republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
CISPA Returns Completely Unchanged
Despite Promises It Was Being Updated to Address Concerns
by Karl Bode Tuesday 19-Feb-2013
Last week I noted how CISPA was likely returning for a second try, despite complaints that the bill would significantly erode consumer privacy and expand Internet activity surveillance under the guise of "cybersecurity." Sponsor Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger insisted he was working on fixing the bill so it addressed the concerns of privacy advocates, yet it now appears CISPA will return in the exact same form as seen previously. Since the previous version passed the House, the hope is to just try again with the same bill:

You can, of course, understand why the sponsors would bring back the identical bill. After all, it passed (fairly easily), even with tremendous protests. Many tech companies like the bill, because it puts no specific requirements on them, and also (more importantly) frees them from liability for sharing info on their users. But that's the really problematic part. It's disappointing that tech companies have not realized that standing up for their users' privacy rights is a smart business decision on its own. Tragically, they're taking the short term view on this one.

Granted if many of those companies stand up to privacy when it comes to the government, they figure it could be a hop, skip to shoring up the privacy surrounding the oceans of data they buy and sell daily. As Techdirt notes, while the Obama administration previously promised to veto CISPA, most people aren't too confident that threat holds any weight. Fight The Future has launched a new website urging the government to avoid passing the same problematic bill while examining CISPA's problems in greater detail.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

AnonFTW

@reliablehosting.com

Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

The Executive Order version, introduced by Obama, does have protections for privacy. It explicitly mentions that privacy and civil liberties shall be preserved. It requires reporting every year of how they are not being violated and requires the reports to be public.

»www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/c···/c8eghqt
pawpaw

join:2004-05-05
Greenville, SC
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

said by AnonFTW :

The Executive Order version, introduced by Obama, does have protections for privacy. It explicitly mentions that privacy and civil liberties shall be preserved. It requires reporting every year of how they are not being violated and requires the reports to be public.

You're not getting it. We don't need an Executive Order, we don't need CISPA, we don't need anything! The government should butt out.

If you believe a report every year about how your privacy and civil liberties are not being violated, then I have a nice bridge for you. Experience with this, and all previous administrations, should make you much more skeptical.
TechnoGeek

join:2013-01-07

Hear Hear!

They need to stay out of our business. We are doing just fine thank you very much.

They don't seem to need fancy acronym-ed laws to seize domain names or sites like MegaUpload.

I felt strongly enough about it to write my rep about it. I encourage others to do the same (EFF.org has a form you can use, but I did go on my rep's website to contact him, as they might block mass-mailed emails).

We need to organize another protest like last year's SOPA protest. That one worked very well. We should try to link SOPA/PIPA/CISPA for maximum effect (aren't they at heart really the same thing anyway?).
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

said by pawpaw:

The government should butt out.

Who overseas the protection of our nation's infrastructure (a National Security concern), holistically?
pawpaw

join:2004-05-05
Greenville, SC
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

said by openbox9:

Who overseas the protection of our nation's infrastructure (a National Security concern), holistically?

I presume you mean "oversees".

The owners and operators of hardware, software and data are responsible.

This is not infrastructure that is the property of the nation. Diversity is good. Holistic is the opposite
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

Critical infrastructure is deemed a National Security item, so once again, who oversees that? Who monitors it for our nation? I'm not talking about monitoring your surfing of whatever it is that you believe you need privacy for. Rather, I'm speaking to the health and viability of the infrastructure?

JasonOD

@comcast.net
said by openbox9:

Who overseas the protection of our nation's infrastructure (a National Security concern), holistically?

In matters related to cyber infrastucture, it's largely a diverse group of private/corporate companies. Other agencies, like the FAA, DOE, are moving to contract out functions as well.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

I know the answer. My question was aimed to provoke thought. Do you believe it easy to exchange threat/security information between public and private sectors, in both directions?

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

said by openbox9:

My question was aimed to provoke thought.

Fail.

If the whole defense industry just withered away and died I would be a happy man.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

Fail.

Luckily we aren't talking about you.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

Sorry but your propaganda has grown thin. We've seen this terrible legislation before.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

And we've seen the whining before. What exactly is bad with the legislation as presented?

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

»cispaisback.com/

Lets see.

Immunity against mistakes, officials only have to act in "good faith", corporations can share all of your intimate communications without telling you.

Do you need to hear more?
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

Sigh. The proposed bill doesn't grant immunity or allow anyone to share your intimate communications. Please read the text of the bill, not some info graphic designer's misrepresentation.

- Section 1104(a) enables the sharing of classified threat information from the IC to the private sector.

- Section 1104(b) allows the collection and sharing of threat information with designated entities, to include the Federal Government. It also shields the protected entity by enforcing sharing restrictions placed on the threat information by the protected entity. This section does exempt protected entities from liability for collecting and sharing threat information, which I guess the graphic sort of got right.

- Section 1104(c) contains an obligatory "think of the children" paragraph. But it basically says the Federal Government will use information it receives for investigation and prosecution of cyber crime and protection of our National Security interests. There's a paragraph that allows the Government to minimize impact to privacy and civil liberties (I'm sure it's not considered strong enough by some).

- Section 1104(d) details the penalties for Government's failure to protect the threat information IAW the protected entity's sharing restrictions.

- Section 1104(e) requires the IC IG to report to Congress annually on all of the things done with this bill, right or wrong.

