House Passes CISPA

wiedzmin writes "The House approved Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act with a 248 to 168 vote today. CISPA allows internet service providers to share Internet 'threat' information with government agencies, including DHS and NSA, without having to protect any personally identifying data of its customers, without a court order. It effectively immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for disclosing customer information, grants them anti-trust protection on colluding on cybersecurity issues and allows them to bypass privacy laws when sharing data with each other."

Comments

First

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

George Orwell

Re:First

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatenedâ"again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the NSA is right on track to get all the legal requirements ready for them before switching on their new data center out West.

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

Both parties aren't equally bad, but the difference is still coke and pepsi. One group stabs you in the back, one stabs you in the front. Take your pick.

Re:First

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

All of The Onion is more truth than satire.

Re:First

[cpu6502]

Now we'll see if Obama keeps his promise
(veto the bill).
I'm not holding my breath.

In other news: Megaupload will likely Not be prosecuted by the U.S. Government because the judge ruled the government has no authority to "serve" a foreign company. Bad news: The U.S.G. still wins because they've destroyed the company, so RIAA and MPAA got their money's worth when they bribed the politicians to act as their puppets and kill megaupload.

I can't help wondering if the same tactic will be used in the future against sites or persons that Hollywood/the record companies desire to be silenced. No doubt CISPA will make that task so much easier.

Danm Fcukers.

Re:First

[shoehornjob]

In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy.

And in the 00's it triumphed over privacy. And we allowed all of this to happen by not standing up for our rights. Apathy rules.

Re:First

[Ded Bob]

If most Republicans were against it, then most Democrats would have been for it. Define *it* to be almost anything.

No Surprise

[tirefire]

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and assume that Ron Paul, R-TX, voted "No" on this shitpile.

Democracy at its best

[Spiked_Three]

Whine all you want. How many sent a message to your representatives on this issue? How many will lounge at home come next election? Taking advantage of lethargy is what democracy is all about. Sit around and whine about it and do nothing .... perfect.

Re:Democracy at its best

[Scarred Intellect]

Rough draft. Edited to protect MY privacy:

In the name of security we have the TSA, I am sure you are familiar with their current situation. If not, Google. And allow me a moment to give you a brief overview: strip-searching old women, patting down an 4 year old girl, targeting female passengers with full-body scans, smuggling...all in the name of fighting terrorism while at the same time providing the largest terrorist threat: insecure security checkpoints.

TSA needs to be shut down, they accomplish nothing but necessitating a ridiculously large crowd that is easy for a bomber to target. Since these crowds don't get bombed, there is no significant terrorist threat, and the TSA is uselss. But I digress.

In the name of security we now have the CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). The goal again being a more secure internet. What we don't need is a more secure internet, the internet is secure enough for those who care enough (encryption via PGP, VPN's, E-mail anonymizers, etc.). What we do need is privacy. This bill threatens privacy too much; it is also too similar in scope to SOPA. I sent you a letter about SOPA, and though it wasn't in your consideration, you said you would keep these views in mind "should legislation regarding internet regulation come before the House of Representatives" (Letter to REDACTED, Jan 19, 2012). You also state "It is imperative that we recognize the need to balance the freedom promised by the Internet with the responsibility to protect the rights of consumers and businesses."

You have failed.

The 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which I am sure you swore an oath to uphold, states that "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." CISPA is in direct conflict with our Constitutional rights.

There are better ways that the goals of CISPA can be achieved, and they do not involve disclosure of private data to determine online threats. If you are unaware of these better ways, then you have no reason to be voting on such issues until you become better informed.

One of the goals of CISPA is to assist in reporting/detecting cybersecurity. That is all well and good, and can be done with ONLY IP Addresses and does not need to contain personal information of any sort.

In the name of security we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into abandoning our rights and allowing the government to strip us of our rights and convenience so that we can be safer. Catchall phrases such as "to protect against terrorism," "for the children," and "for national security" have been used all too much to justify blatant abuses of the government's power.

In the name of security our country has maintained the USA PATRIOT act, an act originally intended to be short-lived.

In the name of security we have become absurdly inconvenienced when traveling, had our privacy dissolved, and many basic rights washed away. This needs to end.

In the name of security we have allowed the terrorists to win: we have a government consistently and continually crushing our rights and eroding our freedoms, and this once-great nation is now the laughing stock of the free world because we are a disturbingly pitiful former shadow of ourselves.

As a US Marine Corps infantry machinegunner, I am ashamed of our government.

Yes, I will tell you that

[Scareduck]

Because here is how modern American politics work: the state gets expanded at every possible opportunity. This is what the Democrats want (so long as they can get more entitlements) and what the Republicans want (so long as they can get free rein to send the military into new wars). The only question is, what gets expanded?

