RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Congress is on the cusp of passing a new bill that could threaten any internet user's civil liberties. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a digital equivalent of allowing the government to fight perceived threats by monitoring which books citizens check out from the library, passed the House yesterday."

The House of Representatives voted 248 to 168 in favor of the CISPA bill. (photo: Forbes)
The House of Representatives voted 248 to 168 in favor of the CISPA bill. (photo: Forbes)



What Everyone Needs to Know About CISPA

By Annie-Rose Strasser, Scott Keyes, ThinkProgress

29 April 12

 

ongress is on the cusp of passing a new bill that could threaten any internet user's civil liberties. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a digital equivalent of allowing the government to fight perceived threats by monitoring which books citizens check out from the library, passed the House yesterday and will now be taken up by the Senate.

Online advocates, fresh off their victory against the Stop Online Piracy Act, are now gearing up to oppose CISPA because of the disastrous effect the bill could have for private information on the internet. The bill's opponents argue that it goes too far in the name of cybersecurity, endangering citizens' personal online information by giving the government access to anything from users' private emails to their browsing history.

As the fight in the Senate begins, here is everything you need to know about CISPA:

CISPA's broad language will likely give the government access to anyone's personal information with few privacy protections: CISPA allows the government access to any "information pertaining directly to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity." There is little indication of what this information could include, and what it means to be ‘pertinent' to cyber security. Without boundaries, any internet user's personal, private information would likely be fair game for the government.

It supersedes all other provisions of the law protecting privacy: As the bill is currently written, CISPA would apply "notwithstanding any other provision of law." In other words, privacy restrictions currently in place would not apply to CISPA. As a result, companies could disclose more personal information about users than necessary. Ars Technica writes, "if a company decides that your private emails, your browsing history, your health care records, or any other information would be helpful in dealing with a ‘cyber threat,' the company can ignore laws that would otherwise limit its disclosure."

The bill completely exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act: Citizens and journalists have access to most things the government does via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a key tool for increasing transparency. However, CISPA completely exempts itself from FOIA requests. The Sunlight Foundation blasted CISPA for "entirely" dismissing FOIA's "fundamental safeguard for public oversight of government's activities."

CISPA gives companies blanket immunity from future lawsuits: One of the most egregious aspects of CISPA is that it gives blanket legal immunity to any company that shares its customers' private information. In other words, if Microsoft were to share your browsing history with the government despite your posing no security threat, you would be barred from filing a lawsuit against them. Without any legal recourse for citizens to take against corporate bad behavior, companies will be far more inclined to share private information.

Recent revisions don't go nearly far enough: In an attempt to specify how the government can use the information they collect, the House passed an amendment saying the data can only be used for: "1) cybersecurity; 2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; 3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; 4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and 5) protection of the national security of the United States." This new version still "suffers from most of the same problems that plagued the original version," writes Timothy Lee. Because terms like "cybersecurity" are so vague, the bill's language could encompass almost anything.

Citizens have to trust that companies like Facebook won't share your personal information: CISPA does not force companies share private user information with the government. That being said, Ars Technica makes the point that "the government has a variety of carrots and sticks it can use to induce private firms to share information it wants." For instance, many companies receive federal contracts or subsidies and would be hesitant to deny any request from the government that might jeopardize future business. Companies may not be legally required to turn over information, but they "may not be in a position to say no."

Companies can already inform the government and each other about incoming cybersecurity threats: While proponents of CISPA claim it's needed to allow agencies and companies to share information about incoming cybersecurity threats, opponents of the bill point out that "network administrators and security researchers at private firms have shared threat information with one another for decades."

The internet is fighting back: The same online activists who fought hard against SOPA are now engaged in the battle over CISPA. Over 770,000 people have signed a petition by the online organizing group Avaaz that asks Congress to defeat the bill. Reddit, the news-sharing internet community that helped lead the fight against SOPA, is organizing again around CISPA.

Most Republicans support CISPA, while most Democrats oppose it: The House passed CISPA on April 26 on a mostly-party-line vote, 248-168. Among congressmen that voted, 88 percent of Republicans supported the bill while 77 percent of Democrats opposed it.

President Obama threatened to veto it: Recognizing the threat to civil liberties that CISPA poses, President Obama announced this week that he "strongly opposes" the bill and has threatened to veto if it comes to his desk. Obama singled out the provisions that allow for blanket legal immunity and do not enough to safeguard citizens' private information.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+16 # mainescorpio 2012-04-29 12:24
We've got to wake up. We are loosing constitutional rights under CISPA and Corporations are given blanket legal immunity from prosecution! What's wrong with this picture? Corportations are People yet one class of people are given rights that another class doesn't!
 
 
+6 # carolsj 2012-04-29 14:46
I thought Obama vowed to veto CISPA if it was passed.
 
 
+2 # Stephanie Remington 2012-04-29 17:36
Don't hold your breath waiting for it.
 
 
0 # Pikewich 2012-04-29 20:51
Hmmm....

Surely we all know this CISPA legislation is merely an effort to legalize what is already happening?

That there is a huge new data collection center being built in Utah?

And don't hold your breath thinking Obummer will veto it. Remember he threatened to veto the Defense Authorization Act too, which makes it so you might just be disappeared with no recourse to anything but the inside of a small cell?

Welcome to your brave new world - land of the free, home of the brave.
 
 
0 # oldman68 2012-04-30 10:41
facebook and twitter are openly supporting CISPA.
 
 
0 # Valleyboy 2012-05-01 08:39
Who is putting these bills forward?
There's no doubt they are a rapid slide towards facism.

At this rate, the US will soon be a police state, like China.
 
 
0 # infohiway 2012-05-01 15:31
Quoting Valleyboy:
Who is putting these bills forward?
There's no doubt they are a rapid slide towards facism.
At this rate, the US will soon be a police state, like China.


1. LIEberman and
2. YES IT IS and
3. YES IT IS!
 
 
-2 # infohiway 2012-05-01 15:27
BHO II will not veto CISPA - any more than the NDAA (NON)VETO'!
It is the final power grab and nail in the coffin or, perchance, the last straw - as Americans grin and just bend over saying, "Ohh! More, please!"
Would he dare upset CONgre$$ before the election?
Not likely - but, by then, the voters might have other ideas...
Where does Mitt stand on this unconstitutiona l obscenity????
 
 
0 # MADASHELL 2012-05-02 10:16
With this Congress - How do we stop this? I know it's already happening but not "legally". Of all the nasty CISPA doings, it's design to exempt it from the FOIA is probably the scariest. It feels like the Bush/Cheney regime all over again. I will call the White House and request that the President veto this. Many of you asked "who is behind these bills". Couldn't be the Koch brothers could it?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN