Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_I...Protection_Act

Congress is trying to pass another bill related to the internet. This one encourages companies to give information they have on you to the government. I hope you never search for anything that you wouldn't want the cops to see!

The problem though is that a lot of tech/internet companies actually support this bill, because it doesn't hurt their business like SOPA/PIPA would have. This bill is much harder to stop as a result.

[Ngamer01]

CISPA and other cyber-security laws have some anti-piracy laws in them. CISPA and the other bills are SOPA & PIPA round 2.

https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/90...ction_KEY=8444

Plus CISPA and the like may grant the military power to go after copyright infringers because the laws being proposed are so broad that the military could interpret that this is in their jurisdiction now. =/

I wouldn't want solidiers with M16s breaking down my door just because I draw fan-art and sent it to a friend. =/

CISPA and other cyber-security laws have some anti-piracy laws in them. CISPA and the other bills are SOPA & PIPA round 2.

https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/90...ction_KEY=8444

Plus CISPA and the like may grant the military power to go after copyright infringers because the laws being proposed are so broad that the military could interpret that this is in their jurisdiction now. =/

I wouldn't want solidiers with M16s breaking down my door just because I draw fan-art and sent it to a friend. =/

The problem is though, that it fulfills SOPA and PIPA's goals in ways that are actually convenient for internet/tech companies. As a result we're not going to have powerful lobbyists on our side like we did with SOPA and PIPA.

[Ngamer01]

Yeah. Facebook even is in support of CISPA. All because CISPA will block users from suing any companies that comply with CISPA. So if the government says jump and Facebook says "How high?', you can't do anything about it if CISPA becomes law. =/

[DededeMan202]

It's not the same as SOPA, but still pretty vague... So for the time being, I'm against it.

It's not the same as SOPA, but still pretty vague... So for the time being, I'm against it.

Having the government spy on your online activities is as bad as shutting down sites. It's not just an issue of vagueness.

[Agent Gold]

How does this stack up against the privacy policies sites have? Is it written to get around them? Will sites need to rewrite them in order to comply? Or does this not even touch the same kind of thing those policies normally cover?

[Ngamer01]

CISPA would take priority over all privacy laws and rules in that US government/police/military and ISPs would be exempt from following privacy laws and rules, but everyone else must follow US privacy laws and rules or face US penalties.

[Sansato]

I had read something about something like this a while back, but I didn't realize that it was already a legitimate threat.

Doesn't this legislation violate the fourth amendment of the constitution? This one right here?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's probably pointless for me to believe that the constitution should be the ultimate set of guidelines that lawmakers should use when crafting these moronic laws. Between this and the upcoming vote on Amendment One to the North Carolina state constitution (the latter of which appears to infringe on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but we could probably do a separate thread for that bill), I'm starting to think that the US constitution means very little in today's political world.

I had read something about something like this a while back, but I didn't realize that it was already a legitimate threat.

Doesn't this legislation violate the fourth amendment of the constitution? This one right here?



It's probably pointless for me to believe that the constitution should be the ultimate set of guidelines that lawmakers should use when crafting these moronic laws. Between this and the upcoming vote on Amendment One to the North Carolina state constitution (the latter of which appears to infringe on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but we could probably do a separate thread for that bill), I'm starting to think that the US constitution means very little in today's political world.

Fourth Amendment would probably be a little complicated in this situation, since it's companies handing over info on what you did on their "private property". I could see a valid case regarding it though.

Politicians have never taken the Constitution seriously at all (except to call their opponents haters of the Constitution), that's why we have a Supreme Court to enforce it.

That amendment does not violate the 1st Amendment, because it deals with government sanctioned marriage and marriage benefits. If that law is unconstitutional, it would be under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In terms of gay rights though, the best way to legally tackle that would be to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, since it is blatantly contrary to the Full Faith and Credit Clause (in fact, it's one of the most obviously unconstitutional pieces of legislation I've ever seen).

[Sansato]

Fourth Amendment would probably be a little complicated in this situation, since it's companies handing over info on what you did on their "private property". I could see a valid case regarding it though.

Politicians have never taken the Constitution seriously at all (except to call their opponents haters of the Constitution), that's why we have a Supreme Court to enforce it.

That amendment does not violate the 1st Amendment, because it deals with government sanctioned marriage and marriage benefits. If that law is unconstitutional, it would be under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In terms of gay rights though, the best way to legally tackle that would be to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, since it is blatantly contrary to the Full Faith and Credit Clause (in fact, it's one of the most obviously unconstitutional pieces of legislation I've ever seen).

I completely agree with your first two points.

Although what you've said makes sense, I'm going to need to do a little more research before I can say I agree with you on the Amendment One issue. But as I've said before, that amendment could probably warrant it's own debate thread. As such, I'll try not to change the thread's topic and stop right here.

[Elfice]

CISPA passed in the House yesterday with a 248-168 vote.

This is just under a 2/3rds majority, and I'll bet you 10 to 1 that the people who abstained are already being pressured to vote one way in the event of a veto.