As I have said elsewhere, it's pretty obvious that the government plans on listening to everything going on on the Internet. This is just legal formalism.

Re:Yes, I will tell you that

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Jesus H. Christ. Here is a very clear-cut case, having practically nothing to do with either entitlements or war, in which a strong majority of Democrats voted against expanding the power of the state, and a strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Just out of curiosity, is there anything that could convince you that there's a meaningful difference between the parties?

Re:Yes, I will tell you that

[The Master Control P]

So, in answer to GP's question... no. Absolutely anything the Dems or Reps do is proof that they're all part of the conspiracy.

Any time you catch yourself saying or thinking this - anything that contradicts me is proof I'm right - close the tab and walk away. It means you've fallen into a positive-feedback trap of seeing only what you want to see and as a result are now completely full of shit regarding the topic.

Re:Treason

[fnj]

Actually, executing traitors who brazenly break their solemn oath to uphold the constitution WOULD be a positive step.

Re:Treason

[Beardo the Bearded]

Actually it is.

When you're executing someone you're only taking their life.

When you violate someone's constitutional rights, that's a crime worse than murder. It is taking away the human rights that we're all entitled to and deciding that your profits, your business, and nebulous "threats" are a reason to go through the trash and history of every single person that has never been accused of a crime.

It's better to have a bomb attack every day -- even on my house -- than to give ISPs the ability to be immune from lawsuits, to share my private data, and to allow the government to decide that you know what, warrants are a pain in the ass after all.

Those are not the actions of a democratic government, or even a republic. If they aren't ready to put the integreity of the constitution ahead of their meagre lives, then yeah, that's treason. And the US is at war. Hang 'em up in from of the Capitol as a warning to the others.

Well....

[Dripdry]

my long-time girlfriend and I have been debating whether to leave the country. I guess the strategy is to keep our heads down as long as possible, ignore using the internet, learn another language or two, save up as much as we can, and get the fuck out of this country.

For some reason I was really starting to think I could settle down in this country, have a family, and be productive.

Re:"Not voting"

[shiftless]

[Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.

What the fuck did you do for the cause of liberty today?

Re:"Not voting"

[Anonymous Coward]

By not voting, the estimable Ron Paul did as much as most people posting about it here on /. have done. So he has a bigger microphone, by not voting on it, he did not do his job.

Re:House of Representatives

[Imrik]

They are representatives, just not of the people that voted for them. They represent the people that paid for their campaigns.

Re:wtf is "internet threat information"?

[sjames]

It's like smurf. It means whatever the DOJ and LEOs want/need it to mean.

Republican Driven Legislation

[tyrione]

All you GOP hack lovers who espouse about their love of Privacy, Liberty, Guns, blah, blah, blah take a look at the count:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml

AYES: GOP 206, DEM 42
NOES: GOP 28, DEM 140
NOT VOTING: GOP 8, DEM 7

Don't tell me the GOP is for your privacy. Stew in your own bull****.

Re:Republican Driven Legislation

[Howitzer86]

The Democrats will screw you in the name of ending piracy, safety, global-warming, and taxes. The Republicans will screw you in the name of security, starting wars, policing pornography, and enforcing morality. The one guy you thought was awesome, the one you you thought was different? Well turns out he's a coward.

Does voting even matter at this point?

Re:House of Representatives

[Joce640k]

I like the way it says "CISPA allows internet service providers to share Internet 'threat' information with government agencies".

"Allows"

Worded like that it almost sounds like it will be optional...

Sad Little People

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Can't get it through your heads, but it's true:
Your
Republic
is
Gone

The throw little bones your way, called things like a "Ron Paul" or a "Democratic Alternative" so you can't quite give up hope, in pursuit something which became quite impossible, some time ago...

Re:Sad Little People

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullets in the hands of citizens solve ALOT of problems.

Re:Sad Little People

[reboot246]

Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

Re:Sad Little People

[cpu6502]

Too bad the Supreme Court already nullified that (and other) executive orders which try to change law. They have ruled time-and-time again that the Legislative Power lies with the congress, not the president, and the written act of the bill overrules signing statements or E.O.s

Oh and "it was passed by a vetoproof majority" doesn't mean crap to me. He still could have vetoed it, and then I would have respected the man for honoring his commitment to uphold the Constitution (and the right to trial in the 6th).

>>>any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.

This doesn't mean crap to me either. The Constitution says a "jury of your peers" shall decide your guilt and punishment (or innocence), not a panel of unelected bureaucrats that serve the pleasure of the president and his desire to be "touch on crime" (think George Bush or Mitt Romney). Heck, not even the right to defend yourself exists.

