SOPA II: Electronic Boogaloo?

[Dinner]

It looks like the horrible SOPA bill is back with a new name.

One article on CISPA (excerpts follow)

Congress is doing it again: they’re proposing overbroad regulations that could have dire consequences for our Internet ecology. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523), introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, allows companies or the government free rein to bypass existing laws in order to monitor communications, filter content, or potentially even shut down access to online services for “cybersecurity purposes.” Companies are encouraged to share data with the government and with one another, and the government can share data in return. The idea is to facilitate detection of and defense against a serious cyber threat, but the definitions in the bill go well beyond that. The language is so broad it could be used as a blunt instrument to attack websites like The Pirate Bay [oh noes] or WikiLeaks. Join EFF in calling on Congress to stop the Rogers’ cybersecurity bill.

[...]

The language of “theft or misappropriation of private or government information” is equally concerning. Regardless of the intent of this language, the end result is that the government and Internet companies could use this language to block sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com, both of which have published classified information.

Another article

Unlike SOPA, however, CISPA operates under the guise of national cybersecurity as opposed to economic concerns, but CISPA’s overly broad language could be used for surveillance or censorship because the bill lacks sufficient restrictions. Supporters of CISPA will be quick to discourage comparisons of CISPA to SOPA considering the former was economic and the later is concerned with security (and considering “SOPA” has pretty much developed into something of a slur). While this is true, both bills would could have similarly devastating effects on the Internet and the people who hang out and do business there.

[...]

The fact that CISPA-related information exchanges are only reviewed for validity after the fact, instead of being carefully considered beforehand, is only part of the problem. CISPA also has very, very broad protections in place for anyone who shares anything relating to cybersecurity. First of all, CISPA sharing supersedes any and every other privacy law, federal and state, meaning anything that might be considered private otherwise is suddenly not when cybersecurity is involved.

Second, anyone who does or doesn’t do stuff with CISPA-shared data is protected from pretty much anything. Basically, anyone acting “in good faith” is exempt from both civil and federal suits regarding any information they’ve shared or regarding any actions they took — or failed to take — based on any cybersecurity information they may have received. So even if someone shares something they shouldn’t have, or over-reaches based on some juicy dish they got, they’re in the clear so long as it’s decided they were acting in good faith.

[Dinner]

At least Obama is threatening to veto it but the man does have a history of caving to special interests.

CISPA cybersecurity bill gets veto threat from Obama

The White House came out strongly Wednesday against a bipartisan but controversial House bill designed to protect the country's infrastructure from cyberattack, warning that President Barack Obama would veto if it passes in its current form over civil liberties concerns and other worries.

"The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, in its current form," Obama's Office of Management and Budget said in a statement. "If H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

OMB said that the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace."

Morever, it said, the legislation "fails to provide authorities to ensure that the nation's core critical infrastructure is protected while repealing important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards." OMB specifically cautioned that, in its current form, the measure fails to set up "requirements for both industry and the government to minimize and protect personally identifiable information."

"Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held legally accountable for failing to safeguard personal information adequately," OMB said, adding that the legislation "would inappropriately shield companies from any suits where a company's actions are based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this bill, regardless of whether that action otherwise violated federal criminal law or results in damage or loss of life."

The bill's chief authors--House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and the panel's top Democrat, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger--unveiled a raft of amendments on Tuesday aimed at defusing the privacy concerns.

The two lawmakers issued a joint statement Wednesday saying that "the basis for the administration's view is mostly based on the lack of critical infrastructure regulation, something outside of our jurisdiction."

"We would also draw the White House's attention to the substantial package of privacy and civil liberties improvement announced yesterday which will be added to the bill on the floor," they said, stressing that key lawmakers guiding the measure to a vote in the House "have agreed to a package of amendments that address nearly every single one of the criticisms leveled by the administration, particularly those regarding privacy and civil liberties of Americans. Congress must lead on this critical issue and we hope the White House will join us."

[giblets]

Obama will probably sign this because he's a far-right Nazi.

[Dinner]

He's not a far right Nazi but he most certainly does play the lobbyist game like the rest of him.

[The Mad Monk]

Second verse same as the first.


They'll just keep doing it until they get it.

[Dinner]

Republicans forced it through the house. We should all remember who is against civil liberties and wants the government to be able to track everything you do online, every post you make, every search you do. What a crock of ****.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2978395/us-house-passes-cispa

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192

[loinburger]

Second verse same as the first.


They'll just keep doing it until they get it.

[Dinner]

Of course if they passed the original SOPA they would have tried to pass a second one any way to include all the other goodies they want so you're damned either way.

[HalfLotus]

What's the score in the Senate? Obama is feigning veto, I expect him to bait and switch like he did with NDAA.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would Obama veto a bill that increases his powers?

[Dinner]

He says he will but we'll see.

[Dinner]

What's the score in the Senate? Obama is feigning veto, I expect him to bait and switch like he did with NDAA.

The Senate bill is entirely different. Supposedly it doesn't require ISPs to keep a log of everything everyone does nor does it require ISPs to share that information without a warrant as the House bill does. The Senate does want to create national standards to prevent cyber attack which is supposedly aimed at China which has government run hacking groups which steal both government and industry private data.

[Ben Kenobi]

So, IOW, the Senate's going to rubber stamp it. Interesting. I'd be surprised if it got to Obama's desk, but we shall see.

[Dinner]

Where do you get this stuff? Everything I've heard is it won't pass in the Senate plus Obama said he'll veto it if it does. It's just another Republicans hate freedom bill being blocked Dems (though about 40 dems took the special interest money and decided to join Republicans in ****ing over regular people).

[HalfLotus]

NDAA was rather freedom-hating, but Dems had no problem passing that, nor did Obama in signing it - even after he said he wouldn't.

In fact, it "was the administration itself that lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial."



Kinda bursts your whole Democrats Good, Republicans Bad slogan dunnit?