Speaker 1: Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve camera.
Speaker 1: It's ready. Are you get in touch with technology? With
Speaker 1: tech Stuff from how stuff works dot com. Hello, everybody,
Speaker 1: welcome to tech Stuff. My name is Chris Poulette, and
Speaker 1: I am an editor at how stuff works dot Com.
Speaker 1: Sitting across from me as usual as senior writer Jonathan Strickland.
Speaker 1: Hey there, Oh my gosh, I know I've I've changed
Speaker 1: things up. I got tired of pulling out quotes, and
Speaker 1: so I have decided spontaneously and without precedent, to drop
Speaker 1: it and uh and just just say Holly or whatever.
Speaker 1: You know. I wonder how many listeners we have from
Speaker 1: that early period when you used to do that all
Speaker 1: the time. Yeah, the hey there, and then I after
Speaker 1: Hey there. I think I went to various greetings from
Speaker 1: around the world, and then I started doing random quotes
Speaker 1: of I think it was for movies, and then music,
Speaker 1: and then I went to novels. Yeah, you know, you've
Speaker 1: got to change things up every now and then. We've
Speaker 1: we've done more than four episodes now. So but let's
Speaker 1: let's talk about Let's talk about what our topic is
Speaker 1: going to be today, because it's it's a heavy topic
Speaker 1: and this was something that was requested by several of
Speaker 1: our listeners. Well, it's not much of a surprise that
Speaker 1: people would be interested in hearing about it. It's been, uh,
Speaker 1: spending a lot of time in the news right around
Speaker 1: the time that we're recording this, which is very early.
Speaker 1: May I just technically we're recording this on Star Wars Day.
Speaker 1: May the fourth be with you, that's right. And uh,
Speaker 1: it is all about the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection
Speaker 1: Act of eleven, also known as SISPA and CISPA is
Speaker 1: one of those things that a lot of people have
Speaker 1: probably heard about. I mean, it's one of those you know,
Speaker 1: like I've seen the acronym pop up on Twitter a lot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: which makes sense. I mean, it's you know, it's it
Speaker 1: does involve traffic on the Internet and uh, and so
Speaker 1: clearly anyone who uses the Internet is interested in this
Speaker 1: sort of thing, at least from a tangential perspective, even
Speaker 1: if they don't know what all the deal is. Now
Speaker 1: there's a lot of confusion out there too, because I
Speaker 1: see a lot of people who assume that SISPA is
Speaker 1: just a reworded approach to doing SOPA or Pippa, which
Speaker 1: are the piracy acts that were proposed in Yeah, and
Speaker 1: those were acts against piracy, not for so I don't
Speaker 1: want to give the wrong impression, but yeah, but those
Speaker 1: those were all um about, uh, you know, finding ways
Speaker 1: to allow the government to to pursue people who pirated
Speaker 1: intellectual property. Yeah, and we're talking about the United States government.
Speaker 1: Of course, we do have a lot of foreign won't
Speaker 1: foreign to us, foreign to US, their domestic to themselves.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we have are more domestic than others. That's true.
Speaker 1: That's true. Well, we we do have a lot of
Speaker 1: listeners from around the world, many many countries around the world.
Speaker 1: So nonetheless, since the Internet is uh a worldwide entity
Speaker 1: and a lot of the content we're talking about is
Speaker 1: born in the United States, it would have an effect
Speaker 1: on traffic worldwide. And and Soap and Pippa were both
Speaker 1: actually directed by the United States to to target sites
Speaker 1: that were outside the jurisdiction of the United States in
Speaker 1: order to find a way to combat piracy. Because as
Speaker 1: christ just pointed out, you know, the Internet is a
Speaker 1: global entity. It does not belong to the United States.
Speaker 1: It is not housed in the United States. It is
Speaker 1: truly all over the world. Which causes some issues when
Speaker 1: you're talking about legislation, because clearly one country cannot claim
Speaker 1: to be able to legislate over other countries in the
Speaker 1: world that are our sovereign nations. So SOAP and PIPPA
Speaker 1: were both approaches to try and head off piracy that
Speaker 1: was hosted in in UH in countries other than the
Speaker 1: United States, Like, how do you protect the interests of
Speaker 1: companies within the United States when he attacks themselves or
Speaker 1: the theft or however you want to frame it is
Speaker 1: occurring outside the border. Well, CISPA is not about that,
Speaker 1: at least not on its surface. CISPA was truly it's
Speaker 1: it's the the actual purpose of it, according to the
Speaker 1: act itself is and I quote, to provide for the
Speaker 1: sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information
Speaker 1: between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities and for other
Speaker 1: purposes and for other purposes. I hate that phrase. That's
Speaker 1: like the job description as a sign. Yes, that is
Speaker 1: the worst thing to see on a job description because
Speaker 1: you're you're like, I'm the senior vice president of finance
Speaker 1: at such and such, like go make me some coffee.
