Facebook Backs Away Quietly From Its CISPA Support

from the good-for-them dept

Many in the internet community were disappointed a year ago when Facebook came out in favor of CISPA. Facebook made its case publicly, agreeing that there were some privacy and civil liberties concerns with the bill, but that on the whole the bill was good. Of course, more cynical people might point out that since the general immunity provisions of CISPA would protect Facebook from liability in sharing info with the government, that of course they’d like it. However, it appears that Facebook is reconsidering that position, perhaps aware of how much public opposition there is to CISPA. Facebook is no longer listed as a CISPA supporter, though it also has not come out directly against the bill. Instead, it issued a statement that says basically nothing:

We are encouraged by the continued attention of Congress to this important issue and we look forward to working with both the House and the Senate to find a legislative balance that promotes government sharing of cyberthreat information with the private sector while also ensuring the privacy of our users.

Still, it’s encouraging that a company, like Facebook, which really does rely on the support of their userbase, appears to at least recognize that something like CISPA might not be good for its users. In fact, this seems similar to when Microsoft backed away from its CISPA support last year as well. The article linked above notes that Microsoft still feels the same way, citing the concerns about user privacy with the current draft of CISPA.

So, who is supporting CISPA? The telcos are still there, not surprisingly, as well as mostly infrastructure providers, rather than any company that has a bunch of its own internet users. So, you see IBM, Intel and Juniper Networks. But there is not a single real “internet” company in the bunch any more. Perhaps that should be a loud hint for CISPA’s sponsors that the bill is not a good thing for the internet world.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: at&t, comcast, facebook, ibm, intel, juniper networks, microsoft, time warner cable, verizon

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Facebook Backs Away Quietly From Its CISPA Support”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment

How about a simpler bill of consumer rights,
1. False Advertising = Huge Fines For Company.
2. False Advertising = Refund to Purchaser.
3. Pre-Release Purchase, 7 day cooling of period, Deposit ONLY, No More than 30% of Sale Price. Balance payable Only After 14 days after product release, (gives punters a chance to read the reviews, but they are Mugs, EA just proved that.)



[i]Facebook made its case publicly, agreeing that there were some privacy and civil liberties concerns with the bill, but that on the whole the bill was good.[/i]

I feel a strong irony of the fact that facebook agrees there are “privacy concerns” but agrees with the bill anyway, because that’s pretty much the way they feel about user privacy isn’t it?

Not quite as ironic as how EA used the trumped up ‘social aspect’ of the new SimCity as a way to pretend that always-on DRM and no single player was legitimate. Little did they know that the ultimate social aspect of their game would be all the gamers, message boards, news articles and blogs that were bitching about how much EA (and Maxis) royally frakked up a loved franchise.

But EA has been digging this hole for years, so I don’t see them doing an about face anytime soon — whereas Facebook apparently thinks it still needs to save some face.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re:

Oh not this again…

As was pointed out during the whole GoDaddy-SOPA boycott(multiple times at that), ‘free speech’ is not short for ‘consequence-free speech’, so if they want to come out in support of something that their users disagree with, then they are fully within their rights to do so, just like their users are fully within their rights to verbally slam them for it.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re:

“FB likely still supports it, they just won’t say it out loud anymore because some very loud people get upset. It’s not a question of the majority, but of a very vocal minority.

It’s too bad that some people feel the need to punish them for their free speech.”

Again with this BS? Look, as was pointed out with SOPA, Facebook and GoDaddy and anyone else can support any kind of legislation they want and as vocally as they want. That’s their right to free speech.

But you’re conflating “free speech” with “consequence free-speech”. Meaning, that those “very loud people” have just as much right to slam Facebook and GoDaddy and/or take their business to a competitor as Facebook has to support CISPA.

You guys seriously need to get some new material. You want to do what you want and not be held liable for it. But you want others to be held liable for anything and everything that they do. You can’t have it both ways.

And the public (a.k.a. “consumers”) has just as much of a right to not do business with someone who supports something they don’t. Get that through your thick skull and you just might finally learn a thing.

Sword of Damoclessays:


“FB likely still supports it, they just won’t say it out loud anymore because some very loud people get upset. It’s not a question of the majority, but of a very vocal minority.

“It’s too bad that some people feel the need to punish them for their free speech.”

Oh right, like the application of “free speech” to cable TV, with the outcome that only cable TV operators get to control who has “free speech” via their medium. Or the same for the telcos. Or for the billboard owners who clutter the landscape with their visual trash.

The notion that corporations and other non-entities have a “right to free speech” was the precursor to the Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United, which determined that anyone with a billion dollars or more is entitled to exercise his or her free speech to completely negate the US Constitution.

Such idiocy deserves the condemnation it receives. Regrettably, it doesn’t receive it from the policymakers who count, only the techno-serfs who must kowtow to every whim of Big Media. Eat it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow