Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How CISA Threatens Both Privacy and Cybersecurity

Information sharing just doesn’t work like CISA advocates imagine.

This May, Congress is expected to come together on a bill to protect private entities that secretly share user data with federal agencies. Privacy advocates say the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) threatens Americans' civil liberties by sanctioning yet another avenue for government surveillance. But there's another big problem as well: CISA is unlikely to meaningfully prevent cyber-attacks as proponents claim, and could ultimately weaken cybersecurity.

ITU PicturesITU Pictures

The stated premise behind laws like CISA (and the defeated 2013 Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) is that cyber-attacks can be prevented if private network operators are able to quickly report and disseminate information about new threats and vulnerabilities. Proponents envision a seamless, national cybersecurity-threat system to roust the hackers, coordinated by the federal government.

Existing private and public information sharing initiatives do not go far enough, CISA advocates claim, because private companies fear lawsuits from customers who may not agree that their security is improved when spooks can surreptitiously search their personal data. To overcome this purported problem, CISA would extend legal immunity to corporations that choose to grant the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) access to customer data considered relevant to a "cybersecurity threat." This data could then be shared or concealed at federal agencies’ discretion.

But CISA’s legal remedies far exceed proponents’ justifying foundations. Section 5(d) of the bill text, which governs how federal agencies can use information gleaned from the private sector, grants the government authority to "disclose, retain, and use" any data extracted under CISA for such disparate purposes as identifying terrorists, responding to threats of bodily or economic harm, preventing child exploitation, or prosecuting normal criminal offenses. Including such unrelated authorizations could distract from a primary cybersecurity mission and create dangerous incentives for officials to procure information for criminal investigations under false premises.

Ironically, we may be partially inoculated against such potential abuses by the federal government’s lack of technological prowess. The sophisticated coordination required to pull off a CISA-style information-sharing network is easier said than done, as previous failed experiments of this kind corroborate. The federal government has a longstanding inability to effectively share information even with itself; at least 20 separate information-sharing offices exist, with little coordination (or even knowledge) of each other’s ventures. Somehow, this bureaucratic cacophony did not prevent the 1,012 percent increase in reported federal information security incidents since 2006.

The feds’ poor history of internal information-security provision renders it an especially poor candidate to manage the sensitive data of an entire nation. Alarmingly, almost 40 percent of all security breaches reported over the past six years involved the personally identifiable information of personnel and civilians. The agencies that would be most empowered under CISA reported some particularly boneheaded bloopers. DOJ employees downloaded malicious software from sketchy websites onto agency equipment 182 times last year. A reported 1,816 DHS computers simply vanished without a trace. The DOD had a nasty malware problem as well, with 370 incidents reported during fiscal-year 2014. Entrusting reams of juicy private data in the clumsy care of these three stooges of information security could create an irresistible target for lulz-hungry hackers.

Sophisticated software tools have not helped government agencies, either. In 2003, the DHS created the National Cybersecurity Protection System to detect and analyze network intrusions, share information with relevant offices, and prevent and repel network breaches for all civilian federal agencies. Its vaunted three-part EINSTEIN software suite, designed to automate federal network intrusion monitoring and prevention, turned out to be an expensive dud, too technologically crude to handle the complex central identification and communication efforts necessary. And there may never be a powerful enough EINSTEIN to adequately coordinate and respond to the massive amounts of private data that would be collected under CISA.

Even if we could remove CISA’s sketchy non-cybersecurity provisions and turn the federal government into a godly font of efficiency, CISA would fail to improve cybersecurity because information sharing just doesn’t work like CISA advocates imagine it does

As security researcher Robert Graham points out, these kinds of programs devolve into a kind of overwhelming "false positive sharing system." Seasoned hackers know how to easily evade detection, so mostly false alarms are triggered. Innocent parties’ online activities are thus more likely to be hoovered up and analyzed than capable cybercriminals’ signatures. And by the time analysts can sort through the terabytes, they may find that sharing that information can do little to prevent an attack anyway. One survey of information security professionals found 87 percent did not believe CISA will significantly reduce security breaches.

Insufficient "information sharing" is only one small issue among many larger problems plaguing network security. Industry studies find that external attacks only constitute 37 percent of reported root causes; system glitches and human error respectively make up 29 percent and 35 percent of the remainder. These kinds of vulnerabilities can be patched through user education, strong authentication, and proactive system testing and improvement—not backwards-looking information sharing.