Speaker 1: What do you mean, Well, it's other duties and I
Speaker 1: just assigned them to you exactly. Yeah. Anyway, So although
Speaker 1: that rarely happens to senior executives, true from what I understand,
Speaker 1: could it happens to senior writers any a? So the uh,
Speaker 1: that's not that's not true. I'm making a joke. I
Speaker 1: love you. How stuff words dot com and Discovery Communications
Speaker 1: and sparing company. Uh, the some restrictions apply. Your knowledge
Speaker 1: may vary. The so, yeah, this this is really to
Speaker 1: protect The idea anyway, is that it would help protect
Speaker 1: the United States from cyber attacks by allowing the government
Speaker 1: to share information that's normally of classified or secret levels
Speaker 1: with other entities, which could include cyber security firms, so
Speaker 1: companies that are specifically formed around the idea of protecting
Speaker 1: data and making secure systems and detecting intrusions that kind
Speaker 1: of thing, as well as other companies so Internet service
Speaker 1: providers could be an example, or even other types of
Speaker 1: private companies. It's also meant to allow these companies, these
Speaker 1: private entities that have no connection to the government other
Speaker 1: than the fact that they happen to be within the
Speaker 1: realm of the United States. UH, allows them to share
Speaker 1: information with the government. And the key word there's it
Speaker 1: allows because the fear among people who oppose this act
Speaker 1: is that it would compel these companies to share information. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, one of the main concerns around this act,
Speaker 1: and it's it's a legitimate concern, is that the government
Speaker 1: might come up to say a company like Facebook and say, hey, Facebook,
Speaker 1: we suspect that there are eight or nine people that
Speaker 1: we have on this list who are involved in some
Speaker 1: sort of terrorism group cyber terrorism. You know, they're playing
Speaker 1: a big hacking attack and they have, uh, they have
Speaker 1: accounts on Facebook, and we're able to access some of
Speaker 1: that information, but we really want all the information you
Speaker 1: have on them. So could you please give us all
Speaker 1: the data you have on these people, including all the
Speaker 1: messages they send to each other, messages they send to
Speaker 1: other people that are not connected to the eight names
Speaker 1: on this list, uh, their their contact information, everything you
Speaker 1: have on them we want And then Facebook would say sure,
Speaker 1: here you go. And that's the big fear is that
Speaker 1: this would allow the government to get access to private
Speaker 1: information that most of the time we would say the
Speaker 1: government has no business knowing um, and they would do
Speaker 1: it under the the umbrella of trying to protect national
Speaker 1: security from cyber threats. Now, if you actually read the
Speaker 1: the full proposed legislation, which I have, you see that
Speaker 1: you can kind of see where where the the representatives
Speaker 1: who introduced this. In the United States, we have the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives and we have the Senate. These are
Speaker 1: two bodies that propose legislation, and once it passes through
Speaker 1: one body, it has to go to the other and
Speaker 1: pass through that one as well before it goes to
Speaker 1: the President of the United States, who can then either
Speaker 1: sign the the the bill into law, or veto it,
Speaker 1: or just let it sit there. That's really those are
Speaker 1: the three options. Really. Yeah, by the way, the President
Speaker 1: of United States currently has said he would veto SISPA
Speaker 1: vitos can be overridden. But that's you know, that's kind
Speaker 1: of beyond the scope at this discussion. Anyway, it's it's
Speaker 1: gone through the House of Representatives. It will next go
Speaker 1: to the Senate. It was pasted, Yes, it was past.