Re:Sad Little People

[Githaron]

Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

Actually, that creates problems.

Re:Sad Little People

[TheRaven64]

So, how many problems in the US in, say, the last 10 years have been solved by an armed populous? The USAPATRIOT Act? The DMCA? The TSA?

Or do bullets just act as a security blanket to prevent people from bothering to get actively involved in the democratic process because they 'can always overthrow the government later if it gets really bad...'

Re:Sad Little People

[iter8]

This country is awash in guns. What good has that done? Brains in the heads of citizens would do much more.

Re:Treason

[JesseMcDonald]

When you violate someone's constitutional rights, that's a crime worse than murder.

Please explain how murdering someone does not take away all their natural and constitutional rights. Oppression is neither so complete nor so permanent a state as death. Rights are only relevant to the living.

Some may choose death over abandoning their principles, for the sake of their own integrity and/or as an example to others, but that is hardly the same thing as claiming that murder is morally superior to oppression. It merely means that you can't safely assume that someone would rather be oppressed than accept the risk (or even certainty) of death—or vise-versa. That is an individual decision, and no one has the right to make that choice for another.

Whether it is better for a few to die or for many to suffer lesser violations of their rights... one might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Like most matters involving interpersonal preferences, there is no objective answer. So far as I am concerned, however, the only principled answer is that you shouldn't do either—even if other people make difference choices. If there is a way to prevent the deaths without violating anyone's rights, great. If not, we must learn to live with the risk.

Re:"Not voting"

[SeaFox]

[Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.

Actions speak louder than words.

Re:"Not voting"

[geekoid]

he did the same thing as Ron Paul did today, nothing.

You really need to get over your Ron Paul man crush.
He's a guy with a few good ideas, but a lot of nonsense. Especially his economy crap.

No they don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

The citizens have to be motivated to get up and use those bullets for the greater good, at great personal risk and with great personal sacrifice.

Until enough people get to that point, the bullets do no good at all.

People will not get to that point if they are largely stupid and complacent, which most Americans are.

Re:No they don't.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"If we overthrew the government, we couldn't watch The Voice anymore."

Re:No they don't.

[Jstlook]

Add a new separation between Business and State.

This needs to be said again and again, until it is heard.

If a business wants their corporate viewpoint heard in government, they need to encourage their employees, clients/customers, and distributors to vote in their favor, rather than simply throwing money at the problem.

Re:"Not voting"

[cpu6502]

You sir are guilty of first-order thinking, rather than looking at the secondary and tertiary effects. Two scenarios:

(1) Ron Paul cancels his four speaking engagements today and tomorrow, pisses-off ~8000 people who will post "Ron sucks" on facebook (which are then read by ~80,000 other people), flies all the way across the west coast to the east coast to cast just *1* vote..... which would have done nothing to stop CISPA from passing anyhow.

(2) Skip the vote because he knew he could not stop the passage. And instead talk to those 8000 people in Arizona and Texas, ignite their desire to fight for liberty and the Bill of Rights, share that fire across facebook to their ~80,000 followers, and thus provide the foundation that will inspire these people to run for Delegates and Legislature and the Congress, and eventually repeal CISPA, NDAA, and all the other crap that has been passed.

Had I been Paul, I would have picked scenario 2.

Re:"Not voting"

[bill_mcgonigle]

Actions speak louder than words.

He wasn't voting today because he's at his home with his advisers who are plotting their (succeeding) delegates strategy to challenge Romney for the Republican nomination, so Paul can end the wars and all of the abuses of the Executive Branch (TSA, et. al.), de-fang the Federal Reserve (i.e. stop breaking the economy), veto bad legislation like CISPA, and return the country to a system based on Rule of Law.

But, yeah, he didn't cast this one vote. You'll have to decide if that's abrogation of duty or not.

Re:"Not voting"

[artor3]

Very reasonable.

But wait a sec... Aren't you the guy who in this same thread condemned Obama as a "lying piece of shit" and "George Bush wearing a mask" because he didn't perform the futile gesture of vetoing the NDAA after it had been passed by a veto-proof majority?

To copy your two scenarios:

(1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media and in the minds of millions of Americans for vetoing health care for wounded veterans (which was in the same bill), and it does nothing to stop the NDAA from passing anyhow.

(2) Obama skips the veto since he knows he can't stop the passage, and does what he can through signing statements and executive orders to weaken it. (Which is what he did.)

Why do you apply rational thinking towards the actions of people you like (Ron Paul) and not those you hate (Barack Obama)? Can you even really call it rational thinking, if you selectively apply it like that?