cute, but not the official definition:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hacker?q=hacker
He should have said: "I am techinically a hacker, by the definition which means improver of a system. Not a computer cracker, which breaks into computer systems."
Still, the discussion (propaganda really) should have gone like this:
Q1a: What is the fear about cispa?
A1a: What fear? Could you expand on that? Or do you mean the effects this law creates if passed and excuted, and the concerns US citizens have? (I will expand on A1b)
Q1b: If its prime motive is to improve Cyber Security, which affects us all? [redunt comments to incite an ad hominem]
A1b: I do not assume it's prime objective is to improve the security of the Governing body, like the USA, or its subjects. By meerly collecting the data and storing it, that is a security risk in itself, for both the governance and its constituents. Who is to say the data are safe in their databases? I am not allowed to test how their facilities are secure, and copies will be used for any other means nice what is advertised it's purpose is about. It's motive, only Mike Rogers (R-MI) can answer that. The US today has a great tools they can use to legally investigate/acquire someones data for anything. It used to called a warrant, then later tools were added like: Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), the patriot, etc.. This one just says we can copy anything we want, at any whim at all by calling it "suspicios". And any ISP needs to gives the ability to do so. There is no recompensation for any damages of our copies make, including what we do with the data, so lick my boot.
Q2a: Is it necessary?
A2a:No, like I explained. There are tools in place already to legally and techinically defend both the contry's data, and the citizen. This law does neither.
Q2b. Is cyber security an huge issue, in an age where the internet is inseperable from so many people lives?
A2b: Only for those that depend on the internet, and that not have a security policy in place. Governments today and this law does not provide such services.
Q2c. Surely it doesn't offer a reasonable sacrifice [pointing out the thesis of the interview], in letting some hacker have your data, worse than in the government's?
A2c: Not this law. For security, I go to my security department, or a local security advisory institution. I rather trust on things I can evalute myself, and proven to be secure. If we are talking about the government, they have their own networks untouchable by our Internet|ARPANET. Examples of that include but not limited to: NIPRNet, SIPRNET, and JWICS.
Q3a: So what to do about it now?
A3a: Nothing, NSA and the FBI do a great job under the Patriot Act to legally copy eveverything for US ``security''. They do not need this law to ``protect'' themselves or their ``citizens.''
Q3b: Should other countried intervene, to protect their personal data?
A3b: To prevent passing this law? No, unless you are asking for treaties to be broken. Governments should already be protecting their own data regardless if this was ever conceived or not. I mean, are not all developed countries in state of deterrence?
Q4:We have seen real rash of legislation, why is all happening now?
Corporate interest? I dunno. Is there really a reason to have any governing body massively collect ALL kings of Data and use it for whoever knows what? I think Mike Rogers should be able to anwser that, not me. Actually here is a good question, why was I chosen for this interview, when you know full well my profession is Computer Programming, not Law, and in the particular field of computer technology or security. I think an EFF member might have been a better choice.
You are welcome to copypasta on youtube and elsewhere