CISA’s sole emphasis on this small component of network security could instill a dangerous complacency among those who feel following the feds’ lead absolves the need to proactively anticipate threats and continually improve security practices. If enough people believe that their cybersecurity is "taken care of" because the government will alert them to any threats, CISA will serve to ultimately weaken cybersecurity by causing users and operators to neglect critical factors arguably more imperative for robust cybersecurity.

CISA actually bucks the usual liberty/security trade-off, because it threatens our civil liberties without meaningfully improving cybersecurity—and could potentially even weaken it. We should dump this Trojan and focus on developing bottom-up, collaborative security practices that will actually work. 

Photo Credit: ITU Pictures/Flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jerryskids||

    But we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this. Surely this time the fire will save us from the frying pan. Or do you just want the terrorists to win?

  • np||

    But we must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this. Surely this time the fire will save us from the frying pan. Or do you just want the terrorists to win?

    It's not like they keep track or care. Doing something is a legislator's full-time job after all.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    If you want to discourage terrorism, kill terrorists and bring down governments that support them. Do so directly, bluntly, and efficiently, and when the "International Community" (of hand-wringing moral superiority junkies) complain, say "There's plenty more where that came from. Want some?"

    Don't stay behind to rule. Don't "Nation Build". Target those who have gone to some trouble to come to our negative attention, kill as many as you can find, and LEAVE.

    And stop spying on U.S Citizens. The majority of the idiots who back Terrorist cells will make themselves bloody obvious without pawing through everyone's cyberfiles. The few really clever ones won't get caught except by betrayal or accident.

  • DenverJay||

    But how will politicians get elected without doing something? And how will agencies justify their budgets? And how will other agencies prosecute drug crimes if they actually have to get warrants?
    Why do you hate the childrunz? Why do you want the terrorists to win?

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Surely this time the fire will save us from the frying pan.

    Ironically, isn't this what Sheldon Richman was arguing this morning vis-a-vis the 16 election?

  • BigT||

    "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the (perceived) solution" - Clay Shirky

  • straffinrun||

    "No way. That's 12 inches!"
    "I promise only to put in 6 inches, babe."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Be afraid, America. The FBI says the Islamofascist twitterati are out to git us.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We're losing. ISIS is kicking our ass on social media. We're DOOOOOMED.

  • ||

    This is why we have to do away with that pesky free speech thing.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    I also hear they have secret Mexican training camps and there are like 18 billion fundamentalists in America right this instant.

  • np||

    This May, Congress is expected to come together on a bill to protect private entities that secretly share user data with federal agencies.

    I was wondering how is this different from the FISA amendments (see H.R.6304)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ct_of_2008

    Grants telecommunications companies immunity for cooperation with authorities

    "Release from liability.—No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with [an order/request/directive issued by the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence]." [21]


    That was the result of the whistleblowing story about the AT&T's Room 641A

    After reading some more, it sounds like CISA lays out procedures for the companies to be proactive, or automatically share info, instead of the government constantly making requests to FISA to wiretap or obtain info from companies.

  • straffinrun||

    Thanks for doing the leg work for the exact question I was thinking. I come to the comments because I'm lazy.

  • Will Nonya||

    So it sounds like it shift the burden from government to the corporations. Since corporations are evil and feds are good, honest over worked public servants this clearly makes sense...

  • Rich||

    private companies fear lawsuits from customers who may not agree that their security is improved when spooks can surreptitiously search their personal data. To overcome this purported problem, CISA would extend legal immunity to corporations that choose to grant the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) access to customer data

    So DOD, DHS, and DNI would then fear those lawsuits? Right? RIGHT?!

  • BigT||

    That's rich!

  • Rich||

    We should dump this Trojan and focus on developing bottom-up, collaborative security practices that will actually work.

    "Congratulations! You're our new Cybersecurity Manager. Any "incident", and you'll be executed like your predecessor."

  • Paul.||

    The immunity side of this seems to be the biggest threat to me. One of the things that kept us on our toes from a security standpoint was the constant fear of lawsuit. Being in the healthcare industry meant there were HIPAA rules breathing down our necks at all time. The idea that 60 minutes would be at our door the instant one fucking social security number got into the wild is a powerful motivator indeed.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    So Sheldon Richman is just actively trolling at this point, correct?

  • Paul.||

    You mean, Noam Chomsky-like, claiming to be against all forms of state structures, but supporting statehood for the Palestinians?

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Or Richman claiming he's super-duper against foreign military intervention, but arguing the best thing for libertarians would be to have an election between Hillary Clinton (who voted for the Iraq War) and Jeb Bush, who said George W. was his greatest foreign policy influence.

  • Paul.||

    I didn't read that article on purpose. We had an election with Obama and McCain, then another one with Obama and Romney. Why do we need more elections to 'illustrate' the corruption of our system? Why not try something new and have an election that represents hope and change? Real hope and change.

  • Sevo||

    Paul.|5.10.15 @ 12:36PM|#
    "I didn't read that article on purpose."

    Good plan. I just looked; the comments are Bo/eddie, turd, with some commie-kid to add a new depth to the stupidity.

  • BigT||

    "Good plan. I just looked; the comments are Bo/eddie, turd, with some commie-kid to add a new depth to the stupidity."

    A Derp salad! Now I'll have to check it out.

  • Will Nonya||

    Well influence could mean he sees it as an example of what not to do...we should be so lucky.

  • Winston||

    So Sheldon Richman is just actively trolling at this point, correct?

    Considering how he followed up his "Are Libertarians Looking for Results or Self-Congratulation?" article with his Chris Kyle is no different from Adam Lanza article, I'd say yes.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Did anyone else see Mark Halperin try to determine whether or not Ted Cruz is Cuban enough?

    This actually does come off as pretty racist. It would have been like asking Obama 'So you identify as black, right? So what's your favorite rapper?'

    Cruz actually handled it pretty well, but I don't know what the hell Mark Halperin was thinking.

  • straffinrun||

    WTF was that? Gotcha questions are one thing, but I've never seen them strung together like that.

  • straffinrun||

    WTF was that? Gotcha questions are one thing, but I've never seen them strung together like that.

  • mr lizard||

    More like the sqlrs gotcha...

  • Sevo||

    No link, since the Chron no longer ties the print version to the e-version.
    Anyhow, SF now has a commute bus line serving those who wish to pay for comfortable, on demand transport (with coffee service!) and it seems to have fallen into the cracks as regards regulation; it’s not doing a damn thing that requires licensing or anything of the sort.
    This pisses off some people for various reasons (slimy politico John Avalos: “[a] crock of shit” that creates “a two-tiered transportation system in San Francisco”; I guess he never heard of limos).
    But here’s the real money quote from the article:
    “There is this issue of innovation getting out ahead of public policy. How to these innovations get a chance to test their services when the environment does not present a structure that they are clearly defined in?”
    Now, you might think that came from some mouth-breathing, drooling, class-envy statist. And you’d be right: that was attributed to Ms. Susan Shasheen, UC Berkeley professor, an ignoramus at least as stupid as our very own mouth-breathing, drooling, class-envy twits.

  • Paul.||

    I'm surprised a service like that even saw the light of day in SF. That could be a sign things are getting better.

  • Sevo||

    Reading "The Long Divergence" right now; how the west and the middle east economies diverged. Seems Islam law made for some fairly stable commercial rules which worked well enough at a certain scale while the west's commercial law was an ad-hoc arrangement which lead to experimentation, ultimately giving us huge, durable and successful business ventures.
    I wonder if SF's ridiculous regulatory system isn't similarly incubating forms to avoid gov't capture...

  • ||

    A private concern recently started offering luxury bus service between Dallas and Houston for 69$ each way. The trip takes less time than going through security at the airport.

    The short hop airlines and the high speed rail folks are furious.

    The consumers are not so mad.

  • Sevo||

    OneOut|5.10.15 @ 1:37PM|#
    "The short hop airlines and the high speed rail folks are furious."

    Are the legislators available at a cost those guys can afford? If so, well...

  • Paul.||

    Not sure they can afford NOT to buy legislators.

  • ||

    This is one of the things I like about Rand. He's the one Senator that you can count on to vote no against bullshit like this.

    So that combined with the curls is getting my vote for POTUS.

  • DenverJay||

    Yeah, I'm definitely not gay (NTTAWWT), but I think Paul is dreamy enough to steal at least some of the independent female vote from Shrillary.

  • ||

    So this is immunity--like cops and prosecutors have--from being sued for fucking people over to the government. How could such a thing ever be abused? How, I ask you? How?

  • DenverJay||

    It can't. See, the government is us, and we'd never abuse ourselves so the scenario you allude to is simply unpossible.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Mark Steyn's been awol for about two weeks so I was looking forward to his take on the media's total unwillingness to defend free speech over the last week and Steyn did not disappoint.

    Free speech is necessary to free society for all the stuff after the "but", after the "however". There's no fine line between "free speech" and "hate speech": Free speech is hate speech; it's for the speech you hate - and for all your speech that the other guy hates. If you don't have free speech, then you can't have an honest discussion. All you can do is what those stunted moronic boobs in Paris and Copenhagen and Garland did: grab a gun and open fire. What Miliband and Cotler propose will, if enacted, reduce us all to the level of the inarticulate halfwits who think the only dispositive argument is "Allahu Akbar".
    "Stay quiet and you'll be okay:" Those were Mohammed Atta's words to his passengers on 9/11. And they're what all the nice respectable types are telling us now.

  • Paul.||

    All you can do is what those stunted moronic boobs in Paris and Copenhagen and Garland did: grab a gun and open fire.

    *Golf clap*

  • Ted S.||

    Add Anders Breivik to that list.

  • JW||

    OT: Jesse Myerson not satisfied with just being loathsome. Goes for execrable and succeeds.

  • ||

    "Those other guys just totally did it wrong. No one has thought this same thing before. I'm totally not doing the exact same thing that every communist apologist ever did. Not at all."

  • JW||

    His infantile and impotent unoriginality is totally original!

  • ||

    It's amazing how communist apologists can just. Keep. Doing this. Again and again and again. It's actually a fascinating glimpse into their psyche.

  • Ted S.||

    It's also maddening how Communists doing this is somehow OK, but totalitarian collectivists putatively from the right who make such apologetics would be treated as well beyond polite society.

  • JW||

    It's also maddening how Communists doing this is somehow OK, but totalitarian collectivists putatively from the right who make such apologetics would be treated as well beyond polite society.

    They may be genocidal communist scumbags, bu they're OUR genocidal scumbags.

  • ||

    It's all about words, Ted. So many people, amazingly, don't give a shit about actions or consequences. They literally only care about what someone says, and stunningly ignore what they actually do. Communist apologists are exactly like any other totalitarian collectivist, it's just that they learned, long ago, to say the "right" things, to say that they are for good and equality and all that bullshit.

    And that's all it takes to get a huge swath of people to just...give them a pass. Because words. It's truly mind-boggling.

  • DenverJay||

    And, again, reinforces my belief that, while the fall of the Soviet Union was a godsend for those living in the hell behind the Iron Curtain, it removed a very prominent example of the danger of totalitarianism. An entire generation has more come into adulthood with no memory of the evil political systems of the 20th century that America fought against.

  • Paul.||

    Good to know he's adopted the Buzzfeed article style. I ain't clickin'.

  • Walter Peck||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Next-wave libertarians?

    With few skills and a contempt for low-wage jobs, they subsist through the underground economy of illicit trading and crime. Many belong to gangs.

    Their street or thug culture is real, with a configuration of norms, values and habits that are, disturbingly, rooted in a ghetto brand of core American mainstream values: hypermasculinity, the aggressive assertion and defense of respect, extreme individualism, materialism and a reverence for the gun, all inflected with a threatening vision of blackness openly embraced as the thug life.

    Such street culture is simply the black urban version of one of America’s most iconic traditions: the Wild West. America’s first gangsta thugs were Billy the Kid and Jesse James. In the youth thug cultures of both the Wild West and the inner cities, America sees inverted images of its own most iconic values, one through rose-tinted glass, the other through a glass, darkly.
    .
    We should find a way to recruit them. I believe they can be successfully encouraged to embrace the NAP, if it can be tied to the opportunity to capitalize on their entrepreneurial impulses.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Their street or thug culture is real, with a configuration of norms, values and habits that are, disturbingly, rooted in a ghetto brand of core American mainstream values: hypermasculinity, the aggressive assertion and defense of respect, extreme individualism, materialism and a reverence for the gun, all inflected with a threatening vision of blackness openly embraced as the thug life.

    Remember when it was supposedly super racist for Paul Ryan to say the exact same thing - and he actually said it in a less inflammatory way than the Times.

    Orlando Patterson is a black guy though so I guess it's okay when he says it.

  • DenverJay||

    Orlando Patterson is a black guy though so I guess it's okay when he says it.

    Well, yeah. Even a Pollack like me knows that.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's better than continuing the morally bankrupt paternalism of the past:

    In regard to black youth, the government must begin the chemical detoxification of ghetto neighborhoods in light of the now well-documented relation between toxic exposure and youth criminality. Further, there should be an immediate scaling up of the many federal and state programs for children and youth that have been shown to work: child care from the prenatal to pre-K stages, such as Head Start and the nurse-family partnership program; after-school programs to keep boys from the lure of the street and to provide educational enrichment as well as badly needed male role models; community-based programs that focus on enhancing life skills and providing short-term, entry-level employment; and continued expansion of successful charter school systems.

    The president’s My Brother’s Keeper program, now a year old, is an excellent and timely initiative that has already begun the coordination and upscaling of such successful programs, as well as the integration of the private sector in their development.

    Will any of these people ever admit that shovelling government money into the fire hasn't put it out?

  • DenverJay||

    Will any of these people ever admit that shovelling government money into the fire hasn't put it out?

    No

  • ||

    In regard to black youth, the government must begin the chemical detoxification of ghetto neighborhoods in light of the now well-documented relation between toxic exposure and youth criminality.

    This, to me, sounds like it might violate the Geneva Convention.

  • JW||

    Will any of these people ever admit that shovelling government money into the fire hasn't put it out?

    Why should they? It's working exactly as planned: to enrich them and their cronies and to keep the poors in their place.

    It's a growth industry.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Meant to bold hypermasculinity, the aggressive assertion and defense of respect, extreme individualism, materialism and a reverence for the gun, in the first part.
    What libertarian cannot relate?

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Sean Trende at RCP actually pointed out a couple of years ago that there had been a slight uptick of young black men voting republican in the elections following Obama's first victory, not very large but too big to be considered statistical noise. There might actually be opportunity for a candidate like Rand to make common ground and peel a few off that way.

  • Acosmist||

    That is delusional.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    No, not really. Individualism actually had something to offer them, namely economic opportunity and not being thrown in a rape cage for fulfilling economic demand for a product. Collectivism, on the other hand has nothing to offer as they're watching jobs dry up and the means-tested welfare state is generally inaccessible to able bodied males. Add in the fact that the democratic party is completely sold out to masculinity degrading third-wave feminism, and it's really not very delusional at all.

    Unless, of course, one believes that black people are genetically closer to apedom than divide else, that is...

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    *everybody

  • DenverJay||

    WOW, even your typos /autospell errors are racist! Hate crime! Microaggression! Check your privilege!

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Lol I only threw that part in because I'm pretty sure that acosmist is a personifestation of our resident racist troll, American.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Oh, and by the way, I'm half black and half Hispanic, so no privilege here, except for male privilege, I guess.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I've got an idea! Let's pass legislation requiring any Congresscritter who wants to vote on Computer related issues to prove he or she can take some basic form of popular tech (like an Tablet of Laptop) out of its original packaging, and get it turned on and running without calling for help.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    We are all just rats in a cage: How the 1 percent profits from your misery

    While economists and policy-makers focus only on whether or not an individual has work or not, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the structure and purpose of an organization are crucial to its psychological and physiological effects on employees. For instance, people find work more fulfilling in not-for- profit organizations than in private businesses, leading to lower stress levels. To view work as some contributor to wellbeing, as policy-makers now tend to do, without considering the purpose of work, is to fall into the behaviorist fallacy of viewing people as lab rats, just with slightly more developed ‘verbal behavior.’

    SOLUTION: Make everyone work for Non-profits.

  • Sevo||

    "SOLUTION: Make everyone work for Non-profits."

    That's where my food comes from; non-profit farms, right? And this computer plus the cable that connects it.
    The car. The gas to run the car.
    Yep, all non-profits!
    BTW, you want to be without stress? Commit suicide; you can't be more relaxed then you are when you're dead.

  • ||

    It's funny, most people I've seen that work for non-profits do so because it's generally little work for high pay and they get social signaling out the ass from it. Plus since they don't actually do anything, you don't need to actually have any skills. It's all win!

    Wait, why the fuck am I not working for one? Holy shit I'm an idiot.

  • JW||

    It depends on the non-profit. The big ones will pay out stupidly large salaries to all the useless upper management, hundreds of thousands per year, and pennies to the clerical staff.

    Of course, arts .orgs are pitiful all the way around. It's about the worst business model there is.

