Flag Counter The Political Freakshow • Posts Tagged ‘CISPA’

ACLU Opposition to H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011

chills552:

Thought SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA were bad? Think AGAIN.

 ”The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act would create a cybersecurity exception to all privacy laws and allow companies to share the private and personal data they hold on their American customers with the government for cybersecurity purposes. The bill would not limit the companies to sharing only technical, non-personal data. Instead, it would give the companies discretion to decide the type and amount of information to turn over to the government. If shared in good faith compliance with the statute, these entities would receive full liability protection and would be immune from criminal or civil liability, even after an egregious breach of privacy. Further, once an individual’s information is shared with the government, there would be no restriction on the use of that information. It could be used for any purpose whatsoever and shared with any agency. While such data might be used for cybersecurity purposes, there would be no bar on the government also using it to conduct fishing expeditions for criminal, immigration or other purposes.
-via ACLU” 

ACLU Opposition to H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011

chills552:

Thought SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA were bad? Think AGAIN.

 ”The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act would create a cybersecurity exception to all privacy laws and allow companies to share the private and personal data they hold on their American customers with the government for cybersecurity purposes. The bill would not limit the companies to sharing only technical, non-personal data. Instead, it would give the companies discretion to decide the type and amount of information to turn over to the government. If shared in good faith compliance with the statute, these entities would receive full liability protection and would be immune from criminal or civil liability, even after an egregious breach of privacy. Further, once an individual’s information is shared with the government, there would be no restriction on the use of that information. It could be used for any purpose whatsoever and shared with any agency. While such data might be used for cybersecurity purposes, there would be no bar on the government also using it to conduct fishing expeditions for criminal, immigration or other purposes.
-via ACLU” 

CISPA is SOPA 2.0!!!

In spite of their hopes, Internet activists are finding that their efforts to keep the digital world free of further regulation did not end with SOPA’s defeat.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 is working its way through Congress, and is the latest proposed legislation to raise concerns among privacy activists. Introduced in November by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), the stated goal of CISPA is to create new channels for communication between government intelligence entities and private firms regarding potential and emerging cyber-security threats.

The communication would deal primarily with what the legislation deems “cyber threat intelligence,” which it defines as “information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or a network of a government or private entity.”

The threats listed under the umbrella of cyber-threat intelligence include “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” systems or networks, as well as “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property  or personally identifiable information.”

It’s the inclusion of intellectual property that’s a major point of contention for those looking at the bill’s broad language with a skeptical gaze. Many fear that CISPA is essentially a retooled version of SOPA, which was taken off the table in Congress after a concentrated effort by Internet giants such as Google, Wikipedia and Reddit, which either supported or held blackouts in protest of the bill.

Rainey Reitman and Lee Tien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation released a statement outlining their concerns about the inclusion of intellectual property in CISPA.

“It’s a little piece of SOPA wrapped up in a bill that’s supposedly designed to facilitate detection of and defense against cybersecurity threats. The language is so vague that an ISP could use it to monitor communications of subscribers for potential infringement of intellectual property. An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing, block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.”

Its supporters paint CISPA in another light, framing it as an essential national security safeguard and a shield against the continued targeting of U.S. businesses by “nation-state actors like China,” according to Rogers.

“Without important, immediate changes to American cybersecurity policy, I believe our country will continue to be at risk for a catastrophic attack to our nation’s vital networks – networks that power our homes, provide our clean water or maintain the other critical services we use every day,” Ruppersberger said in a statement celebrating the bill reaching 105 co-sponsors.

CISPA has the support of organizations that include AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Symantec,  the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Verizon, with Facebook sending over a particularly supportive letter of endorsement.

The process by which CISPA facilitates information sharing revolves around the director of National Security, who would appoint members of the intelligence community as gatekeepers to weed through employees of firms seeking to link up with the government and grant security clearances as they see fit. The bill also would give the intelligence employee discretion to speed up the process.

Once given clearances, any concerns falling under the cyber-threat intelligence category that are exchanged between the government and private party would be  “considered proprietary information” not to be divulged beyond the two parties without approval.

All of this sharing, as the legislation currently stands, “supersedes any statute of a State or political subdivision of a State that restricts or otherwise expressly regulates” the exchanges between the government and those it exchanges information with.

