Senate Cybersecurity Bill Stalled By Ridiculous Amendments

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Cybersecurity Bill Stalled By Ridiculous Amendments

Posted by Unknown on Thursday August 2, 2012 @04:19AM from the this-is-why-western-society-collapsed dept.

wiredmikey writes "Despite a recent push by legislators, it remains unclear whether the Senate will manage to vote on the proposed comprehensive cybersecurity legislation (Cybersecurity Act of 2012) before Congress adjourns at the end of the week for its summer recess. Once all the amendments (over 70) have been dealt with, the Senate could decide to vote on the bill immediately, or wait till after the summer recess. As usual, the Democrats and Republicans have been unable to agree on which amendments will be considered, effectively stalling the bill. And most interesting, is that in typical U.S. political fashion, some of the amendments have nothing to with the topic on hand (cybersecurity): ... Sen. Frank Lautenberg has filed a measure to ban high-capacity ammunition clips as part of a gun-reform proposal. And Sen. Mike Lee filed a bill that would ban abortion in Washington, D.C. after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Sen. Michael Bennet and Tom Coburn filed an amendment to expand the Office for Personnel Management's federal government's data center consolidation initiative. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suggested an amendment to repeal the Affordable Care Act."

46 of 233 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by rbanzai · 2012-08-02 04:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know this is the way our government works, tacking on all sorts of stupid shit but it still seems absurd.
1. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by Zobeid · 2012-08-02 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Those who love sausage and respect the law shouldn't watch either being made.
2. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by DJRumpy · 2012-08-02 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wish they would change the rules to allow only amendments related to the legislation in question. It would seem such a simple thing would make congress much more efficient. Then again, I seriously doubt that was ever a priority for them.
3. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by ganjadude · 2012-08-02 05:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And the bill to get that passed would have 100 amendments having nothing to do with outlawing amendments!
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
4. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by Jessified · 2012-08-02 05:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's not absurd. If you cyberRTFA you'll see that they are talking about cyberabortions of cyberpregrancies, cybergunreform and cyber-repealing of cyberhealthcare.
5. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by SuricouRaven · 2012-08-02 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  But how do you define 'directly related' and 'one thing?'
6. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by LandDolphin · 2012-08-02 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If the Founder Fathers wanted efficiency, they would not have created the federal system with a bicameral legislature. Stupid shit like this slowing down the process is there by design - to protect our rights. If government were efficient, they would just erode our rights faster.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
7. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by LandDolphin · 2012-08-02 05:37 · Score: 2
  
  Amendments are often how compromise is reached. Without amendments, the Constitution would never have passed.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
8. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-08-02 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  Some American states have explicit prohibition on these kinds of shenanigans. E.g. Washington State Constitution:
  
  SECTION 38 LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS. No amendment to any bill shall be allowed which shall change the scope and object of the bill.
9. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by Cinder6 · 2012-08-02 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Obligatory Simpsons quote:
  
  Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of—
  Congressman: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill – $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
  Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [entire Congress boos] Bill defeated. [gavel]
  Kent Brockman: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
10. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by cayenne8 · 2012-08-02 05:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  For the most part...I am the happiest with congress when the best they can manage is gridlock.
  That just means they aren't passing more useless laws to infringe on my privacy, curb my rights, or charge me more money.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
11. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by LandDolphin · 2012-08-02 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  Read The Federalists #10.
  
  To sum it up. James Madison writes about the influence of Factions (aka Parties). He sees these as negative, but unavoidable. Thus, the he suggests a system in which smaller Factions have the ability to slow down and force larger Factions to discuss and debate issues.
  
  --
  Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
12. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-08-02 06:36 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This was one that the Confederate States got right:
  
  Article I, Section 9(20): Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.[17]
  Too bad that one was never incorporated.
13. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-08-02 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  A yes/no simple majority vote would be easy enough to decide if an amendment is related. Sometimes a simple solution is also the best one ;)
  So, under your system, the Democrats in the Senate can define anything they want to be "related", and the Republicans in the House can do likewise.
  So, how is that different than now?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
14. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by nschubach · 2012-08-02 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  Who's to determine if an amendment is related? I mean, if you are talking about a budget act, one could argue that any amendment could be included because anything takes money. If I submit a bill that states: "Patents relating to software are hereby disallowed" (but of course, in legalese). What's to prevent someone from saying: "Well, Microsoft is involved heavily in software patents... therefore I amend that companies reporting as software entities be permitted a tax break because of this bill." Now, as an "unrelated" circumstance... Apple decides they are now a software company and they get a tax break on all hardware purchases."
  I only mention something like this because of UPS and FedEx. During my time at UPS (I'm no longer involved in either) it was made very clear that UPS was considered a company covered by Railroad regulations and FedEx was covered by Airline regulations. They perform the same functions, but since UPS is older and didn't start as an air shipping company they are beholden to Union labor laws based on rail legislation and FedEx does not have union labor regulations. This recently came up as a topic and UPS was criticized for trying to bring FedEx under the same regulation as FedEx.
  So who determines the validity and repercussions of an amendment?
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
15. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by shentino · 2012-08-02 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  We tried that already.
  SCOTUS ruled it as an unconstitutional violation of the presentment clause.
16. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-08-02 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  I didn't mean this literally, but rather in intent. For example, here's how Washington State constitution specifies this:
  "LIMITATION ON AMENDMENTS. No amendment to any bill shall be allowed which shall change the scope and object of the bill."
  The precise interpretation of "change the scope and object" is not defined here, and would be up to the court. But the purpose of this clause is so that you can invoke the court in the first place.
17. Re:Business as usual, but it still seems absurd by Hartree · 2012-08-02 11:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "As far as I know, no other country does this ludicrous crap"
  You haven't studied many other countries legislatures much, then. Look up things like the cow walk in Japan and some of the shenanigans where fistfights break out various legislatures.
  What about Belgium when it couldn't even form a government for a year and a half? They finally did late last year.
  What about the long term period of the Italian government of the month that went on for decades?
  What about India two years ago when they only managed to pass 4 whole bills in one session?
  I'm not saying the US congres is good, it's just not the only one that does this.
Ridiculous all over by jbmartin6 · 2012-08-02 04:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's no reason the amendments should be any less ridiculous than the bill itself.

