Slashdot Mirror


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."

54 of 616 comments (clear)

  1. First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    George Orwell

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml Handy list of the reps who voted for this turd.

    2. Re:First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:First by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative

      TL;DR version - CISPA is how "Total Information Awareness" and spying on every US citizen without cause becomes legal.

      What's really sad is that the current Supreme Court couldn't even be counted on to assert the 4th amendment if this got challenged in court. After all, 5 of those senile delinquents recently ruled that you can be strip-searched for jaywalking.

    5. Re:First by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:First by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to feed the troll here but actually it breaks down as thus:
      Republicans:
              Yea - 206
              Nay - 28
              Not Voting - 7

      Democrats:
              Yea - 42
              Nay - 140
              Not Voting - 8

      Percentage-wise it breaks down as 28% Dems approved the bill vs 85% Repubs supporting.

    7. Re:First by shoehornjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    8. Re:First by Ded+Bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    9. Re:First by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it's worse than that. I think the dems didn't vote for it because they knew there was enough votes in the Republican camp to carry it. If there weren't, then they would have been required to vote for it.

      They all have the same handlers, after all.

    10. Re:First by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You might also want to check on why your rep voted against it. Mine voted against CISPA too.

      Why?

      Because it didn't go far enough. He essentially wanted it to include an Internet kill switch to stop cyber threats. He did at least mention privacy concerns but one thing is clear: We need an Internet kill switch! We need government regulation describing the exact security software you must be required to buy to place a computer online!

      So check up on your reps. They may have voted "no," but you may not like the reason why.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  2. House of Representatives by game+kid · · Score: 5, Funny

    House of Representatives, for peculiar values of "Representatives".

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:House of Representatives by Imrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:House of Representatives by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least the SCOTUS ruling that political donations = free speech, and can remain anonymous, has made official what we already knew--your vote doesn't matter. Those with money get to "vote" for both sides, so they own whoever wins regardless.

  3. "Not voting" by Scareduck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Roll call here. He was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:"Not voting" by shiftless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [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?

    2. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:"Not voting" by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [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.

    4. Re:"Not voting" by Soupster · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      They pushed the voting day up by one at the last minute. Ron Paul was campaigning in Texas at the time, it was probably logistically impossible for him to get back in time to vote.

    5. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      (1) He already announced his retirement from Congress.

      (2) According to NBC's Rachel Maddow and other sources, Paul has now won 4 states, and it appears he will win ~10 more over the next few weeks (the states that were won by Gingrich/Santorum are now "freed" to whoever has the most delegates; probably Paul). Plus I expect Maine and Nevada will go to Paul too, since he scored the majority of delegates.

      We're going to have a brokered convention where Romney will not have the 1144 votes to win the nomination. It will be split.

      (3) You don't quit a 26 mile marathon at mile 22. Paul's come all this way, and only has two more months to go. It would be silly for him to quit, especially since he's only ~450 delegates behind Romney, and that gap is closing (see point 2). Paul started the race; he might as well go all the way to the finish line, as he did in 2008.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:"Not voting" by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    8. Re:"Not voting" by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here in the UK, we have a (slightly quaint) process for if an MP can't attend a vote. They contact someone who they know is going to vote the opposite way to them, and agree with them that they will both abstain (which has the same effect as if they had voted opposite ways and cancelled each other out). This is the trick usually used by the Prime Minister and senior Ministers (who are both members of the government and the legislature) when they need to go jetsetting around the world meeting foreign leaders and whatnot.

      Could Ron Paul not have made similar arrangements?

  4. Check the party breakdowns ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... and then tell me "there's no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.

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

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama has issued a veto threat.

  5. Re:Treason by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  6. Re:Treason by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  7. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  8. Well.... by Dripdry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -
  9. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

    --Thomas Jefferson.

    The Founding Fathers knew this would inevitably be a problem long before Orwell was born.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  10. Lyle Myhur said it best by Tanman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet."

        -- Lyle Myhur

  11. Re:wtf is "internet threat information"? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  12. Republican Driven Legislation by tyrione · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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****.

  13. as someone who works at a bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let me just give you a sample of the kind of data they will have access to, without a warrant, if Obama doesn't veto this.

    Every transaction you have made involving a card, ever, including the date, time of day, name of the merchant, city and state of the merchant, ID number of the terminal where the card was swiped, amount of transaction, etc etc etc.

    Every time you withdrew money from an ATM. it stores the amount, the location of the ATM, the time of day, etc.

    The same goes for online transactions.

    An image of every check you have ever written.

    Every deposit slip you have used.

    Every time you have talked to a teller in person, the interaction is recorded.

    Every time you have called the bank on the telephone.

    It is all there. Waiting for the government to use it, as it sees fit.

    ---

    Now, link that up with records from places like Wal-Mart. They can correlate card numbers with items. They know what brand of toothpaste you buy. They know what kind of toilet paper you use. They know if you like to buy a lot of baggies (are you a drug dealer?), if you buy a lot of cold medicine (are you a meth dealer?), if you buy a lot of condoms (are you a pimp?), etc etc etc.

    ---

    Now, link this up with projects like the CINDER (Cyber Insider Threat) ADAMS, and PRODIGAL (some of which have been program-managed by former hackers like Mudge from l0pht heavy industries). If you dig through these 'proposals', you will find academics saying things like "Maybe a target goes to lunch at a different time of day. that might indicate a threat". This is where our tax money is going. This is what is being built.

