Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Passes the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act 74-21 (dailydot.com)
blottsie writes with news that the U.S. Senate voted 74-21 in favor of CISA, a controversial cybersecurity bill. All five amendments submitted in an attempt to bolster privacy failed to pass. From The Guardian's coverage:
Try asking the bill’s sponsors how the bill will prevent cyberattacks or force companies and governments to improve their defenses. They can’t answer. They will use buzzwords like “info-sharing” yet will conveniently ignore the fact that companies and the government can already share information with each other as is. There were barely any actual cybersecurity experts who were for the bill. A large group of respected computer scientists and engineers were against it. So were cyberlaw professors. Civil liberties groups uniformly opposed (and were appalled by) the bill. So did consumer groups. So did the vast majority of giant tech companies. Yet it still sailed through the Senate, mostly because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that they’re crafting legislation about.
They voted for government and against people.
Obligatory list of how each critter voted.
Honestly, I find it hard to believe ignorance has much to do with it at all. There are some big name companies on the record as completely supporting FISA, including Xerox. (Funny how Xerox also seems to have most of the contracts with local govt. for maintaining speed cameras.... Just maybe, they stand to profit any time government takes on some additional responsibility concerning technology? Hmm....)
Here is a list of the 21 senators who voted AGAINST this CISA surveillance bill.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Booker (D-NJ)
Brown (D-OH)
Cardin (D-MD)
Coons (D-DE)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daines (R-MT)
Franken (D-MN)
Heller (R-NV)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Markey (D-MA)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Warren (D-MA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Also, Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Ted Cruz (R-Canada) did not vote at all, because they are huge pussies. Remember that the next time you believe any of those turds are in favor of your liberty.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If anyone believes that voting for R (or D) is worse than the other side, or how it's the "lessor of two evils", feel free to explain this.
Of the 21 senators who voted against this bill, 14 were Democrats (15 if you count Sanders, who is in the senate as an Independent but presently running for the Democratic presidential nomination).
Or, to put it slightly differently: 14/44 (= 32%) of Democratic senators voted against this, versus 6/54 (= 11%) of Republican senators. Democrats were three times more likely to vote against this.
So, yes, voting for R is worse. It's unfortunate that neither party is *good* (ie voted strongly against this bill) on privacy/surveillance, but the Democratic party consistently does more strongly oppose invasive legislation like this. If you pretend both parties are exactly the same, all you're really doing is sending a clear message to the Democrats that their better track record is irrelevant when it comes to getting your vote. And if that's the case, there's clearly no motivation for them to vote against this sort of invasive legislation.
For those who don't need a third party to read something for them this is a link to the actual bill. The bill itself is a lot less reading than all of the articles on it.
I just gisted the bill, it looks like one of these fait accomplis that follow this disturbing pattern we see of aligning the laws of Echelon (5 eyes, sigint or whatever other names it is know by) countries within the bounds of their beleaguered constitutions. Almost a year ago to the day laws with the same intent were passed in Australia under the NSL 2014.
If I may share my interpretation the bill, the main purpose appears to be to align the legal structures for government agencies to share information. Its up for interpretation and the more eyes reading this the better. I'll need a good read to really get it.
Of specific interest was that the law is beating a pretty fast drum for the Federal agencies to comply with a 60-180 day time frame for them to develop policy. I'm going to guess that they want to allocate budget spending to implement the policy withing the next 12 months. Of particular concern in the US version the bill allows for Federal agencies to spy on state, local and individuals (sec 2.8).
If the pattern is followed we can expect the UK and Canada to be next as these legal frameworks have already been passed in Australia and NZ - both political parties supported it there as well.
Why the governments of our countries are so intent on harassing their population is anyone's guess. What would be really great is if these bills were posted to /. *before* they passed. At least then the outrage could be channeled into constructive action.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Perhaps you haven't been paying much attention to the primary races, and I certainly can't blame you for that. I seldom have until this year. But when it comes to money, Bernie is doing just fine thanks to large numbers of small donations. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
As for being able to win in the general election, hypothetical polls show that Bernie does just as well as Hillary in match-ups against likely republican candidates. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-th...
For once we have a chance to vote for something other than one of two lizards, and there is a real chance he can win. Lets not let that chance go to waste ;)