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
the bill already failed, what is this article abou by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-02 04:27 · Score: 5, Informative

??? the bill failed a vote on the senate floor minutes ago
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cybersecurity-act-fails-to-pass-in-the-senate-20120802,0,1649471.story
Holding pattern until the election by crazyjj · 2012-08-02 04:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

At this point Congress is in a holding pattern until the election. You'd be lucky to get through a resolution expressing condolences to the Colorado shooting victims.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
"Cybersecurity" 101 by Darkness404 · 2012-08-02 04:29 · Score: 2

"Cybersecurity" 101, don't have critical infrastructure facing the internet. Use strong encryption for sensitive files. Deploy security patches promptly. Use the right tool for the job, sometimes that means using a commercial OS, sometimes it means developing a new OS, sometimes it means taking an existing OS (*Nix) and tweaking it.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:"Cybersecurity" 101 by s73v3r · 2012-08-02 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  All of those are excuses, and while one or two might be valid for a specific part, one of the things about security is that you should be doing ALL that stuff, to minimize your risk should one of the other facets fail.
  Especially the budget one. I'm sorry, but good security costs money. And until there are very real penalties for not doing it, many cheapasses will simply choose not to.
Re:bill itself by TaoPhoenix · 2012-08-02 04:29 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, here's the summary links to the bill itself.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.2105:
I'm a little out of my depth but "comprehensive legislation" these days makes me nervous that there aren't sneaky things in there.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
What would it take... by Antipater · 2012-08-02 04:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

What would we need to do to make this kind of shit illegal? A law? A constitutional amendment? I don't think it would be too hard to get 2/3 of Americans to agree that any amendment or rider to a bill should be relevant to that bill's stated purpose.

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
1. Re:What would it take... by Darkness404 · 2012-08-02 04:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It wouldn't matter. The constitution is routinely ignored, there are so many laws on the books that its impossible to be sure that you are following them all.
  
  Even if they did follow the constitution they'd use political doublespeak to prevent it from working as intended.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
2. Re:What would it take... by Millennium · 2012-08-02 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is figuring out how to craft a law demanding that. What does it mean to be "relevant" to a bill's stated purpose? For that matter, how does one define the "stated purpose" of a bill?
  Common-sense legislation is a nice idea, but it turns out that common sense is actually quite difficult to describe in a manner suitable for law. That goes double in common-law systems, where precedent becomes a law unto itself and so interpretation becomes extremely important.
3. Re:What would it take... by JDG1980 · 2012-08-02 04:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The problem is figuring out how to craft a law demanding that. What does it mean to be "relevant" to a bill's stated purpose? For that matter, how does one define the "stated purpose" of a bill?
  But the same thing applies to many parts of the existing Constitution. What constitutes a "reasonable search"? What kind of punishments are "cruel and unusual"? And so forth. The answer, in practice, is that the federal courts decide these things. If there was a Constitutional amendment barring irrelevant additions to bills, the deterrent to Congress would presumably be that the addendum could be thrown out by the courts and therefore there would be no point in trying to pass it. Even if the benefit of the doubt was given to the legislature in corner cases, the most blatant abuses like the ones mentioned in this article might be avoided.
Re:bill itself by TaoPhoenix · 2012-08-02 04:31 · Score: 2

p.s. the link won't work with a final : symbol on the end, Slashdot doesn't like the link.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Precisely the problem. by unr3a1 · 2012-08-02 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is one of the fundamental reasons why we have the issues we have. Including amendments or clauses that have absolutely nothing to do with the main content of the bill itself should not be allowed. It has historically and currently used to sneak in laws that are not openly discussed with the public in order to pass those laws without public knowledge. This is because they know it is harder to eliminate a law after it has passed than it is to block a law before it passes.
While arguments could be made that legitimate laws that should be passed would take too long to get passed, this ability is abuses far more frequently than being used for legitimate laws. And for that reason, things like this need to stop.
Who decides? by PraiseBob · 2012-08-02 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

