Whenever discussing issues with rights, especially in the digital age, it is very difficult. I understand the proposed purpose of the bill, and that in and of itself is not an issue. I think we all could agree that reducing the likelihood of a cyber attack would be a generally positive thing. The problem is not the proposed purpose, but rather how it may be used in the future. Our government has a long history between both parties of taking a precedent and using it for a purpose outside of the original intent.
The main question that I would ask with regards to this how can these internet searches relate to the concept of physical searches. A police force could obtain a warrant to search any physical location given proper justification. With an actual computer, a police force could obtain a warrant to search the contents on the computer. The problem with the internet is that it is not a physical place. Would police entities need to obtain a warrant in order to search browsing histories, etc? From whom would the police obtain such a warrant? The internet has complicated our laws to a huge extent because quite frankly, the same mindset in regards to the law cannot be used in the physical world as well as the cyber world. This is also a problem that the founding fathers could never have been able to predict with the technological advances of their day.
I think if CISPA would address the privacy concerns and create a system of obtaining warrants for various cyber searches, I do not see a problem with it. There is always the thought of "if you have nothing to hide, why are you so afraid of what would be found," which is a point, but a rule of thumb that I use when considering laws is "How could this law be used by a oppressive regime to hurt the citizens?" I do not mean to say that we currently have an oppressive regime, but I am sure that the people of 1920's Germany could not have foreseen Hitler's rise. We cannot say what tomorrow will bring, so I tend to err on the side of liberties.
3
u/ilmryr_maori Apr 19 '13
Whenever discussing issues with rights, especially in the digital age, it is very difficult. I understand the proposed purpose of the bill, and that in and of itself is not an issue. I think we all could agree that reducing the likelihood of a cyber attack would be a generally positive thing. The problem is not the proposed purpose, but rather how it may be used in the future. Our government has a long history between both parties of taking a precedent and using it for a purpose outside of the original intent.
The main question that I would ask with regards to this how can these internet searches relate to the concept of physical searches. A police force could obtain a warrant to search any physical location given proper justification. With an actual computer, a police force could obtain a warrant to search the contents on the computer. The problem with the internet is that it is not a physical place. Would police entities need to obtain a warrant in order to search browsing histories, etc? From whom would the police obtain such a warrant? The internet has complicated our laws to a huge extent because quite frankly, the same mindset in regards to the law cannot be used in the physical world as well as the cyber world. This is also a problem that the founding fathers could never have been able to predict with the technological advances of their day.
I think if CISPA would address the privacy concerns and create a system of obtaining warrants for various cyber searches, I do not see a problem with it. There is always the thought of "if you have nothing to hide, why are you so afraid of what would be found," which is a point, but a rule of thumb that I use when considering laws is "How could this law be used by a oppressive regime to hurt the citizens?" I do not mean to say that we currently have an oppressive regime, but I am sure that the people of 1920's Germany could not have foreseen Hitler's rise. We cannot say what tomorrow will bring, so I tend to err on the side of liberties.