MR. BEALE, AND I WON'T HAVE IT! Is that clear?! You think you merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity, it is ecological balance!

"You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations! There are no peoples! There are no Russians, there are no Arabs, there are no Third Worlds, there is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU... WILL... ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

"You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today.

"What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state? Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime.

"And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel."


That's how they think. They don't see the dehumanization.

Re:In other words, (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39823829)

That's how they think. They don't see the dehumanization.

No, they see it, they just rationalize it;
They're just lazy! If they really wanted a job, they'd have one.
Poor people want to be poor.
They're oppressing themselves.
I am successful because of my ________, not because of luck.
Some are born to lead, the rest follow.
...

The rich overwhelmingly rationalize their behavior with the belief in a natural moral order. Survival of the fittest, predators verus prey, white versus black, strong versus weak. They view their every achievement through the lens of that belief, and inevitably conclude they have the fortune they do because they deserve it because of intrinsic qualities which have them at the top of the natural moral order. This thinking has strong parallels with monarchies and the concept of divine rule. It is also why the rich are overwhelmingly conservative in nature; If the difference between liberalism and conservativism was boiled down to a single ideological statement, it would be that "conservatives believe in a natural moral order, with some humans being inherently superior to others, and liberals believe in a peer to peer relational model, where individual achievement is the result of good teamwork."

If you have something others want, it's only natural as a defense mechanism to loudly proclaim you deserve it and shouldn't have to share; Whereas if you are one of the people that wants something you don't have, it's just as natural to proclaim others have to share. That's the curveball; This isn't liberal or conservative thinking, but whenever one is confronted by the other, the argument usually is an exchange of these two statements. So be careful when you hear statements similar to this, or pronunciations of "fairness" or "equality" -- they could be based on self-interest, not ideology.

In the end, neither group's ideology leads to its stated objective; Too much of either leads to societal collapse; With a strict social hierarchy, capitalism fails because workers cannot move into positions where their skills and abilities are most optimal; People who do not possess natural leadership ability would be leading, and people who did wouldn't; The net result is gross inefficiency. The reverse is also true; Large-scale democracy has never been possible in any context... it begins to break down with as little as a few thousand people, and consensus (majority vote) can take so long that the window of opportunity passes before action can be taken.

I would like to think that anyone who takes the time to critically consider these two ideologies, as well as the problem of wealth inequity, would come to realize that our system, as corrupt and inefficient as it is, is mostly the correct one. I say mostly because it has become too top-heavy; There will (and must) be a stratification of wealth -- there will always be poor people, and will always be rich people, however the majority of the wealth in the system should be concentrated in the middle. For as many millionares as are generated in a year, the number of people who are economically destitute should be the same; It should ideally resemble a bell curve, and with the GDP in this country, the median income is about $42,000 right now -- that's what most people should be making as well.

The system has become unbalanced; And it actually has nothing to do with ideologies, but instead is the result of investment. Compound interest is what has caused the problem -- and the solution is to prevent cash from becoming stagnant. There should be a limit to the amount of unsed assets a person (or organization) can possess; Companies and individuals shouldn't have billions in cash reserves sitting there, doing nothing. For an economy to grow -- and for wealth inequity to cease, money needs to change hands. There needs to be an increase in trade. It's macroeconomics 101, but sadly, it's been "overlooked" by certain social elements to the detriment of us all. That is the real culprit in our economy.

Re:In other words, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39824229)

I mostly agree, except with the final analysis. The wealth of billionaires is rarely left in cash doing nothing. It is almost always invested in businesses (either directly or through the stockmarket). Even if money is just left in the bank it is lent out and furthers economic activity.

I think the problem is more to do with automation. We are moving towards a society where most of us won't have to work, but nobody's figured out a way to distribute the wealth other than through work.

Re:In other words, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39826083)

But some humans are inherently superior to others, and this is blindingly obvious. Even if you control for economics and class, some people are smarter, more athletic, more intuitive, and just plain more successful than others. Everyone is somewhere on a bell curve. That includes a few incredible outliers at the top (those geniuses whose contributions help improve things for the entire human race) and a few useless souls right at the very bottom (who beg on street corners and contribute absolutely nothing).

Re:In other words, (1)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39827107)

No, they see it, they just rationalize it

Don't confuse the means with the result.

Rationalization is the primary (but not the only) means by which they avoid seeing it. It cushions the full horror, brings it back down to being within the realm of denial. It avoids nasty questions like what responsibility one bears for participating.

You wonder how people can do such stupid things, make such bad decisions, embrace and defend things which are so contrary to their interests? It is not because they don't see what is in front of them. It is because they can lie to themselves about what it means. You think Stockholm syndrome only happens during wartime when the worst atrocities occur? In what you could call micro-transactions average people accept, internalize and identify with external ideas constantly, at which time they sincerely believe it originated with themselves. It takes up residence.

In our society you are rewarded and thought of as "good" and "easygoing" if you are skilled at lying to yourself in this way. If you are blunt and honest without malice about what you see, that makes all but the most noble people uncomfortable. Most would rather forget how much not-seeing they have learned to do and the mess of inner conflict it has implanted in them. Each time they do it, which is on a daily basis, adds to the totality of what they would have to confront at once if they suddenly became aware of it. The longer it goes on the more difficult it is to regain the awareness that can call things exactly what they are. A counter-example makes them feel ashamed and insecure, which is what they have earned for themselves.

That's the inertia which prevents real change.

Re:In other words, (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39835385)

I say this rarely on slashdot, so if you are reading it, be proud. I agree completely with everything you just said. I'm not sure what other mechanisms exist besides rationalization, however; It is an umbrella term that describes any thinking process that normalizes something 'wrong' into something 'acceptable'. You go into more detail in your post about a couple thought patterns, but I don't see how it departs from the umbrella of rationalizations.

Re:In other words, (1)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39852853)

I say this rarely on slashdot, so if you are reading it, be proud. I agree completely with everything you just said. I'm not sure what other mechanisms exist besides rationalization, however; It is an umbrella term that describes any thinking process that normalizes something 'wrong' into something 'acceptable'. You go into more detail in your post about a couple thought patterns, but I don't see how it departs from the umbrella of rationalizations.

I appreciate the compliment. Not the rarity, or lack thereof, but the fact that you will not compromise your criteria for what you will and won't accept as true. That's what I would expect from a real person who cares about the Truth. That is refreshing to me anywhere I encounter it. It never gets old. It is novel each time.

We're in danger of quibbling at this point, because my answer to you is not really intended to contradict you. It is possible for you and I to have different opinions on precisey what constitutes "rationalization". The only matter of import is that we both would recognize when someone is engaging in a form of denial, and we both would recognize this to be wrong. That's because (I hope) we both have a deep, heart-felt love of what is Real and True and see the folly (and misery) of investing oneself in anything less than that. If we have that in common, the specific terms we would use are just "to-may-toe" and "to-mah-toe".
Having said that ... for me, the significant difference is that the person who rationalizes at least pays lip service to reason and rationality and admits they are good things. Their error is that they try to force-fit a square peg into a round hole; they take what is not rational and try to frame it in rational terms, as though that could lend an aura of reason to what is not remotely reasonable. But they do recognize the importance of reason and they disguise their personal shortcomings by trying to portray them as some kind of inevitable outcome of a reasonable thought process. Their real flaw is that they think reason is something they can declare and invent, rather than something they discover and submit to. You can see the arrogance in that.

There are other people who are entirely different. They don't even pretend to be authoritative. They are completely authoritarian. They don't pretend that what they want is arrived at by some kind of process of reasoning. They are completely emotional. If it feels good, or might feel good, or might "stick it" to something they dislike, they do it, even if they know it is irrational. To them reason is on equal footing with emotion. To them, it is not superior to emotion. Their passions are not governed by any overriding influence, making them like the loose cannon which threatens to sink the ship. They neither pretend to be rational nor do they see a need to do so. Not surprisingly, they are often self-destructive and tend not to perceive that as a result of their own decision-making. If you want a prototype, imagine the irresponsible woman who has lots of sex, uses no birth control, gets knocked up, has a bunch of children she cannot afford, and then complains that poverty sucks.