And who decides if the amendment is related to the bill or not? The majority party? Luckily our congress would never act in a petty & partisan manner by randomly punishing their political opponents just because they can.
1. Re:Who decides? by Antipater · 2012-08-02 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And who decides if the amendment is related to the bill or not? The majority party? Luckily our congress would never act in a petty & partisan manner by randomly punishing their political opponents just because they can.
  Believe it or not, Congress is not made up only of Congressmen. There are various nonpartisan offices whose job is to analyze everything brought to them - for example, the Congressional Budget Office. This could just create the Congressional Relevance Office.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
2. Re:Who decides? by Antipater · 2012-08-02 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  And who decides who's on that office?
  I really like the idea, I'm just worried about what the implementation would be.
  A normal hiring process. Using the CBO as an example again, here's their "career opportunities" page.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
3. Re:Who decides? by Antipater · 2012-08-02 05:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Extra info on the leadership positions. Possible to be corrupt, but difficult.
  
  --
  Everything is better with chainsaws.
Re:kent brockman: by Black+Parrot · 2012-08-02 04:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

i've said it before and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.
It's worse than everything except everything else.
The best government would be an enlightened despot, but there's no way to me sure your despot stays enlightened. Nor to ensure the succession.
Nor to get everyone to agree on what 'enlightened' means.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One Subject at a Time Act by Rinisari · 2012-08-02 04:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is a great reminder to contact your Representative and ask them to support the latest iteration of the H.R. 3806 One Subject at a Time Act in the House and Sen. Paul's version S. 3359 One Subject at a Time Act in the Senate. Both bills are endorsed by DownsizeDC, which is one of the originators of the idea, according to their site.

--
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
1. Re:One Subject at a Time Act by Guppy06 · 2012-08-02 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  Sen. Paul's version S. 3359 One Subject at a Time Act
  Would this be the same Senator Paul who insists on tacking abortion riders onto flood insurance bills?
  I note that even the official summary of the bill has the phrase "and for other purposes" tacked onto it.
2. Re:One Subject at a Time Act by Altrag · 2012-08-02 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  I love how both summaries include "and other purposes." I'm sure its standard language, but its amusing nonetheless on bills intended to prevent tacking "other things" on bills.
3. Re:One Subject at a Time Act by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-08-02 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  "Would this be the same Senator Paul who insists on tacking abortion riders onto flood insurance bills?"
  While I don't support his position on abortion, you can hardly blame him for playing by the existing rules, while he is in the process of trying to change them for the better.
  
  Otherwise, he might as well just quit and go home, and you will never see those rules get better.
4. Re:One Subject at a Time Act by Guppy06 · 2012-08-02 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  He was given a set of rules (the Senate rules, that is), and he is trying to change them for the better. In the meantime, he plays by the existing rules, which he did not make. There is nothing contradictory about that.
  Then why isn't he trying to introduce this particular piece of legislation itself as a rider? If he is truly committed to "working within the system to change the system," why is he insisting his "change the system" legislation stand alone and go down a path guaranteed to go nowhere? Wouldn't be more effective to tack this onto a flood insurance bill?
5. Re:One Subject at a Time Act by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-08-02 14:31 · Score: 2
  
  Because you can't combine them. Votes to change the rules of the Senate itself require a different percentage majority than "regular" bills.
  
  The existing rules make it easier to filibuster any bill that proposes to change the Senate rules.
Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip? by Antipater · 2012-08-02 04:45 · Score: 2

I am well aware of high capacity magazine, but I have never seen stripper clips more than 5 rounds, and moon clips are for revolvers.
Don't worry. Most other men can't go five rounds with a stripper either. Nobody's that high-capacity.

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Re:the bill already failed by MagicM · 2012-08-02 05:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Looks like you're right. The bill was reintroduced as S.3414 which was voted on and rejected a few hours ago.
CyberSecurity Bill by Lieberman? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-08-02 05:15 · Score: 2

Join me in celebrating the defeat of this additional intrusion of police-state power. Let's hope it's blocked FOREVER!
This is not about any "Security" I know of - unless you mean the kind of "Security" that the DMCA offers toward corporations.
The bill focuses on restriction of tools and activities used to manage, diagnose and secure network connectivity. Users of Wireshark or even ping can be treated like DMCA circumventors, under the provisions of this proposed act.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/frequently-asked-questions-about-lieberman-collins-cyber-security-act

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Has there ever been a high capacity clip? by artor3 · 2012-08-02 05:34 · Score: 3, Informative

In fairness to the Senator, the amendment bans "transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices". It's the reporter who doesn't know a clip from a magazine.
It's actually a pitifully toothless law, as it excludes any extended magazines already in existence in the country. It would take decades to have any effect. Not that it has any chance of passing in the first place.
dammit congress by LodCrappo · 2012-08-02 06:36 · Score: 2

this is why we can't have nice things

--
-Lod