Of course, the Senate still has to pass it, but if the vote ends up the same, this could be a reality. As SNF said, the Internet is not a possession of the people, but regulated by private companies, so it is regretfully unlikely that the Fourth Amendment will stop this one.

Here's the vote. You can see if your Representative supported it.

It's interesting to note that it got much more Republican support than Democratic. If we're lucky the Senate (which is controlled by the Democrats) will vote against it.

[Sansato]

Both of my representatives voted for it. Can't say I'm surprised, but it's still a frustrating thing to know

[Guybrush20X6]

I heard Obama is considering vetoing this act but it's been a while since I studied US polotics (in high school). If the POTUS vetoes an act is it dead or does it go through some other stuff?

[Sansato]

I heard Obama is considering vetoing this act but it's been a while since I studied US polotics (in high school). If the POTUS vetoes an act is it dead or does it go through some other stuff?

My understanding is that the veto can be overridden somehow, but I forget the specifics.

BTW, this just came to my attention, but could this act possibly give cyber criminals an easier way to access our personal information? Or am I misunderstanding how this bill works?

[Elfice]

I heard Obama is considering vetoing this act but it's been a while since I studied US polotics (in high school). If the POTUS vetoes an act is it dead or does it go through some other stuff?

A 2/3rds majority in both the House and Senate can override a veto.

Sent this to my senators.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act recently passed the House, so I assume the Senate will be voting on it before too long.

Please oppose this bill. While there are some admirable goals in it (such as stopping the selling of counterfeit medications), it goes about these goals by stripping people online of our privacy.

I don't want the government to see everything I do online. That's not because I do anything bad, but it's because I should have the ability to maintain my privacy. For the same reason I don't want the government listening to my phone conversations or searching my home (unless they have a warrant).

I should not lose my Fourth Amendment rights when I'm online. I should be able to maintain my privacy both offline and online.

Thank you.

Contact your senators and say something similar.

[Guybrush20X6]

Sent this to my senators.



Contact your senators and say something similar.

I would if I was in the US. Is there something people in Britain can do? I hate all these laws designed only to serve the top line.

I suppose you could contact your members of Parliament, but the problem is that politicians don't care about citizens from other countries, since you don't vote in their elections.

Best shot you'd have is getting any Americans you know to contact their representatives in Congress.

[Elfice]

I sent an email to both of my Senators, and got this from Kay Bailey Hutchinson today:

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding S. 2105,the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

S. 2105,which was introduced on February 14,2012,by Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT),is intended to increase internet security across the U.S. by providing the Department of Homeland Security broad authority to regulate the Internet and protect key public and private electronic infrastructure against cyber attacks.

I believe that S. 2105's heavy-handed government regulation is the wrong approach. Yet I agree that it is essential to take additional steps to guard against increasingly sophisticated and potentially damaging cyber attacks. While there have been countless benefits to the increased use of the Internet,expansion has brought additional criminal and national security concerns,ranging from individual identity theft to the compromising of some of our country's most sensitive national security networks. Over the last decade,cyber attacks by foreign nations and non-state actors have exposed gaps in our national and economic security.

I believe the challenge for Congress is to protect individual rights and privacy,while moving forward a national strategy that will secure public and private networks.

In counterpoint to the regulatory approach of S. 2105,several Senate colleagues and I developed S. 2151,the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research,Education,Information, and Technology Act (SECURE IT). Our legislation seeks to improve collaboration between government and industry,expedite information sharing for private sector entities,increase transparency of threats to government contractors,and strengthen criminal statutes for certain cyber crimes.

The SECURE IT Act will help businesses and government improve their networks' security,and share information about threats,attacks,and countermeasures. Our bill builds on existing federal research and development,leveraging those efforts toward a better strategy for protecting our most critical assets,rather than giving the federal government huge new regulatory powers over the Internet.

The Senate is expected to consider cyber security legislation later this spring. Please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind.

I appreciate hearing from you,and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

So...there's a counter to CISPA on the way, apparently! Nothing from John Cornyn yet, though.

EDIT: Wait...is this even talking about the same bill?

It looks like that's a companion bill the Senate was considering.

[Sansato]

Senator Hutchinson's words seem reassuring, but I get the distinct feeling that it's nothing more than lip service. Maybe I'm just being cynical in thinking that SECURE IT might be the lesser of two evils here, but I just don't trust the federal government with my internet anymore than I'd trust my dog with a plate of chicken.

[Ngamer01]

I'm afraid I have to bump this to let you all know CISPA is back: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/0...-back-congress

http://cispaisback.com/ is helpful if you need to (re)learn what CISPA is and why it's a terrible bill. It's not just destroying the fourth amendment in regards to technology, this bill also would let the government snoop around for copyright infringement. If CISPA passes, BitF and your other favorite sites (YouTube, NG, etc.) could be considered national security threats and shut down and the webmasters prosecuted.

How far along is it?

Is it just in a committee in the House, or are they actually going to vote on it?