Re:In other words, (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39854277)

If you want a prototype, imagine the irresponsible woman who has lots of sex, uses no birth control, gets knocked up, has a bunch of children she cannot afford, and then complains that poverty sucks.

You just described my ex, perfectly. Naturally, she blamed me and told everyone it was my fault for months after. I'm not entirely sure how I was responsible for getting her pregnant, since that would require a magic, detachable, invisible, asexual, teleporting penis... but you know, pick and choose your battles. :)

What he described (0)

Quila (201335) | about 2 years ago | (#39824505)

One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock.

In the end, that basically describes worldwide communism.

Re:What he described (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39828325)

worldwide communism

There are no stock-holders in communism, because all gains and losses accumulate to the state. As long as a business is owned by people, the economic model is not communism. Possibly marxism.

Re:What he described (1)

Quila (201335) | about 2 years ago | (#39845101)

"One vast and ecumenical holding company" -- Everybody belongs to the same country

"for whom all men will work to serve a common profit" -- Everybody works for the good of the collective

"in which all men will hold a share of stock" -- Everyone's equal, so they hold an equal share of and interest in the collective

"all gains and losses accumulate to the state" - the state being the people. If the communist collective is successful then the quality of life (stock value) of all people will rise (I know it hasn't happened in history, but for argument's sake).

Re:In other words, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39829497)

They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions,

They did want to control the production of the whole country using a centralized computer system. Though they never completed the project, the management tools must have been employed far earlier already. Too bad the leadership never got that punishing for deviations from a quota or project goals leads to falsified information.

Duh (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#39822997)

Isn't this pretty obvious? I'm sure if you went into the Address Book of any CIO, they would have the cell phone and e-mail for the other CIOs. And it proves that CISPA is worthless, a waste of time, a distraction, and I want a refund of the salaries of elected officials wasting their time on this bill.

Turf War (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39822999)

So this whole CISPA thing is just an inter-agency turf war?

Not news (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39823009)

Private organizations and citizens can collect evidence that the police cannot due to legal restrictions. This is not news. However, sharing with a non-profit can still violate contractual agreements; This is what CISPA aims to kill, along with the notion that companies can refuse until a warrant is served. By removing all risk, law enforcement can just look at a company and say "Gee, that's a really nice data center you have there. A shame it would be if we had to search it for drugs..." And viola, instant and total compliance -- company lawyers can no longer say there's a liability, so even the slightest coerceion makes surrendering the data the right business move.

Re:Not news (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#39823279)

This is what the government (DHS) will use to acquire your online tax return. Your websurf history. Your down and uploads. And then prosecute you if you did something naughty (like look at a naked girl who's APPEARS to be under 18, or shared a movie via torrent).

Re:Not news (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 2 years ago | (#39826065)

As if any government agency exists that is so efficient it could look at every citizen's web surfing history and make those assessments with any degree of accuracy. Collecting a boatload of information has become easy. Filtering that information into useful and useless is the real trick- especially with the signal-to-noise ration being much higher. The government could try to monitor every citizen, but for real surveillance they would need closer to a 1:1 ratio of monitoring agents to citizens. So basically half the population would need to work for the government doing nothing but watching the other half.

Re:Not news (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 2 years ago | (#39829157)

Why would you need a bunch of employees sifting through the data? That's what data mining algorithms are for. And, in case you get the oddball thought that it has to be accurate or bust, just take a look at our no-fly list.

Re:Not news (1)

lpt1 (46613) | about 2 years ago | (#39831147)

Bleah. The government doesn't need to watch everybody, they just need to publicly prosecute a few.

Reference: Chilling Effect

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39828439)

Yeah, because they'd need to do anything beyond asking the IRS to get your tax return...

Re:Not news (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 2 years ago | (#39823529)

Private organizations and citizens can collect evidence that the police cannot due to legal restrictions. This is not news. However, sharing with a non-profit can still violate contractual agreements; This is what CISPA aims to kill, along with the notion that companies can refuse until a warrant is served. By removing all risk, law enforcement can just look at a company and say "Gee, that's a really nice data center you have there. A shame it would be if we had to search it for drugs..." And viola, instant and total compliance -- company lawyers can no longer say there's a liability, so even the slightest coerceion makes surrendering the data the right business move.

Well, yeah. Sure, but what's this all got to do with a small stringed musical instrument, which is usually played with a bow?

Re:Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39824437)

Private organizations and citizens can collect evidence that the police cannot due to legal restrictions. This is not news. However, sharing with a non-profit can still violate contractual agreements;

Sounds like the US is the opposite world of the Europe in this sense also. Left is right, right is wrong and so on.

Cue the downmod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39823017)

So basically the protesting is all for naught because the same sharing is already happening and has been for years. I'm sure the chicken littles will waste little time downmodding me because I disagree with them.

Re:Cue the downmod (2)

causality (777677) | about 2 years ago | (#39823519)

So basically the protesting is all for naught because the same sharing is already happening and has been for years.

That's the usual pattern. During Bush years we saw the same thing with warrantless wiretapping. You do something illegal for a good long time, which is okay as long as it benefits government. Then when it looks like people are becoming aware of it, you go back and make it legal to pretend like it was legitimate all along.

Naturally no one who did it back when it was illegal ever gets prosecuted. That would send the wrong message. That would send the message that you will be anything but rewarded for being compliant and giving the government whatever it wants.

The inverse is when they have all these phony media "debates" concerning something they're going to do anyway, like the Patriot Act or ever-restrictive copyright law. That way it looks less authoritarian. That way it looks more like the decision came from a careful review of opposing positions. But the decision is always in favor of more power and money for the government, more coziness with industry, and less privacy for us.

C I R F U (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39823033)

Say the letters, and know what they were thinking...

Dear Mr. NCFTA: (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 years ago | (#39823097)

I am afraid that we have moles in our company, Consolidated Blacksheep LLC, that are feeding infornation on our illegal activities in bid-rigging, international bribery for market position, political fixing, governmental espionage, and all around dirty deeds done dirt cheap. This information, in the right hands, could have a material effect on our profitability. Can you check to see if there is indeed such activity going on? Mr. Cayman Islands, heh, would like to meet with you.

signed,

CEO

Can't use in criminal case? (4, Insightful)

ShiftyOne (1594705) | about 2 years ago | (#39823119)

Interesting to think about whether the Fourth Amendment applies here. The Fourth Amendment only protects us from government action. This non-profit would be considered a private person, whom are only covered when they are acting in their capacity as an agent of the government. This is determined by the level of government involvement in the situation and the totality of the circumstances. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the facts here it seems like this non-profit would be considered an agent of the government, and therefore you may not be able to sue them for money damages, but the material they collect probably cannot be used as evidence in a crime.

Civil cases either (3, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#39823225)

and therefore you may not be able to sue them for money damages,

And since they are a non-profit, there's probably nothing you can sue them for in a civil case either. They'll just declare bankruptcy and open under a different name.

And you can't sue the private entities behind NCFTA, because that communication is protected as free speech.

Re:Can't use in criminal case? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39823331)

The rule is (an IANAL) If Law enforcement (DEA, FBI, Police) direct an agent to perform surveillance on an individual, property then the 4th Amendment applies.

However is a 3rd party chooses to conduct surveillance (even when guided by Law Enforcement in general terms) such evidence is the property of the 3rd party and it is perfectly legal to surrender your own property/evidence to Law Enforcement.

There may be privacy statutes that apply depending on how the recording was obtained. But in general the principle stands.

Essentially this falls into the "informant" exception.

Re:Can't use in criminal case? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39826751)

This non-profit would be considered a private person, whom are only covered when they are acting in their capacity as an agent of the government.

"Whom" is the objective case of "who". You are using it here as the subject. That is wrong.

Re:Can't use in criminal case? (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 2 years ago | (#39827289)

If a private company is working for the government (agent of government) then they are covered by the same laws as the government. If it's illegal to give the government a piece of information then it's illegal to give that info to a company who's job is giving that info to the government. If a non profit is knowingly breaking the law then the board of directors are personally liable.