  14. Sad Little People by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Sad Little People by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Sad Little People by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do know this isn't law yet, right? And you also know that Obama has said he would veto it if it ever came to his desk right? The sky isn't falling dude.

    3. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just like he was gonna veto NDAA until it gave him more power?

    4. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it doesn't get vetoed, then it's time to use the ammo box. This just fucked up the future of my children. I will give my life for them.

    5. Re:Sad Little People by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>Obama has said he would veto it

      Wow you're a gullible little fucker. Didn't he ALSO say he would veto the NDAA? Yes. Then he signed it. The lying piece of shit.... I suspect Obama is really George Bush wearing a mask.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    6. Re:Sad Little People by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was passed by a veto-proof majority. Obama subsequently weakened it by executive order stating that any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.

      I swear, that "Obama supports the NDAA!" propaganda is the most devastatingly insidious lie since the "swiftboat veterans" for "truth".

    7. Re:Sad Little People by Lothsahn · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sorry. He signed the bill into law. Had he truly been opposed to it, he could have vetoed it. Sure, his veto could have been overruled, but at least he'd be officially on the record that he didn't support it.

      Also, Obama specifically requested the removal of language that said the NDAA would not apply to US citizens or lawful residents. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY

      I'm sorry--I think there's a big difference between "swiftboat veterans" for "truth" and "Obama supported the NDAA and specifically requested some of the draconian language in the bill"

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    8. Re:Sad Little People by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    9. Re:Sad Little People by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now you have done it. Here comes the feds!

    10. Re:Sad Little People by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Actually, that creates problems.

    11. Re:Sad Little People by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  15. Re:No they don't. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  16. Re:No Surprise by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The reason's pretty obvious, and it's the same reason he missed a couple votes this year..... he's busy giving speeches for his campaign (~2000 people per day show up to see him). I think it's a wise move.

    Igniting the fire of liberty in the 15-to-35 year olds, the next generation of politicians and voters, is more important than casting just 1 vote which would not have stopped CISPA from passing.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  17. Re:No they don't. by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >>>Some of us also feel murder is something that should be taken VERY seriously, and generally avoided at all costs

    Most of these politicians are near death anyway. So they end-up in a coffin 20-30 years ahead of schedule... in the long term it matters not. 100 years from now, we probably won't even remember their names.

    BUT you raise a good point about the after-revolution.

    Probably the new Constitution would be written to give the government all kinds of new authority (as happened with the EU Constitution aka Lisbon Treaty). We're better-off trying to restore the existing document piece-by-piece by electing ourselves into Congress and then repealing these bad laws. As Congressman Paul says, "It took 80 years to reach this point, and may take just as long to undo the bad legislation."

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  18. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:No they don't. by Genda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You want to see some changes?

    Reinstated Glass-Steagall

    Formalize the separation between Church and State.

    Add a new separation between Business and State

    Provide free education through Masters Degree, and for every year after your AA, you have to work as a teacher for 1 year, all your living expenses will be covered and you'll receive a small stipend OR you will serve in the National Guard OR you will work to rebuild the nations infrastructure... pick

    Less than 3% of the nations educational budget should go to administrators... figure out how to divvy that up guys. Education is not an industry, its a birthright

    People will pass a basic test to vote. Those that don't vote will pay a small tax. Those that do vote will receive a small credit. People want to act like idiots, we'll put the dots close together for a couple generations until they get the hint.

    We provide contraception, we teach reproductive health and we explain to young people actions have consequences, some that last a lifetime. We stop being squeamish about telling people the friggin truth and we get desperately honest with one another on a social scale.

    We put checks and balances back in, and we pull the fascist imbeciles out.

    We stop prosecuting whistle blowers and make them national heroes instead.

    We subsidize elections and media donates precisely the same amount of air time to each candidate. Anyone can run for anything, and a non-partisan organization provides extensive information on each candidate for public consumption. This organization is composed of volunteers from diverse backgrounds and beliefs and changes governing members on a frequent and short term basis.

    Freedom of the press and protection from ideological control by any single group, corporate interest, or ideological body will be strictly enforced by law.

    Put a choke hold on the banks, muzzle them, screw the lid on so tight they pop, follow up by doing the same to the insurance companies.

    Split health care into for profit and not for profit. Ensure that not for profit health care is excellent, and accessible to everyone. People who are injured in the commission of felonies and misdemeanor pay 10 times the going rate and if unable to pay must perform public service until the debt is paid.

    Lemme see, did I miss anything? I'm sure I did. Well this is a good start. I figure this might make a dent in the national stupid that pervades our society today.

  20. Re:No they don't. by Jstlook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
  21. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by iphinome · · Score: 4, Informative

    He wants to outlaw abortion. That's not being for liberty.

  22. Re:Mod please +5 paper bag over head by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since 2000, we've seen the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, telecom immunity for the aforementioned, indefinite detention(and now assassination!) of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, NDAA ... and this relentless effort to legalize internet espionage.

    Furthermore, it's no secret that the NSA is building a huge new data center in Utah.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1

    This stuff isn't in the realm of "conspiracy theories" nor exclusive to wearers of tinfoil hats.