Speaker 1: Uh the vote, that's right, And it was not straight
Speaker 1: down party lines, but in general, more Republicans voted in
Speaker 1: favor of it and more Democrats voted against it. But
Speaker 1: but there was bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. So it's
Speaker 1: not it's not cut and clear. It's not like this
Speaker 1: is a Republican issue. Now, this is this is broader
Speaker 1: than that. Yeah. And as a matter of fact, you
Speaker 1: can you can see different lists of the organizations and
Speaker 1: companies that are foreign against it and the same thing
Speaker 1: you'll see. Uh, you'll see there. Um, some of the
Speaker 1: companies that you might expect to be for it are
Speaker 1: again said in vice versa, and some of the other
Speaker 1: lobbying groups and grassroots support organizations that you know, try
Speaker 1: to get people involved in the issues like this. Um,
Speaker 1: it's very interesting to see the people who are working
Speaker 1: together for or against the bill. Yeah. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is another example of how SISPA is different from SOPA
Speaker 1: and PIPPA because SOPA and PIPPA, there were quite a
Speaker 1: few major companies, technology companies that opposed that legislation, right
Speaker 1: the SOPA and PIPPA like companies like Google and Facebook
Speaker 1: opposed those but in fact, sorry to interrupt ahead, some
Speaker 1: of them were very outspoken. They they had the Internet
Speaker 1: blackout days where they would take their sites, uh you know,
Speaker 1: make the first page sort of uh uh, Well, this
Speaker 1: is what you would see if this legislation passes, and
Speaker 1: it would be a very drab you know, uh start
Speaker 1: contrast to what you would see on the you know,
Speaker 1: everyday site. Either this I would be taken down or
Speaker 1: there was like a censored bar over the logo and
Speaker 1: you could proceed from there into the site, but you know,
Speaker 1: would be shut down and when you first got there,
Speaker 1: just with an explanation. Yeah, yeah, so that it would
Speaker 1: inform people what was going on. Well, some of those
Speaker 1: companies are actually in support of SISPA, now, not Google.
Speaker 1: Google has yet to come out one way or the
Speaker 1: other on the issue. A lot of them are are
Speaker 1: mute on the topic, right, But Facebook said that they
Speaker 1: supported or they the company representatives in Facebook spoke out
Speaker 1: in support of SISPA, and Microsoft did as well and
Speaker 1: then sort of backed off. But um, there are several
Speaker 1: companies that have spoken out in favor of it. And
Speaker 1: uh again that that illustrates that there's a difference here. Now,
Speaker 1: there were points during the debate of SISPA while it
Speaker 1: was going through the House about adding in language or
Speaker 1: or modifying language that would also have it applied to
Speaker 1: intellectual property theft. Yeah, the Center for Democracy and Technology
Speaker 1: used to support the bill but dropped off after the
Speaker 1: bill was modified and then that language subsequently was dropped again. UH.
Speaker 1: Problem pretty much at the last minute, so that it
Speaker 1: didn't it didn't expressly include intellectual property theft as one
Speaker 1: of the reasons for the bill itself. UH. And like
Speaker 1: I said, the bill really what what its purposes is
Speaker 1: to allow intelligence agencies like the FBI, the CIA, the
Speaker 1: n s A. UH. These are all intelligence agencies within
Speaker 1: the United States and law enforcement in the case of FBI.
Speaker 1: But these are agencies that are all about collecting information
Speaker 1: and using that to try and protect the interests of
Speaker 1: the United States. And the issue is a lot of
Speaker 1: the information is very sensitive and the government is not
Speaker 1: allowed to share that information with with non government, non
Speaker 1: UH certified entities. Yeah, don't talk badly about this information.
Speaker 1: It will start to cry well at any rate. Like
Speaker 1: they are not allowed to actually share that information by law.
Speaker 1: And this this legislation would allow them to then share
Speaker 1: information with parties that could actually affect whatever is going on. So,
Speaker 1: for example, if the CIA has has created some dossier
Speaker 1: about a domestic group of folks who are trying to
Speaker 1: get together and cause problems on the internet. Let's say
Speaker 1: that it's an anonymous group of people Let's say the
Speaker 1: CIA has gathered up this information to SEGA. The CIA
Speaker 1: may want to pass on this information about these anonymous
Speaker 1: individuals two to private companies. They might be cyber security companies,
Speaker 1: they might be Internet service providers, and the purpose of
Speaker 1: sending the information might be to help head off an
Speaker 1: attack or to uh to just be on the alert
Speaker 1: for potential attacks, or maybe even to track down these
Speaker 1: people so that whatever intelligence agency is interested in them
Speaker 1: can actually go and say, hey, you know, we need
Speaker 1: to talk remember that thing or you were going to
Speaker 1: do about that, We need to chat about this. So
Speaker 1: the you know, the idea of it being all about
Speaker 1: sharing information on the surface seems like it's a wise thing,
Speaker 1: and that the more people know about what's going on,
Speaker 1: the more likely they can head off disaster. Because that's
Speaker 1: one of the big issues about cybersecurity is that, you know,
Speaker 1: the systems, the systems can only be so secure. What
Speaker 1: can help us is knowing more about what's going on
Speaker 1: so that we can anticipate things and uh either head
Speaker 1: them off or reduce the effectiveness of an attack upon
Speaker 1: any given system. The problem is that this is giving
Speaker 1: the government and these entities a little bit more freedom
Speaker 1: to share information than a lot of people are comfortable
Speaker 1: with UM and that there are things built into the
Speaker 1: bill itself that make it pretty worrisome. For example, one
Speaker 1: of the amendments or or not an amendment, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: one of the passages within this bill gives all the
Speaker 1: entities involved exemption from legal recourse if they cooperate with
Speaker 1: the federal government. So, in other words, let's say that
Speaker 1: your I s P sends the federal government a list
Speaker 1: of information about all the sites you visit, all the
Speaker 1: packets of data that you send through that Internet service provider.