Re:Can't use in criminal case? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#39831431)

..the whole nonprofit was setup to circumvent law.

and to give a nice job for a few people, nonprofit doesn't mean no-employees.

so while the fbi already has a solution for cispa.. which isn't maybe really news.. a comment above explains the shitfest quite nicely "who needs laws in a country ruled by money?". indeed, why bother with new laws if the companies and government agencies already circumvent the old laws when it suits them.

They've been sourcing out everything else, why not (3, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#39823129)

There has been a crazy boom [washingtonpost.com] in contracting out U.S. intelligence work in the last ten years. And hey, they even contract out [wikipedia.org] their torturing to other countries. So why not contract out their rape of the 4th Amendment too?

Where to start ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39823141)

First off .... If you're claiming to be a professional service, make sure your formatting is correct in EVERY BROWSER! (I hate that)

Now, I'm really trying to find out legally how they can do this, since they claim to be getting 'network data', and not 'personally identifiable information' from private industry, and being the conduit of that to Agecies of interest.

Non-profit? It started in 1997. Ok. Do a full IRS audit on every member from that point forward to confirm said 'Non-profit' status. Anyone want to take the over under on that outcome?

Re:Where to start ... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 years ago | (#39823321)

" make sure your formatting is correct in EVERY BROWSER" Code to the standard, not the browser. Well, that's the ideal anyway.

Wow ... (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#39823463)

So they're going to exploit a legal loophole to violate the intent of the law.

This is truly a sad thing to hear. Hopefully a court will rule that this is expressly illegal and revokes the charitable status -- this is just doing an end-run around the law.

Brilliant, we'll set up a charity which can be used to facilitate giving data to the FBI they'd otherwise be legally prevented from having.

Very sad. How do those freedom fries taste, guys?

Re:Wow ... (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#39823807)

exploit a legal loophole

Hopefully a court will rule that this is expressly illegal

No - the court should rule on what the law states, not what somebody thinks the intent is. Hopefully the lawmakers will make this explicitly illegal.

Re:Wow ... (3, Interesting)

hellkyng (1920978) | about 2 years ago | (#39824095)

This is an absurd characterization of the NCFTA and the work they do. As someone who's worked with the NCFTA and actively opposed CISPA, SOPA etc I can say for certain they do very different work. NCFTA facilitates a common sense exchange of "personal" data in order to better combat fraud across the board. The NCFTA is a great organization and does very good work preventing internet based crime.

For a good example do a little reading on Dark Market and the take down the occurred there. Throwing the NCFTA and CISPA/SOPA into the same container is completely ignorant end poor journalism imo.

Re:Wow ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#39824357)

This is an absurd characterization of the NCFTA and the work they do.

Well, then, by all means, if you have any actual facts, go ahead and share.

So far, you're a random person on the internet claiming something with nothing to back it up.

Conveniently, the FBI has a unit, the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, stationed in the NCFTAâ(TM)s office. Companies can share information with the 501(c)6 non-profit that they would be wary of (or prohibited from) sharing directly with the FBI.

So if someone would be legally prohibited from sharing this information directly with the FBI, tell us how, exactly, a non-profit set up to circumvent this is a good thing for anybody? They get the data via some mechanism which magically makes the legal requirements go away?

âoeWeâ(TM)re not in DC. Weâ(TM)re in Pittsburgh. Weâ(TM)re off the Beltway radar,â says Plesko. âoeSince weâ(TM)re a non-profit, we donâ(TM)t get called in to do briefings on the Hill. We donâ(TM)t have marketing and PR though we do occasionally get thanked in FBI press releases.â

Oh, I see, since they're off the radar, they're not subject to oversight. That makes me feel a lot better. It's always good to have organizations with no oversight gathering information about people.

To me this sounds like a bunch of shady dealing, and since you've given nothing to back up any of what you say, I'll continue to believe that.

Re:Wow ... (1)

hellkyng (1920978) | about 2 years ago | (#39826073)

Since you were too lazy to comprehend what I wrote, or google what I wrote here is a decent summary of some good work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DarkMarket [wikipedia.org]

Here is an example for you as well regarding the sharing of information. If I am a bank and I have a bunch of customers with stolen credit cards, already compromised and being used for fraud. I can't legally provide those to the FBI for both legal and regulatory reasons. The customers are already taking losses, as a bank I am taking losses, and the bad guys have no issues. I can point law enforcement to the carding site (IE Dark Market) above, or I can prompt them to subpoena me for information I can't tell them about?

