[quote]An onrush of condemnation and criticism kept the SOPA and PIPA acts from passing earlier this year, but US lawmakers have already authored another authoritarian bill that could give them free reign to creep the Web in the name of cybersecurity.
As congressmen in Washington consider how to handle the ongoing issue of cyberattacks, some legislators have lent their support to a new act that, if passed, would let the government pry into the personal correspondence of anyone of their choosing.
H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short), has been created under the guise of being a necessary implement in America’s war against cyberattacks. But the vague verbiage contained within the pages of the paper could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties. Critics have already come after CISPA for the capabilities that it will give to seemingly any federal entity that claims it is threatened by online interactions, but unlike the Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect IP Acts that were discarded on the Capitol Building floor after incredibly successful online campaigns to crush them, widespread recognition of what the latest would-be law will do has yet to surface to the same degree.
Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT that Congress is currently considering a number of cybersecurity bills that could eventually be voted into law, but for the group that largely advocates an open Internet, she warns that provisions within CISPA are reason to worry over what the realities could be if it ends up on the desk of President Barack Obama. So far CISPA has been introduced, referred and reported by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and expects to go before a vote in the first half of Congress within the coming weeks.
“We have a number of concerns with something like this bill that creates sort of a vast hole in the privacy law to allow government to receive these kinds of information,” explains Burman, who acknowledges that the bill, as written, allows the US government to involve itself into any online correspondence, current exemptions notwithstanding, if it believes there is reason to suspect cyber crime. As with other authoritarian attempts at censorship that have come through Congress in recent times, of course, the wording within the CISPA allows for the government to interpret the law in such a number of degrees that any online communication or interaction could be suspect and thus unknowingly monitored.
In a press release penned last month by the CDT, the group warned then that CISPA allows Internet Service Providers to “funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls.
The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient,” reads the warning.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, another online advocacy group, has also sharply condemned CISPA for what it means for the future of the Internet. “It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity'’ exemption to all existing laws,” explains the EFF, who add in a statement of their own that “There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes.’”
What does that mean? Both the EFF and CDT say an awfully lot. Some of the biggest corporations in the country, including service providers such as Google, Facebook, Twitter or AT&T, could copy confidential information and send them off to the Pentagon if pressured, as long as the government believes they have reason to suspect wrongdoing. In a summation of their own, the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, explains that “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” either “a system or network of a government or private entity” is reason enough for Washington to reach in and read any online communiqué of their choice.
The authors of CISPA say the bill has been made “To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities,” but not before noting that the legislation could be used “and for other purposes,” as well — which, of course, are not defined.
“Cyber security, when done right and done narrowly, could benefit everyone,” Burman tells RT. “But it needs to be done in an incremental way with an arrow approach, and the heavy hand that lawmakers are taking with these current bills . . . it brings real serious concerns.”
So far CISPA has garnered support from over 100 representatives in the House who are favoring this cybersecurity legislation without taking into considerations what it could do to the everyday user of the Internet. And while the backlash created by opponents of SOPA and PIPA has not materialized to the same degree yet, Burman warns Congress that it could be only a matter of time before concerned Americans step up to have their say.
“One of the lessons we learned in the reaction to SOPA and PIPA is that when Congress tries to legislate on things that are going to affect Internet users’ experience, the Internet users are going to pay attention,” says Burman. H.R. 3523, she cautions, “Definitely could affect in a very serious way the internet experience.” Luckily, adds Burman, “People are starting to notice.” Given the speed that the latest censorship bill could sneak through Congress, however, anyone concerned over the future of the Internet should be on the lookout for CISPA as it continues to be considered on Capitol Hill.[/quote]
Source
[url]http://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-bill-sopa-internet-175/[/url]
People who support it ( [url]http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-2011[/url] )
AT&T
Boeing
BSA
Business Roundtable
CSC
COMPTEL
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association
Edison Electric
EMC
Exelon
Facebook
The Financial Services Roundtable
IBM
Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
Information Technology Industry Council
Intel
Internet Security Alliance
Lockheed Martin
Microsoft
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
NDIA
Oracle
Symantec
TechAmerica
US Chamber of Commerce
US Telecom - The Broadband Association
Verizon
What's next? NIFA - No Internet For Anyone?
Time to start using VPN.
They are just going to keep pumping out these bills until one goes through. (ACTA is already through however)
Wow Facebook supports this?...
Microsoft? I was going to buy a Lumia 900, guess I'm not now.
Fuck it, I probably will. Why Microsoft?!
