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: cispa, internet, privacy, telcos
Companies: at&t, comcast, facebook, ibm, intel, juniper networks, microsoft, time warner cable, verizon
Comments on “Facebook Backs Away Quietly From Its CISPA Support”
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.)
Woohoo! "has not come out directly against the bill."
… “says basically nothing”!
WELL! I’m totally reassured that Facebook is not in cahoots with the gov’t. Scratch this off your worries list, Mike.
Re: Woohoo! "has not come out directly against the bill."
We still haven’t gotten to the bottom of your devious scheming with the tinfoil industry.
Interesting.
[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.
FB’s still supportive but asked to take it’s name off the list for PR reasons. Influence-wise; they’re still in the plus column. Still greasing CISPA proponents.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.