CISPA is mainly a threat to privacy. I'm all for companies being able to share cyber-attack information effectively, but it must be done in a way that protects users' privacy. I don't want my entire account information to be sent to the government and any number of private organizations just because Google was hacked.
from an IT standpoint I don't know why anyone would need that information for what this bill describes. Nor did I see that verbiage in there. There's a big difference between network infrastructure security, and handing over data. For instance my company handles every mortgage in the country, we've never handed a single loan over and never will, but we've handed over and shared information about our security, setup, and hardening of our web infrastructure environments with government sources. They have no interest in our data, only how we're protecting and securing said data. They are interested in our logs mostly, as we report all of these attacks to the government. They have no use for or interest in getting access to our encrypted data, my email account, nor my Hubski login info. It would serve them no purpose. Again, any bill can be malicious, and they can already subpoena your providers for that info if they needed it anyway under a bunch of more malicious legislature like the Patriot Act.I don't want my entire account information to be sent to the government and any number of private organizations
I don't know, that's a good question. Put them all on a level playing field and protect them from civil suits? I honestly could only guess at that part, but that is a good question you bring up.