What am I missing?

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

That site is directly based on the highly respected law advocacy group EFF's review.

EFF:

"CISPA overrides existing privacy law, and grants broad immunities to participating companies.

At the same time, CISPA would also create a broad immunity from legal liability for monitoring, acquiring, or sharing CTI, so long as the entity acted “in good faith.” Our concern from day one has been that these combined power and immunity provisions would override existing privacy laws like the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act.

Worse, the law provides immunity “for decisions made based on” CTI. A rogue or misguided company could easily make bad "decisions" that would do a lot more harm than good, and should not be immunized. "
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

As long as the EFF says so, I guess.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

EFF has a long and well tested credibility.

Your attempts to minimize that only show your being disingenuous.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

Nothing disingenuous about actually reading a bill that a lot of people haven't and instead just complain because a bunch of headlines say that's what they're supposed to do.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

Your the only one here that is spreading false info, specifically about immunity.

And honestly, how on earth could you possibly know who did and did not read the bill? Are you psychic?
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

Read the bill. Immunity isn't mentioned.

You're right. I assume (I shouldn't do that) a lot of people haven't read the bill because they simply parrot headlines and don't/won't discuss the issues beyond that.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

I suggest you read the EFF site since you don't understand how the immunity is granted. Than come back when you are more educated on the topic.

rukiddingme

@comcast.net
NO EXECUTIVE ORDERS!!!

This completely short-circuits the checks and balances in our system. They are there for a reason. Your small brain may not be able to understand it, but trust me. You do NOT want a dictatorship!

BonezX
Basement Dweller
Premium
join:2004-04-13
Canada

Re: Call your rep and ask for support of the Executive Order

said by rukiddingme :

NO EXECUTIVE ORDERS!!!

This completely short-circuits the checks and balances in our system. They are there for a reason. Your small brain may not be able to understand it, but trust me. You do NOT want a dictatorship!

you don't think for a second you don't already have that ?

Patriot Act, DMCA, Intelligence agencies spying on people without warrants, military looking to get the go ahead to drone strike citizens ANYWHERE in the world.

at least other dictatorships were obvious and run from the top front, not from behind the curtain.

Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net

Another pack of lies

Does it surprise anyone that the Federal pimps would take action against their major "financial donors" and cut off the flow of money into their coffers? If the "Big Boys" want it, it will happen despite anything we say or do. If it happens to run into obstacles, the Feds will somehow declare it a matter of "National Security" and forbid any discussion, enlightenment or clarity, even if it violates every Constitutional right we "supposedly " have. No it doesn't surprise me one bit that this is going on and will continue to go on.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Another pack of lies

CISPA isn't about the "Big Boys", it's about enabling the exchange of threat information between public and private sectors. It is a National Security issue. What Constitutional right does CISPA violate? Honest question.
TechnoGeek

join:2013-01-07

Re: Another pack of lies

Listen, when the EFF and a bunch of other reputable sites start blaring warning sirens over government legislation, there is usually something to it.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Another pack of lies

Read the proposed legislation. There's nothing ominous in it as currently written.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits
said by openbox9:

What Constitutional right does CISPA violate? Honest question.

Liberty.

I'm way more afraid of CISPA than any terrorist.

How any educated person could feel different is beyond me.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Another pack of lies

What are you talking about? How any person can blindly puppet headlines without reading the purposed legislation is beyond me.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: Another pack of lies

I have read it. And your point?
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Another pack of lies

My point is that a lot of people that complain about legislation do so without actually reading and understanding the proposed legislation. I believe that to be the case here because we appear to have a lot of fear mongering going on.

See 11 replies to this post

tuaris
You Clicked on the Apple

join:2001-10-19
Naples, FL

Amendment needed

Many Latin American and 3rd world countries have a concept of "habeas data" (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_data) built into the constitutions which provide protection against this kind of bad legislation.

The United States has no such thing. Sure, the U.S. constitution is over 200 years old, but at one point an amendment should have been made to update it.
cbobby

join:2009-06-14
New Windsor, MD

4 edits

Dutch...I knew him when....

""Sponsor Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger insisted he was working on fixing the bill so it addressed the concerns of privacy advocates, yet it now appears CISPA will return in the exact same form as seen previously."""
________________________________________________________

The congressman from the 2nd District Maryland, is Dutch Ruppersberger, a Democrat elected in 2002 in a district drawn specifically for him.

a little history: in 1994, he was elected Baltimore County executive.

In 2000, he had backed a plan to give him the power of eminent domain to redevelop large pieces of the county.

In one case his plans were to seize a number older private waterfront homes to make way for a devleopment. It seemed that the people who owned the homes...liked where they were living and had refused to sell out to the Developer.

He reasoned that the seizure of Private Property for the "Public Good" was justified in that the homes did not contribute positively to the economic well being of that area of the county. And he had the superior knowledge necessary to make that decision and, of course, should have the power to do so.

The people who owned the older homes were essentially hogging the view, when there were others who could/would pay more for that view. Like from the hotel, shopping areas, and new townhouses that the developers wanted to build on that land.

(seems to be a familiar theme running here. eh?...in Dutch's Mind: It's all in the name of the Public Good)

PS:
THE LATEST BOOGIEMAN......JUST IN TIME FOR CISPA

»farm9.staticflickr.com/8510/8489···44_b.jpg

Wednesday, 19-Jun 20:19:09 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.