And it’s within this sharing that the key difference between SOPA and CISPA lies. SOPA was focused on establishing punitive measures, mainly through revoking domains found to be hosting copyrighted content, which in turn would make Google responsible for every music video or movie clip posted to YouTube without the expressed consent of copyright holders. CISPA, on the other hand, is focused on information being made readily available between approved entities and the government.

That distinction may explain the support of Facebook, which was one of the many technology firms opposed to SOPA. CISPA includes an exemption of liability granted to those firms taking part in CISPA’s information exchanges — possibly freeing tech firms from the responsibility of regulating users and the danger of being taken offline for alleged copyright violations — so long as they get approval from the government, actively divulge cyber-threat intelligence concerns and are “acting in good faith.”

And it’s the widespread distrust of these parties, both in private industry and the government, of actually acting in good faith that is driving the growing concerns over CISPA’s progression in Congress, and the nearly 600,000-person petition against it currently sitting on Avaaz.org.

To read CISPA in its entirety, click here. (Or read it below in an embedded widget from Scribd).

CISPA 2011 is SOPA 2.0

"Meet CISPA. You may not have heard of it yet because it's been flying under the radar. It's a lot like PIPA, which was a lot SOPA (I'm sure you heard of those). Actually, some people are calling it 'worse than SOPA,' and it's sponsored by a congressman who thinks the death penalty should be considered for Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking military information to Wikileaks. Be worried: they think we stopped paying attention after SOPA -- so they made this."

hipsterlibertarian:

As Wendell Phillips put it, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—power is ever stealing from the many to the few.”  The demise of SOPA was good, but government efforts to control the internet are nothing if not a hydra.

Making it perhaps more dangerous than SOPA, this new measure already has the support of “AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, Symantec, Verizon, and many more,” meaning there will be far fewer tech titans against this measure than there were last time around unless boycotts or other protests can persuade these companies to shift their stances. 

Read more about exactly why CISPA is bad at the link above, and also here.

After SOPA, PIPA, Why’s Facebook Liking CISPA? [UPDATED]

leftish:

via  - AllFacebook

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act has a few things in common with the defeated Secure Online Information Privacy Act the Protect Internet Property Act besides rhyming acronyms, except that Facebook likes CISPA, despite very publicly hating SOPA and PIPA. 

Unfortunately, CISPA won’t enable Netflix to stream videos to U.S. customers on Facebook, which a precursor to SOPA and PIPA might have done if only the Senate hadn’t attempted to widen the scope of dropped a friendlier law passed by the House of Representatives last year.

Instead, CISPA, or H.R. 3523, tackles hacking, in the bad-guy sense of the term, not the white-hat wearing type that Facebook’s own corporate culture has made fashionable in all-night coding marathons.

The bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to grant access to any data regarding a so-called cyber-threat to not just the government but also private security agencies.

This proposed law has the backing of both Democrats and Republicans alike, along with more than 100 companies support this bill, including Facebook. The social network wants the law to not require the disclosure of any information beyond what the company already shares — for instance, in the case of responding to subpoenas from from law enforcement.

The social network’s own Vice President of U.S. Public Policy, Joel Kapla, explained Facebook’s stance in a post about CISPA today:

URGENT: Tell Facebook: "WE'RE FURIOUS: Withdraw Your Support For CISPA!" (the latest version of PIPA/SOPA)

leftish:

What is Facebook thinking?  They’ve signed on in support of CISPA — the new bill that would obliterate online privacy, give the military crazy new abilities to spy on the Internet, and potentially let ISPs block sites and cut off users accused of piracy.

First, please help push this viral on Facebook by using this link — you’ll be sharing the campaign, along with the photo of Mark Zuckerberg at right:

If you’re already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.

Then please sign on at right to add your name to our open letter.

The Center for Democracy and Technology says, ”CISPA has a very broad, almost unlimited definitionof the information that can be shared with government agencies and it supersedes all other privacy laws.”

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing,block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.

Internet users were able to push GoDaddy to withdraw its support of SOPA.  Now it’s time to make sure Facebook knows we’re furious.

PETITION TO MARK ZUCKERBERG: What is Facebook thinking?  You’re encouraging Congress to obliterate online privacy — Even as your users express increasing concern about the privacy of their accounts on your site.  Please withdraw your support for CISPA right away.

Please add your name to sign our open letter to Facebook.