Speaker 1: They send that information to the government in its efforts
Speaker 1: to prosecute you for something. Well, you would not be
Speaker 1: able to turn around and sue the Internet service provider
Speaker 1: for violating your privacy because they would have exemption underneath
Speaker 1: this legislation. So in other words, it's like a get
Speaker 1: out of jail free hard for any company that is
Speaker 1: part of this. That's that's you know, sharing information in
Speaker 1: this way as covered by this bill, which is scary.
Speaker 1: It's probably also why a lot of companies are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm behind this, because this means if the government comes
Speaker 1: to me and says I need this information and I
Speaker 1: give that information, I don't have to worry about a
Speaker 1: multimillion dollar lawsuit hitting hitting me, and then I'm gonna
Speaker 1: take a hit and my shareholders are going to be
Speaker 1: really upset because my company just had to spend all
Speaker 1: this money to settle out of court with this other
Speaker 1: person because we sent their information to the government. This
Speaker 1: this passage would say, uh, yeah, you can sue us,
Speaker 1: but you have no grounds to stand on because the
Speaker 1: law says we can do this and you can't sue us.
Speaker 1: I wonder if there is a feeling among some of
Speaker 1: the companies that going along with this legislation would make
Speaker 1: the federal government more inclined to look favorably on them
Speaker 1: and other business matters as well. I can't read their minds,
Speaker 1: of course, and I don't know that anybody has come
Speaker 1: out and said, well, you know, we really love the
Speaker 1: government because hey, guys, you're awesome. Within within the bill itself,
Speaker 1: there's language that that is meant to protect against that,
Speaker 1: but whether or not that holds any real authority remains
Speaker 1: to be seen. Like there's there's a passage in there
Speaker 1: that says that the the uh, the articles within SISPA
Speaker 1: could not be used for regulatory purposes. So the government
Speaker 1: would not be able to regulate the Internet or Internet
Speaker 1: traffic using CISPA as its foundation. Also, no entity can
Speaker 1: use the information that they're sharing two uh to gain
Speaker 1: a competitive advantage over some other entity. So in other words,
Speaker 1: if you get you know, this information from the federal government,
Speaker 1: you could not somehow leverage that to give yourself a
Speaker 1: better business stance, because that's not what it's meant for. Now,
Speaker 1: how that ends up being enforceable or detective? You got me?
Speaker 1: I mean, I just don't. I don't understand, especially when
Speaker 1: you're talk about classified information. This information remains classified, right,
Speaker 1: So if the government has this classified information and they
Speaker 1: have authorized a particular entity to have the information, that
Speaker 1: entity can't share the information with other other you know people,
Speaker 1: they if they're within that umbrella with the federal government.
Speaker 1: There can be sharing between entities and the government, but
Speaker 1: you can't release it to the general public. So, you know,
Speaker 1: how would the government the government would have to acknowledge
Speaker 1: what the information is if a company were to try
Speaker 1: and use it to gain leverage in the competitive market space. Thus,
Speaker 1: the information that was private becomes public. This is problematic, right,
Speaker 1: How where where do you draw the line between, all right,
Speaker 1: this intelligence is all about national security, and we need
Speaker 1: to make sure it's secret. We cannot acknowledge it, we
Speaker 1: cannot reveal it, and we need to make sure the
Speaker 1: market remains fair and that companies don't take advantage of
Speaker 1: this new avenue of information. Uh, you know, if they
Speaker 1: if they do take action, then you've got a compromise
Speaker 1: between those two silos. And and that's a problem. It's
Speaker 1: not a big problem as far as the average consumers concern.
Speaker 1: The average consumers more concerned about the fact that, hey,
Speaker 1: this is kind of like wire tapping without a warrant.
Speaker 1: The government essentially can ask a company to give it information,
Speaker 1: and the company can give that information, no warrants, nothing,
Speaker 1: no no legal uh loopholes that you have to leap through.
Speaker 1: It's just request. Now, with that in mind, like I said,
Speaker 1: with the way the information is worded in the bill,
Speaker 1: the company is not compelled to share information. So the
Speaker 1: federal government comes to Facebook and asks for that information
Speaker 1: about those aid individuals, Facebook can tell the government, we're
Speaker 1: not going to share that unless you have a warrant.
Speaker 1: And in that case, whichever intelligence agency it is that's
Speaker 1: in question. Would theoretically have to go through the whole
Speaker 1: process of securing a warrant, serving at the Facebook, and
Speaker 1: then waiting to get the information. Uh now, how likely
Speaker 1: is it that companies are going that that support this
Speaker 1: are going to do that. That depends on each individual company.
Speaker 1: For some companies, it makes perfect sense for them to
Speaker 1: say no, because if they said yes, they risk alienating
Speaker 1: their user base. I know that if I if I
Speaker 1: had an I s P and I found out that
Speaker 1: I s P was sharing information about users to the
Speaker 1: government without the use of a warrant, I would not
Speaker 1: want that I s P as my I s P.
Speaker 1: And it's not that I'm doing anything clandestine or illegal.
Speaker 1: It's just I don't like the idea of companies just
Speaker 1: freely handing over private information to the government without there
Speaker 1: being a legal reason to do so, you know, I
Speaker 1: mean that just that just doesn't seem right. It's almost
Speaker 1: the same as imagine having a government official show up
Speaker 1: at your door one day, and that government officials job
Speaker 1: is to follow you around and watch everything you do
Speaker 1: and write a report every single day about everything you do,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't matter if you're doing something right or wrong.
Speaker 1: That's just what they do. Wait, you mean they don't
Speaker 1: do that to you? Well, you know, not that I'm guilty.
Speaker 1: I feel guilty for putting you on that list. That
Speaker 1: was a great aper fool's joke, but it's had implications
Speaker 1: that went beyond what I had originally intended in five years. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well you know, um aper fools. Well yeah, I think
Speaker 1: the the I think the language in the bill is
Speaker 1: what gives people uh so much trouble is that it
Speaker 1: it's it started off broader, admittedly, but it's still broad
Speaker 1: enough where it gives a lot of power that um.
Speaker 1: You know, people feel that the government shouldn't have um.
Speaker 1: But you know, that's that's the nature of a lot
Speaker 1: of these these bills that have gone through. I was
Speaker 1: one of the main criticisms of SOPA UM, so you
Speaker 1: know that that's what's given so much pause to a
Speaker 1: lot of these organizations that have come out against it. Well,
Speaker 1: there's also there's a specific phrase within the bill itself
Speaker 1: which says notwithstanding any other provision of law. So what
Speaker 1: that means is that SISPA overrides all other laws when
Speaker 1: it comes to sharing information. So any privacy law that
Speaker 1: would protect your privacy is negated. By SISPA exactly. So
Speaker 1: if even if you had a state law or there
Speaker 1: was some other law in the books that would protect
Speaker 1: your rights as a citizen to specific private information, SISPA
Speaker 1: overrides it and says doesn't count. As long as it
Speaker 1: falls under this category, it does not count. And there's
Speaker 1: nothing there's no burden of evidence on the part of
Speaker 1: any any entity, whether it's the government or the private company,
Speaker 1: to show that this is a justifiable approach for any
Speaker 1: given case. It's not like there's a burden of proof
Speaker 1: that you must meet in order to count as this
Speaker 1: whole sharing of information to head off cyber crime. There's
Speaker 1: nothing there in the bill that says in order for
Speaker 1: this to apply, you must meet these criteria. So, in
Speaker 1: other words, you might as well just say privacy laws
Speaker 1: don't exist, because CISPA means that it's not. It's they
Speaker 1: don't they don't apply. Well. Mozilla UH, the organization that
Speaker 1: creates and maintains the Firefox web browser, made a statement
Speaker 1: against it that says, while we wholeheartedly support aim more
Speaker 1: secure internet, SISPA has a broad and alarming reach that
Speaker 1: goes far beyond internet security. The bill infringes on our privacy,
Speaker 1: includes vague definitions of cybersecurity, and grants immunities to companies
Speaker 1: and government that are too broad around information misuse. Um.
