Cisco Wants Your Data | Why CISPA is Not Needed
The amount of information that travels through routers is everything. When you login to your Email, Facebook, Twitter, Instant Messengers, YouTube and on and on. So why is it okay them to want this data? I’ll hint a few things.
There’s a bill named “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act,” which would enable companies like Facebook, Twitter, etc to send your data to partnered security companies — thus, sending your data to the government at the government’s request.
When you use the Service, we may keep track of certain information related to your use of the Service, including but not limited to the status and health of your network and networked products; which apps relating to the Service you are using; which features you are using within the Service infrastructure; network traffic (e.g., megabytes per hour); internet history; how frequently you encounter errors on the Service system and other related information (“Other Information”).
Instead, by making customers sign agreements to do this, a bill is not needed. Because of the legal binding of agreeing to such a terms of service or privacy policy and stating “what they’re going to do with it,” they may very well hand it off to various agencies.
The other part, is that they may simply discontinue your usage with their software/hardware. One of the reasons I encourage First Sale, too.
You agree not to use or permit the use of the Service: (i) to invade another’s privacy; (ii) for obscene, pornographic, or offensive purposes; (iii) to infringe another’s rights, including but not limited to any intellectual property rights; (iv) to upload, email or otherwise transmit or make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, spam, junk mail or any other form of solicitation; (v) to transmit or otherwise make available any code or virus, or perform any activity, that could harm or interfere with any device, software, network or service (including this Service); or (vi) to violate, or encourage any conduct that would violate any applicable law or regulation or give rise to civil or criminal liability.
If First Sale was the case, and it was exactly how I written it, companies would be slashed in half for attempting this. It protects the customers purchase, not the companies’ interest. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to control the data of a user, but when it breaks down to ripping it away from them, selling it at your disposal, and forcing them into some upgrade they were unaware of – that – in turn would destroy your purchase, it has gone too far. Is this enough?
No, apparently not.
United Kingdom’s government wants to do more than this. They want to implement intercepting black boxes. Where an agreement between the company and customer would never be needed.
The stiff-arm of supporters is smaller than it appears. Going over the list, I noted the Internet Security Alliance to only be filled with the same other companies that are in support of CISPA. Some being Symantec, Verizon, and VeriSign. Breaking down what these companies are actually responsible for in their tech field, it’s very clear they are prepared to intercept and catelogue all data that is “needed.”
VeriSign is a huge marker in this. Considering they are responsible for handing out certifications to websites for “secure” browsing for their visitors, you may say they will simply hand over those same certs to third-parties, to save time.
Verizon, a big phone carrier in the United States and Internet Service Provider will most likely and probably already has methods of detailing the usage of their customers. Marc Sachs, VP of Government Affairs (according to ISA), and National Security Policy is on the ISA board. Sachs (according to Sachs.us) is also a member of the National Cyber Security Alliance.
Symantec, generally they don’t shed a good light upon the tech savvy. Nor were they responsible with the last break in they had (or so accounted for). Waited years to inform people.
The United State’s approach is more clear cut: “Let’s instead implement these black boxes in every single house.” This would be the more logical approach, no?
The bottom line is when it’s only the companies doing it, a bill is not needed. All this for cyber security.
http://www.neowin.net/news/cisco-locks-users-out-of-their-routers-requires-invasive-cloud-service
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4441
http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-2011
https://netforum.avectra.com/eWeb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=ISA&WebCode=board
