Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote
79 replies, posted
[quote=Techdirt]Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that's not even the worst part.
The vote followed the debate on amendments, several of which were passed. Among them was an absolutely terrible change (pdf and embedded below—scroll to amendment #6) to the definition of what the government can do with shared information, put forth by Rep. Quayle. Astonishingly, it was described as limiting the government's power, even though it in fact expands it by adding more items to the list of acceptable purposes for which shared information can be used. Even more astonishingly, it passed with a near-unanimous vote. The CISPA that was just approved by the House is much worse than the CISPA being discussed as recently as this morning.
Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.
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 threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power.
Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite. This is very, very bad.
There were some good amendments adopted too—clarifying some definitions, including the fact that merely violating a TOS does not constitute unauthorized network access—but frankly none of them matter in the light of this change. CISPA is now a completely unsupportable bill that rewrites (and effectively eliminates) all privacy laws for any situation that involves a computer. Far from the defense against malevolent foreign entities that the bill was described as by its authors, it is now an explicit attack on the freedoms of every American.[/quote]
Well.
Fuck.
[url=http://www.techdirt.com]From Techdirt.[/url]
Oh dear
how does something like this happen
american system is so dumb, war needs to be wagered on these people
This won't pass the Senate, right?
Right?
D:
Holy shit, they moved it up an entire day
Those who disrupt network activity? DDoS attacks by script kiddies included?
Here we go again
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;35726264]This won't pass the Senate, right?
Right?
D:[/QUOTE]
It won't pass the President. The Obama administration is saying they will most likely veto it before goes anywhere, so don't be worried.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;35726271]It won't pass the President. The Obama administration is saying they will most likely veto it before goes anywhere, so don't be worried.[/QUOTE]
I really hope you're right on this User. If any of these things pass, then they'll be spammed even more.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;35726271]It won't pass the President. The Obama administration is saying they will most likely veto it before goes anywhere, so don't be worried.[/QUOTE]
Dems still control the senate. Mostly all dems are staying with the president so it *should* die in the senate.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;35726271]It won't pass the President. The Obama administration is saying they will most likely veto it before goes anywhere, so don't be worried.[/QUOTE]And fortunately, they lack the necessary 2/3 majority to override a presidential veto.
[QUOTE=Reds;35726283]I really hope you're right on this User. If any of these things pass, then they'll be spammed even more.[/QUOTE]
"The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. In its current form, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."
If Obama veto's this he has my full support and respect.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;35726271]It won't pass the President. The Obama administration is saying they will most likely veto it before goes anywhere, so don't be worried.[/QUOTE]
Until the MPAA/RIAA/whoeversupportsthebill pay him a visit and convince him otherwise.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;35726271]It won't pass the President. The Obama administration is saying they will most likely veto it before goes anywhere, so don't be worried.[/QUOTE]
Might be wrong, but didn't they say that about the NDAA as well?
If obama puts a veto on this, he's pretty much destined for a second term.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;35726294]Dems still control the senate. Mostly all dems are staying with the president so it *should* die in the senate.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget one of the bill's sponsors is a Democrat, if that says anything.
Obama's not going to veto it.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35726376]Don't forget one of the bill's sponsors is a Democrat, if that says anything.[/QUOTE]
There are like 15 co sponsors but the actual sponsor is Rep. Michael “Mike” Rogers [R-MI8]
[QUOTE=jordguitar;35726399]There are like 15 co sponsors but the actual sponsor is Rep. Michael “Mike” Rogers [R-MI8][/QUOTE]
That still makes it a bi-partisan bill.
[QUOTE=st_nick5;35726335]Might be wrong, but didn't they say that about the NDAA as well?[/QUOTE]
The NDAA had the parts that nobody wanted slipped in by the Republicans. The full bill covered the entire pay of the military and all its related functions. Stopping it from passing simply wasn't an option. It was a dick move by the Republicans to make Obama look bad and get what they wanted through.
Do people read or listen. The White House stated that it will be veto'd. Theirs no way it's gonna be passed.
[QUOTE=Reds;35726431]The NDAA had the parts that nobody wanted slipped in by the Republicans. The full bill covered the entire pay of the military and all its related functions. Stopping it from passing simply wasn't an option. It was a dick move by the Republicans to make Obama look bad and get what they wanted through.[/QUOTE]
I don't buy that, because then the PATRIOT ACT wouldn't have needed to be passed. It could have been slipped into an NDAA bill and passed practically unanimously. In fact, this means that any politician or faction can slip in whatever shit they want into the NDAA and have it passed.
That's not very logical.
[QUOTE=Aide;35726444]Do people read or listen. The White House stated that it will be veto'd. Theirs no way it's gonna be passed.[/QUOTE]
It still can if they manage a 2/3rds veto override in both the house and senate.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35726455]I don't buy that, because then the PATRIOT ACT wouldn't have needed to be passed. It could have been slipped into an NDAA bill and passed practically unanimously. In fact, this means that any politician or faction can slip in whatever shit they want into the NDAA and have it passed.
That's not very logical.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, they can. It's called a rider, and it's a very common tactic on capitol hill. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't tried shit like this as a rider.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;35726271]It won't pass the President. The Obama administration is saying they will[B] most likely[/B] veto it before goes anywhere, so don't be worried.[/QUOTE]
But the mere fact that the internet is being held up on a CHANCE is bad.
Obama vote for it please!
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35726455]In fact, this means that any politician or faction can slip in whatever shit they want into the NDAA and have it passed. [/QUOTE]
welcome to the United States of America.
[QUOTE=TestECull;35726495]Yeah, they can. It's called a rider, and it's a very common tactic on capitol hill. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't tried shit like this as a rider.[/QUOTE]
Yea, theoretically they can. But then why haven't they done it so much more before? Why even use the normal process if you can just pass shit through NDAA? It makes no sense.
[QUOTE=st_nick5;35726335]Might be wrong, but didn't they say that about the NDAA as well?[/QUOTE]Until it had a greater than two-thirds majority support in both parts of Congress, meaning they could have overrode the presidential veto. That's ignoring the fact that Obama pushed to have 1021 and 1022 removed from NDAA on multiple occasions. And that, as stated before, the NDAA covers the entirety of the military, including the pay for soldiers, upkeep of equipment, and many other necessary functions.
[editline]27th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35726519]Yea, theoretically they can. But then why haven't they done it so much more before? Why even use the normal process if you can just pass shit through NDAA? It makes no sense.[/QUOTE]NDAA is passed once a year and is focused on defense, which is what they classified 1021 and 1022 as.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.