  • Paul.||

    I'm beginning to think that Salon is supported entirely on pageviews from Irish.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    As for converting the Notorious Thug Masses to libertarianism- they already despise and distrust the government, so the hard part is done. They're more receptive to the siren song of personal liberty than your average suburban soccer mom, or her husband.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Notorious Thug Masses

    Is that like the masses of Catholic Socons that troll message boards under the name of 80s rock icons?

  • PH2050||

    All I know is, selling drugs and not having to pay taxes was pretty awesome. I guess I should specify taxes related to the transaction. Obviously we still paid property taxes, etc. I can see the appeal of a philosophy that advocates low taxation.

    However, in my experience it seemed that many in that lifestyle have zero interest in voting or politics. Time spent involved in those things could be time spent getting money. C.R.E.A.M.

  • Winston||

    How about Al-Queda? They despise the government too.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    For instance, people find work more fulfilling in not-for- profit organizations than in private businesses

    What's that Ghostbusters quote about, "those guys expect results!"?
    It might be appropriate, in this context.

  • Walter Peck||

    Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    David Frum wants American Republicans to stoop whining, and learn to love Obamacare.

    Unlike their U.S. counterparts, these conservatives don’t fetishize the music, fashion, or religious practices of some of their voters in a way that prevents them from reaching all of their potential voters. Unlike their U.S. counterparts, they accept that healthcare security actually supports—rather than inhibits—the entrepreneurial risk-taking of a dynamic free-market economy. Unlike their U.S. counterparts, they have found ways to both enforce immigration laws and to make immigrant populations feel at home politically.

    Of course, these conservatives differ among themselves in important ways. And their success is conditional; all face political challenges at home, including a tough re-election for Stephen Harper in Canada later this year. But what they all show their American counterparts is that the fear of a “tipping point” beyond which a state plunges into socialist dependency is utterly misplaced. Countries with universal health coverage, for instance, can be hospitable to conservatives—if conservatives can resist the impulse to repeal that coverage. It’s the resistance to the program, not the program itself, that sinks conservative hopes. Politics doesn’t tip. It evolves. And winning conservative parties evolve with it.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Australia has hate speech laws that cause mainstream journalists to be fined for making reasonable political arguments and British conservatives are so abjectly useless that there's a right-wing insurgency forming against them in the form of UKIP. Hell, Theresa May, the shithead Home Secretary of Cameron's government, argued that the government must control 'hate speech' in order to stop 'non-violent extremism.'

    If these are the wages of victory for 'conservative' governments abroad, then I'd rather live under Democratic governance than that of the British Conservative Party.

  • ||

    "at least 20 separate information-sharing offices exist, with little coordination (or even knowledge) of each other’s ventures. "

    NOTHING. LEFT. TO. CUT.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Raw Story once again proves that everyone who writes there is a moron.

    SNL had a sketch where there was a pictionary type game show. The joke is that one of them gets asked to draw the Prophet Mohammad and is terrified to do it.

    So Raw Story claims SNL "mocks Pam Geller's Draw Mohammad contest," when what they're actually mocking are the people who would kill over this.

    Oh, Raw Story. Narrative uber alles.

  • Paul.||

    I'm afraid to draw The Prophet Joseph Smith. Because I don't know what he looks like.

  • Paul.||

    Although I can get behind this image of The Prophet Jesus Christ.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    Raw Story has really been pretty brilliant in the aftermath of the Garland attack.

    It is true that the American Freedom Defense Initiative was on the right side of US law, while the Islamic State-inspired shooters were not. But both were behaving in a manner so far outside the conventions of familiar social interaction that there is a sharp and significant disconnect between the thought processes of the protagonists and the more mundane questions of daily etiquette encountered by members of Western multicultural communities.

    In which Raw Story draws a direct equivalence between people drawing cartoons and the people who tried to murder them - because they're run by retarded people.

  • Sri||

    Nazi fascism in America. Cool.

  • zsanderson61||

    Making a check of $48500/month with online working,, you make money $81/hour from laptop in free time.My neighbour's sister has been averaging $15750/months now and she works about 20 hours a week. i make $13900 last month, it is realy easy and trustful ,
    CHECK LINK WWW.MONEYKIN.COM

  • Goedkope Schoenen Sale Nederla||

    This is indeed a very serious problem, which should attract our attention. And fully safeguard the right to privacy is very important.

  • qli63509||

    Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super... I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I've ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h..... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.Jobs-Cash.com

  • ||

    I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!......
    www.work-cash.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.www.netjob80.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online