[QUOTE=Funcoot;35422592]Microsoft? I was going to buy a Lumia 900, guess I'm not now.[/QUOTE]
Not like you'll made a dent in their profit. There are hundreds of uneducated masses whom do not know of these bills (hard to believe, I know) and some who don't even care enough to get involved with the petitions--who will most likely conform to buy Microsoft products. Hard not to when they're everywhere.
[QUOTE=BlackCrow;35422607]Not like you'll made a dent in their profit. There are hundreds of uneducated masses whom do not know of these bills (hard to believe, I know) and some who don't even care enough to get involved with the petitions--who will most likely conform to buy Microsoft products. Hard not to when they're everywhere.[/QUOTE]
It's more of a principle thing. At least there are badass android alternatives if I decide not to. But then again, Google might send in a letter of support. Who knows.
I'm probably going to have to actually read the article rather than making a half assed statement going, "hurr durr fuk em all"
This isn't the same as Sopa. It still COULD affect freedom on the internet but basically all they want here is access to private communication. Basically the government wants to be able to legally watch you.
Not ok with it, just saying it is a foothold bill. They want to start with one then start creeping more things in.
[quote]But the vague verbiage contained within the pages of the paper could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties[/quote]
Gotta love vague verbiage. Fuck off government, you don't even understand the internet.
[QUOTE=Laferio;35422651]I'm probably going to have to actually read the article rather than making a half assed statement going, "hurr durr fuk em all"[/QUOTE]
Who didn't read the article?
Sounds less like it's comparable to SOPA or PIPA, more like it's comparable to the AMUF or Patriot Act.
Essentially our government doesn't get the whole "But it could be abused to inhibit human rights" thing. They just enact laws that serve a genuine, benign, national security related purpose that're vaguely worded and include either inadequate or nonexistent protections to basic rights. This bill seems to be one of those.
Gonna be honest, we're most likely not gonna have the support of say, Google or Facebook this time. Wikipedia probably, but neither of the other two web companies that so fervently had our backs last time. Why? Because this bill threatens people's right to privacy, not sites like theirs.
I got just one simple request for the American government. Stop with the fucking acronyms, your killing me.
...Oh and drop dead and stop halting technological and sociological progress you old crooners.
We ought to have S.H.I.T.A. Stop Helping Internet Take-down Act
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;35422476]What's next? NIFA - No Internet For Anyone?[/QUOTE]
I would support NIFP, No Internet For Politicians
Holy shit how many times are they going to try and pull this?
We gotta stay strong, protest against this with all our souls. They may take our healthcare, but they cannae take our internet freedom!
[QUOTE=ironman17;35424012]We gotta stay strong, protest against this with all our souls. They may take our healthcare, but they cannae take our internet freedom![/QUOTE]
yes they can, easily. as long as businesses and companies have a vested interest they can push whatever.
"Honorable" Mike Rogers? So, the Americans are cloning Rick Santorum to suppress "outside of the box" thinking. Go home, Smith-wannabe.
Also IBM? Microsoft? Facebook? That's just not cool.
[QUOTE=pyschomc;35422591]Wow Facebook supports this?...[/QUOTE]
Facebook cares fuck-all about your privacy.
i'm losing faith in this country fast.
For fuck sake.
There seems to be somebody pissing in our cheerios every week, BILLS BILLS BILLS BILLS BILLS
This is the average Internet-illiterate politician's mind nowadays
[IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG]
Wow, the formatting in this article makes my eyes bleed.
Again?
When's it gonna get through their thick heads that we don't want this, and it'll cause more problems than it'll fix?
Oh, RT being RT again. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with censoring the internet, it doesn't even mention eliminating said cyber threats, only "gathering and sharing of cyber-security threats". [url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3523ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3523ih.pdf]Read it for yourself.[/url]
[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;35425566]This is the average Internet-illiterate politician's mind nowadays
[IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][IMG]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/w/images/thumb/8/8f/Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png/90px-Backpack_Bill%27s_Hat.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I was never aware that so many politicians were obsessed with Berets.
I think I need to catch up to speed on the latest fashion trends. :v:
Fucking stop it already, for fucks sake.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;35427250]Oh, RT being RT again. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with censoring the internet, it doesn't even mention eliminating said cyber threats, only "gathering and sharing of cyber-security threats". [url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3523ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3523ih.pdf]Read it for yourself.[/url][/QUOTE]
And what the fuck is a cyber-threat? Anti-war groups, innocent Muslims, Occupy protestors...
Upon reading it, its easily discovered this could be used against Wikileaks, Anonymous and so forth as well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