CISPA is terrible legislation as far as I am concerned, but don't shit on a legitimate and valuable organization because you don't understand it. Sacrificing mod points, because this is an organization that helps more than it hurts.

Re:Wow ... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#39826525)

So the regulations that do not allow sharing of data with the FBI, somehow magically allow the same data to be shared with NCFTA? I somehow doubt that. Even if they do, the banks can have the regulations changed instead of resorting to workarounds.

Re:Wow ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#39831361)

Since you were too lazy to comprehend what I wrote, or google what I wrote here is a decent summary of some good work:

It's not my job to research your assertions. You made 'em, you back 'em up.

CISPA is terrible legislation as far as I am concerned, but don't shit on a legitimate and valuable organization because you don't understand it. Sacrificing mod points, because this is an organization that helps more than it hurts.

You've still failed to say in what way you believe a non-profit conduit somehow absolves these organizations of the legal issues surrounding the use and collection of this data. In fact, you even said:

I can't legally provide those to the FBI for both legal and regulatory reasons.

So if you can't provide that information to the FBI for legal and regulatory reasons, how the hell do you share it with the FBI just because a notional not-for-profit is involved if its primary function is to share information with the FBI? I utterly fail to see how you're doing anything other than sharing information with the FBI that you're not supposed to.

Are you anonymizing the data? Putting it through any layers whereby the FBI has less information than if they had it directly? Or are you just handing over the information to a not-for-profit that you're not supposed to give to the FBI so they can give it to the FBI?

Sorry, but since I don't trust any of the three letter agencies not to be extending their mandate and skirting around laws (which the tone of TFA seems pretty clear on), without understanding how this arrangement is anything other than a means to circumvent the law, I'm afraid I'm going to have to conclude that it is.

Re:Wow ... (1)

scot4875 (542869) | about 2 years ago | (#39824547)

Almost everybody believes that what they're doing is a good thing. Everyone wants to think that the work they're doing is beneficial in some way. I'd say you likely aren't in a position to objectively assess the work that the NCFTA does.

--Jeremy

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39831517)

As someone who's been involved in the whole non-profit gov't partnerships, it's not absurd at all. I KNOW what information is shared and it's not always for the better. In fact, sometimes the government side (believe it or not) must comply with laws that orgs like NCFTA can avoid while not protecting the personal information they collect on millions of people. While I'll give some credit to NCFTA for the "help" with Dark Market and the whole carding world, it's still debatable on whether or not that didn't violate the "agent of law enforcement" clause.

What's right about the gov't using non-profits to collect information to avoid policy? If the entity that is helping the gov't would protect the information and not blur the line of "agent of law enforcement" then it could be an acceptable partnership. But, neither one can avoid the power grab.... it's all about who holds the knowledge and data.... it's not about doing it "right", it's about who is doing it right now to get the credit and MONEY.

Re:Wow ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39827945)

Everyone involved should be stripped of their citizenship and deported to North Korea where they can fit in.

They're not a legal government, they're just organized crime.

Take a deep breath (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#39823583)

Smell the Freedom (tm)?
.
.
.
Nope, me neither.
If FedGov was honest (HA!), they'd just drop the pretense of all their lofty oaths. "Protect and defend the Constitution, yadda-yadda, rutabaga, rutabaga, rutabaga...."

CISPA legalizes FBI/NSA warrantless wiretapping (5, Insightful)

mounthood (993037) | about 2 years ago | (#39823871)

This FBI/Private Non-Profit is no more legal then what the NSA has been doing, and its why they want to pass CISPA: it legalizes warrantless wiretapping.

Now that it's undeniable the government hasn't been obeying it's own laws for a decade, they have to either make it legal or face political consequences. Political consequences because, while people don't really care, they can no longer deny it, and they can't ignore it forever. A decade of massively illegal activity (unconstitutional!) must eventually be acknowledged and condemned by the average person.

It's like the US Internment camps for Japanese citizens [wikipedia.org] during WWII -- the government gets a decade long 'free pass' to do whatever, then we either make it legal or fix it.

Re:CISPA legalizes FBI/NSA warrantless wiretapping (1)

thereitis (2355426) | about 2 years ago | (#39829295)

The non-profit is nothing more than a virtual condom. And we all know that rape while using a condom is still rape.

CISPA is going to be awesome (for webhosts) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39824155)

I've run into the issue before where I've found phishers actually signed up to our service (rather than utilising hacked accounts), and I've been unable to share their billing information despite the high probability that they include stolen credit card information. The reason why this is awesome isn't because law enforcement can't or shouldn't get a search warrent for this sort of thing, but rather because its so completely difficult to get law enforcement to take hacking/phishing/online crime seriously that I don't see any police officer actually getting a search warrent for a phishing site ever. It's nearly impossible to even get them to take a report. ("So the victim is outside our juristiction/The perpetrator is outside our jurisdiction/etc").

It would be more useful however to have congress address the real problem however, and figure out a way that the average system administrator can actually get a police report filed when an online crime is committed.

Re:CISPA is going to be awesome (for webhosts) (1)

robot256 (1635039) | about 2 years ago | (#39824609)

How exactly would CISPA solve this problem? Will the police suddenly become more interested once they don't have to bother with warrants for online crimes? Or will their rate of prosecution remain the same, and just give them another tool to abuse? And, pardon my ignorance, shouldn't there be a way for you to report suspicious behavior directly to the FBI instead of dicking around with local police to get their attention?

NCFTA + oversight would be OK (1)

alispguru (72689) | about 2 years ago | (#39824623)

From TFA:

As part of a non-profit, Plesko could not comment specifically on CISPA, which would, as currently drafted, allow companies to share much richer and more individualized data directly with the government. “We get network data,” says Plesko. “Not PII (personally identifiable information).”

That means the NCFTA can pass along information, for example, about suspicious servers or IP addresses and content from spear-phishing emails that companies are seeing in their networks, but not the names or addresses of those who appear to be affiliated with the schemes.

If NCFTA is restricting itself to data like that, I have no problem with it. Problem is, without oversight we can't be sure they really are restricting themselves to that.

I'd like to see privacy-by-default become the norm with personal data. Right now the default is usually "we can share your data arbitrarily unless you opt out, and you have to renew the option every time we change our privacy policy or it goes back to share-with-anyone".

Which is wonderful for the businesses, but sucks for users.

Re:NCFTA + oversight would be OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39836947)

Oh, I know for a fact that they have PII, being a person who has worked with them before! What a liar..... nice to know they are above regulation and policy being in retired FBI Agent Dan Larkin's pocket..... who is now conveniently a board member of the non-profit after giving them million dollar contracts as a FBI Unit Chief!

The banks take all the work out of investigating (1)

planckscale (579258) | about 2 years ago | (#39825163)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-26/wall-street-tracks-wolves-as-may-1-protests-loom.html [bloomberg.com] This post reminds me of this article. The banks are doing the investigations and identifying people who they feel may be a threat and passing the information on to police. I guess it's totally legal for them to do this, but if you were arrested for a crime, would your conviction be based on evidence gathered by police or by the "firms"?

Illicit Content checking. (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 2 years ago | (#39826979)

We do the same thing at work, we hand off information of users whose files match md5 sums of known child porn to a non-profit that works with law enforcement. People don't realize anytime you use a cloud service provider, good change those files are scanned not just for viruses but for illicit content.

Does your phone auto-backup its content?

Using loopholes (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#39828207)

Is legal, and don't tell me that none of you would use them to your advantage f you could. If you say you will, you are either lying or deluded.

The key is that they are LEGAL..

Furthermore ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39829571)

The FBI's Non-Profit is a model for US Treasury owned and run prostitution which goes by the monkeyer "information sharing".

How many of the FBI brothels (male and child prostitutes and otherwise) has Obama enjoyed as US President?

LoL

Yes a LoL crying shame that the CEO of the White House is a sex pervert like Tiger Woods.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...