Even worse than SOPA: New CISPA cybersecurity bill will censor the Web

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Just to continue the saga.....

House set to revise CISPA language to add more privacy protection

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

 

Just to continue the saga.....

House set to revise CISPA language to add more privacy protection

Funny, I just read a headline:

Ron Paul Gives Cybersecurity Bill CISPA A Boost

A tad misleading?

Prominent CISPA critic Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will be supporting two of the amendments, according to House staffers.

Paul released a lengthy statement online slamming CISPA, or the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, on Monday, calling it “the latest assault on internet freedom” and an “alarming form of corporatism,” and “Big Brother writ large.”

One of the amendments Paul is ready to support came from his Democratic colleague Rep. Bennie Thompson (MS) on Tuesday. The proposed amendment, which also counts Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) as a supporter, would add a whole new section to CISPA designed to protect “privacy and civil liberties” of Web users.

Source

I will take a comment from that source to address this headline...

Uh, Ron Paul is going to try to knock out the worst of it in case it passes anyhow OVER the vote he will cast against it.

He ALWAYS tries to make it better in amendments, because while HE always votes against the bad stuff, others often vote for it. Watch his vote.

It's too bad you can't recognize integrity when you see it.

reply to post by boncho


The House has passed the CISPA Bill, 206 Republicans and 42 Democrats voted yes

Ron Paul didn't vote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by AliceBlackman


Forgive the repetition....

While listening to NPR this morning I was mildly surprised to hear that the "reason" the leader of the Executive Branch would potentially veto this bill is because..... "it's too weak; it doesn't go far enough."

How's that for kick in the face America?

Of course, this is the media reporting... so who knows what really is behind such a notion?

No link for that quote? I checked and it didn't come from within this post...

Also, it contradicts what's been said by the WH and all other sources; the WH threatened veto over the lack of protecting core infrastructure, keeping it under the DHS, and for lack of control over privacy protection:

The Obama administration's own harsh words criticized CISPA for failing to “ensure that the nation’s core critical infrastructure is protected," or provide “sufficient limitations on the sharing of personally identifiable information." Hence, the veto threat.
source

Among the things Obama opposed was allowing the NSA to control the sharing of privacy information and not having it under the DHS, and treating cybersecurity like 'intelligence gathering' (as I read that, I assume he means that the NSA would snoop, but not actively protect infrastructure).

The official WH statement:

“The sharing of information must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans’ privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace. Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive. [...] Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, in its current form.”

More:

[...] the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy saying the administration “strongly opposes” the bill “in its current form.” The requirements laid out in the statement appear to go beyond the changes that the sponsors announced Tuesday. For example, the administration wants the measure to require companies to minimize personally identifiable information before sharing it with the government and each other. It also warns that by giving a key role to the National Security Agency, “H.R. 3523 effectively treats domestic cybersecurity as an intelligence activity.”

A third complaint is that the bill ignores the administration’s main cyber security proposal: requiring operators of “critical infrastructure” (such as power grids and electronic payment systems) to meet industry standards for securing their networks. “Voluntary measures alone are insufficient responses to the growing danger of cyber threats,” the statement contends.
source

So Obama opposes the bill and threatened veto on these grounds:

1. the bill does not require operators of 'critical infrastructure' to secure their own networks.
2. the bill has no protections in place for personally identifiable information, and no control or oversight for sharing this information among private companies and with govt. agencies.
3. the bill, with the NSA as it's primary govt. agency, treats cybersecurity as an 'intelligence gathering' apparatus as opposed to a proactive countermeasure to cyber attacks headed by the DHS.