Speaker 1: And then you know, end quote. And then they go
Speaker 1: on to say that they hope the Senate takes a
Speaker 1: a careful consideration of the issues before promoting, before passing
Speaker 1: this legislation. And and we should also point out there
Speaker 1: are at least two other bills within the Senate itself
Speaker 1: that that also are cybersecurity bills. And so that's a
Speaker 1: complicated matter in the Senate because it's you know, it's
Speaker 1: this bill would also address the same issues that other
Speaker 1: bills that are on in consideration are already you know,
Speaker 1: they're already there. So so it may be that the
Speaker 1: Senate just as you know, this doesn't even make sense
Speaker 1: because we have these other bills here that address the
Speaker 1: same problem but don't have the same issues. Or cybersecurity
Speaker 1: is sort of difficult to to capture anyway, um, far
Speaker 1: more than than you know, physical security. There there are
Speaker 1: just so many loopholes and ways to get into electronic
Speaker 1: systems compared to a physical system. Yes, and uh, you
Speaker 1: know they're they're it's difficult to do. And I think
Speaker 1: that's one of the reasons that the legislation is so broad. Um. Also,
Speaker 1: it is much easier to um prosecute cybersecurity cases when
Speaker 1: you have the help of other agencies working together, which
Speaker 1: is what the idea is, is, you know, giving people
Speaker 1: the authority to share information like that. Yeah, no, the yeah,
Speaker 1: the purpose for the challenge, Yeah, it's it's I completely
Speaker 1: understand the government's approach and and uh and when I
Speaker 1: say the government, I really should say that that. You know,
Speaker 1: we're talking about people like Representative Mike Rodgers, who was
Speaker 1: the guy who wrote this the original. Yes, he's the
Speaker 1: one who who wrote the original as Sispa language. And um,
Speaker 1: I can totally understand where he's coming from because one
Speaker 1: of the if you ever have read any information about
Speaker 1: criminal procedures, about investigative procedures that that ended up being
Speaker 1: for cases that spanned either multiple jurisdictions or you had
Speaker 1: both federal and state enforcement agencies involved. One of the
Speaker 1: things that always struck me whenever I read those reports
Speaker 1: was how much easier things could have gone had these
Speaker 1: different agencies shared their resources more freely. And in many cases,
Speaker 1: it's not that the agency is trying to hog all
Speaker 1: the credit, which is often how it's portrayed. Right. Often
Speaker 1: it's like the law enforcement official who wants to have
Speaker 1: the collar and he doesn't want anyone else taking credit
Speaker 1: for it. That's how popularly we perceive the TV shows
Speaker 1: and books novels as well. But but in reality that
Speaker 1: the cases that handling information is very delicate. You know,
Speaker 1: the way you handle information is of paramount and importance
Speaker 1: than any kind of investigative effort, whether it's law enforcement
Speaker 1: or journalism whatever, right the way you into information is
Speaker 1: as important as as anything else. And so whenever you
Speaker 1: get into a situation where you're talking about sharing information,
Speaker 1: you automatically have to worry about that because how strong
Speaker 1: is the link between the two entities, you know, how
Speaker 1: how secure is that is the other entity reliable if
Speaker 1: you share information with that entity, is it going to
Speaker 1: actually affect your investigation in a negative way? And these
Speaker 1: are a lot of considerations you have to make. And
Speaker 1: so while it's easy in hindsight to say, ah, if
Speaker 1: only the FBI had talked to this one local police station,
Speaker 1: they would have caught this guy, you know, years before hand,
Speaker 1: very easy to say that in in hindsight, same sort
Speaker 1: of thing here is that you know, you're thinking, well,
Speaker 1: if only all these different groups, whether they are in
Speaker 1: federal government agencies or private companies, if only they could
Speaker 1: actually talk to each other, then perhaps they could head
Speaker 1: off attacks from uh, say, hackers in China. You know,
Speaker 1: they might be able to You might have one agency
Speaker 1: that knows about it, but because of their policies, they
Speaker 1: don't share the information and so the attack goes on
Speaker 1: as planned and people are hurt by it. The idea
Speaker 1: here is that by sharing all this information we would
Speaker 1: be better off for it. The problem is that kind
Speaker 1: of ignores the impact it can make on the actual
Speaker 1: US citizen. So while it's while it's laudable that that
Speaker 1: representatives are looking for ways to protect our cyber infrastructure,
Speaker 1: which is, as you pointed out, a very difficult thing
Speaker 1: to do. There's so many loopholes both technical and personal
Speaker 1: in those systems that's hard to protect. It's laudable that
Speaker 1: they're trying to do this, but unfortunately the fact that
Speaker 1: it sort of throws out privacy rights for U. S
Speaker 1: citizens means that it could potentially do far more harm
Speaker 1: than good, and it also could mean another step toward
Speaker 1: a very big brother kind of government, and I often
Speaker 1: I mean I love that kind of science fiction. I mean,
Speaker 1: I love the dystopian science fiction, this so brave new world,
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff where you've got this uh this
Speaker 1: government agency that is really oppressive and intrusive in our lives.
Speaker 1: I honestly don't think we are anywhere close to that
Speaker 1: kind of level. But when you see stuff like this
Speaker 1: going through government and getting past, you think maybe that's
Speaker 1: not entirely unrealistic, because these are sort of paving the
Speaker 1: way to that sort of environment. And I think most
Speaker 1: of us would agree that that's not a desirable outcome.
Speaker 1: Like I don't want the thought police chasing me down
Speaker 1: all the time, you know, but I don't again, not
Speaker 1: to say that that's where we're we're definitely headed. But
Speaker 1: when you see this kind of stuff, you can say,
Speaker 1: all right, this it feels like it's a little just
Speaker 1: it's stepped just a little further away from the fixed
Speaker 1: inside of of the bookstore, right like that. It's just
Speaker 1: edging a little closer to nonfiction. It's not there yet,
Speaker 1: but if we aren't careful, then that could happen. So
Speaker 1: it is completely understandable why people are uh up in
Speaker 1: arms about this and um again, just as understandable as
Speaker 1: it is that this kind of legislation is being debated
Speaker 1: in the first place. It's not an easy issue to solve.
Speaker 1: I wish it were, because then we wouldn't you know,
Speaker 1: we would have had a podcast about video games. Well
Speaker 1: it's about Star Wars. It is kind of funny though,
Speaker 1: because after the the reaction to public reaction to SOPA
Speaker 1: and Pippa, with so many people being aware of the bills,
Speaker 1: especially SOPA. Um um, it's it's kind of funny to
Speaker 1: see how SISPA has sort of snuck in under the
Speaker 1: radar so far if you fewer people are talking about
Speaker 1: at it. I see more information on it in the
Speaker 1: the tech uh press than I do in uh you
Speaker 1: know that the general media. Um. So it's it is
Speaker 1: kind of funny that it's being Um it's out there
Speaker 1: and people are interested in and curious about it, but
Speaker 1: it's far on on a far lesser scale now. Um,
Speaker 1: if you are interested in it, UM, I would recommend
Speaker 1: a an interesting site that you might go to, open
Speaker 1: Congress dot org. Um. There there's a lot of information there,
Speaker 1: especially uh you know, on on all kinds of things,
Speaker 1: not just SIS but this is um, this is basically
Speaker 1: all kinds of legislation that's going through and uh, if
Speaker 1: you're a member of the site, you can vote yea
Speaker 1: or nay on it whether you're interested. Um. It's sort
Speaker 1: of a a straw pole, if you will, on how
Speaker 1: people feel about it. Of course, it's it's completely on
Speaker 1: scientific and if you're uh, you know, somebody who lives
Speaker 1: in the United States, you can um use tools on
Speaker 1: the site to write for or against legislation UH to
Speaker 1: your representatives and senators, which is a pretty cool tool. UM.
Speaker 1: So I would totally recommend that site to anybody who's
Speaker 1: interested in it. But it also gives you not opportunity
Speaker 1: to read the uh the text of legislation CISPA and others,
Speaker 1: UM and see where it is. Sure it is. We
Speaker 1: should also mention whenever you read this legislation for the layman,
Speaker 1: it can be a little dense. I was gonna say,
Speaker 1: try not to doze off, because uh, you know, we
Speaker 1: gotta remember our the United States is is governed by lawyers.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is about creating law. So
Speaker 1: it's written like a law. It's it's legal language doesn't
Speaker 1: tend to be so dense that it's indecipherable. And also
Speaker 1: I shouldn't mention CISPA itself is one of the more
Speaker 1: succinct eleven pages eleven pages of document that I had
Speaker 1: the one I've got eighteen. So yeah, so of course
Speaker 1: I did not include the amendments that were added, and
Speaker 1: I had those, I had to read those separate. But
Speaker 1: I was disappointed that there weren't any pictures. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: what after all the pictures of various kinds of pirates
Speaker 1: in the Sopa and Pippa stuff. You know, some of
Speaker 1: them will let you connect some dots, and some of
Speaker 1: them you could color in the peg leg. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: buckled swashes were awesome. We're obviously being a little silly
Speaker 1: right now, but no, yeah, I think it's I think
Speaker 1: it's really good. And other nations also have similar tools,
Speaker 1: depending upon where you are and and the kind of
Speaker 1: government your nation has. Uh So it's always good to
Speaker 1: take into account that sort of thing, to do some research,
Speaker 1: see see what impact you as a citizen can have.
Speaker 1: And in some cases it may be that you want
Speaker 1: to uh to contact a representative, a senator or whatever,
Speaker 1: and mentioned that you are in favor of something you
Speaker 1: know not everything has to be Oh, this is bad,
Speaker 1: it's going to destroy the world. It's also good for
Speaker 1: you to show support for things that you think are
Speaker 1: really UM applicable and import it in and uh, I
Speaker 1: think taking an active role as a citizen is a
Speaker 1: really important thing to do. I've done it on on
Speaker 1: multiple occasions. I probably still don't do it as much
Speaker 1: as I should, but um, I'm getting there. And beyond
Speaker 1: just you know, going to the polls and voting, it's
Speaker 1: that should not be the beginning and end of your
Speaker 1: role as a citizen, if possible, especially if these things
Speaker 1: are really important to you. So anyway that, do you
Speaker 1: have anything else you wanted to add about CISPA in
Speaker 1: particular and not in particular, but I I do think
Speaker 1: it's interesting that you know, this is not a black
Speaker 1: and white situation. You know, I personally have sort of
Speaker 1: a grave view of of CISPA, where I see some
Speaker 1: merit in and I see some problems with it. So UM,
Speaker 1: I think it's especially important to become as informed. You know,
Speaker 1: don't don't take accounts that you read uh online or
Speaker 1: or you know, stories you hear in the news. Don't
Speaker 1: take those uh too hard, too much without doing some
Speaker 1: research yourself and and citing for yourself how you feel
Speaker 1: about these issues. Um, at least that's my advice. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I I agree entirely. So I'm going to go and
Speaker 1: have some kind of meal tyn to settle my nerves
Speaker 1: so that we can record our second podcast of our
Speaker 1: podcast recording marathon. Yeah. I'm surprised Jonathan that you, uh you,
Speaker 1: we didn't have the lad I told you. I told you.
Speaker 1: It's it's because it's because things are not always It's
Speaker 1: not evil empire versus the rebellion. May the fourth be
Speaker 1: with you. Um, It's it's not that, it's it's one
Speaker 1: group of legislators who are trying to tackle a legitimately
Speaker 1: difficult problem and perhaps going about the wrong way, maybe
Speaker 1: in ways that you know, they just don't anticipate the
Speaker 1: kind of problems that would exist, whereas those of us
Speaker 1: who it could affect anticipate it a lot. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's I understand it's a complex issue, which is probably
Speaker 1: why don't get so angry. Um, But if you want,
Speaker 1: we can pick another topic and I'll get really ticked
Speaker 1: off about it all. Right, then, how about how about
Speaker 1: the progression of obi Wan Kenobi as a character through
Speaker 1: the original trilogies and then the prequels of Star Wars.
Speaker 1: That really gets me mad. And our producer Tyler can
Speaker 1: let you know because I went on about a ten
Speaker 1: minute rant about it before we started recording. Alright, then
Speaker 1: I'm excited. Okay, so we'll we'll we'll chat about that offline,
Speaker 1: because I mean, that's not really tech stuff. But you guys,
Speaker 1: if you have any requests for topics that we should cover,
Speaker 1: like why is Jonathan mad at Obi wan Kenobi, let
Speaker 1: us know. Send us a message in Facebook or on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Are handle there is tech Stuff h s W or
Speaker 1: you can fire off a quick email. Our address is
Speaker 1: tech Stuff at Discovery dot com and Chris and I
Speaker 1: will talk to you again really soon for more on
Speaker 1: this and thousands of other topics. Is it how Stuff
Speaker 1: works dot Com brought to you by the reinvented tieth
Speaker 1: thousand and twelve Camry. It's ready. Are you