First of all, this article doesn't have a single criticism of this?
It is really scary to me that our lawmakers are enacting legislation for topics they have absolutely no personal experience with. Their decisions are based on what can only amount to 100 hours, optimistically, of information sessions given by people representing multinationals with agendas.
All I want to know is what the hell constitutes a "malicious cyber activity". Is that as innocuous as U.S. v Auernheimer?
It is really scary to me that our lawmakers are enacting legislation for topics they have absolutely no personal experience with. Their decisions are based on what can only amount to 100 hours, optimistically, of information sessions given by people representing multinationals with agendas.
All I want to know is what the hell constitutes a "malicious cyber activity". Is that as innocuous as U.S. v Auernheimer?