Here’s CDT’s resource page on CISPA.  Here’s the EFF on IP implications.


THE DANGERS OF CISPA

ourlivesintheheadlines:

I’d like to see the same amount of people who cared for SOPA do the same for the continuous “freedom killing” bills constantly being pitched into congress. CISPA is a bill that must be stopped because it directly affects our right to privacy. We have to let it be known that our right to privacy doesn’t just exist outside of the internet, but on it as well.

occupyallstreets: Protest Targets Internet Censorship Bill Known As CISPA Civil liberties groups on Monday launched protests targeting proposed US cyber intelligence law that they fear would let police freely dip into people’s private online information. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Reporters Without Borders were among organizations that signaled the start of a week of Internet protests against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). “A blanket monitoring system is never an appropriate solution,” Reporters Without Borders said in a release calling for Congress to reject the CISPA legislation introduced in November of last year. “Freedom of expression and the protection of online privacy are increasingly under threat in democratic countries, where a series of bills and draft laws is sacrificing them in the interests of national security or copyright.” The EFF released an online tool for US residents to find Twitter accounts of their representatives in Congress to target messages about the threat CISPA poses to privacy in day-to-day lives. “CIPSA would allow ISPs, social networking sites, and anyone else handling Internet communications to monitor users and pass information to the government without any judicial oversight,” said EFF activism director Rainey Reitman. “The language of this bill is dangerously vague, so that personal online activity — from the mundane to the intimate — could be implicated.” Read More & Learn More About CISPA
Pop-upView Separately

occupyallstreets:

Protest Targets Internet Censorship Bill Known As CISPA

Civil liberties groups on Monday launched protests targeting proposed US cyber intelligence law that they fear would let police freely dip into people’s private online information.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Reporters Without Borders were among organizations that signaled the start of a week of Internet protests against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

“A blanket monitoring system is never an appropriate solution,” Reporters Without Borders said in a release calling for Congress to reject the CISPA legislation introduced in November of last year.

“Freedom of expression and the protection of online privacy are increasingly under threat in democratic countries, where a series of bills and draft laws is sacrificing them in the interests of national security or copyright.”

The EFF released an online tool for US residents to find Twitter accounts of their representatives in Congress to target messages about the threat CISPA poses to privacy in day-to-day lives.

“CIPSA would allow ISPs, social networking sites, and anyone else handling Internet communications to monitor users and pass information to the government without any judicial oversight,” said EFF activism director Rainey Reitman.

“The language of this bill is dangerously vague, so that personal online activity — from the mundane to the intimate — could be implicated.”

Read More & Learn More About CISPA

(via socialistscum-deactivated201209)

Source: occupyallstreets

CISPA Sponsor Mike Rogers Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence' On Landing

It appears that Congress still doesn’t get it. Rep. Mike Rogers, the sponsor of the bad CISPA bill that puts your privacy at risk, really doesn’t seem particularly concerned about the protests that have been happening online this week. He referred to them as being “like turbulence on the way down to landing” for the bill. He also said that he fully expects the bill to easily pass next week when its brought to the floor.

What really comes through in the article — which mostly talks about how Rogers has been supposedly working with Google to change some of the language in the bill to make it more acceptable — is how little concern Rogers has for the public. Instead, most of the article just talks about how he’s been working with tech companies to make sure they’re okay with the bill. And while that’s a start, it’s no surprise that lots of tech companies would be okay with CISPA, because it grants them broad immunity if they happen to hand over all sorts of private info to the government.

But to then call the protests mere “turbulence” is pretty damned insulting to the actual people this will impact the most: the public, whose privacy may be violated. While we appreciate Rogers’ willingness to amend the bill, it seems clear that there are still major problems with it, and Rogers does not seem to be actually listening to the privacy concerns of the public — just the various tech companies.

In the meantime, the protests continue, and if Rogers thinks they’re mere “turbulence” then it appears that not enough people are speaking out. The folks at Fight for the Future have put together an excellent page to make it easier to speak out, over at CongressTMI.org. At the very least, is it that difficult for Congress to present a real reason why this bill is needed? Bogus stories of planes falling from the sky or evil Chinese hackers really aren’t cutting it. Perhaps Congress should talk to some of the experts who note that Congress doesn’t understand the tech enough to regulate it properly. As privacy expert Jim Harper notes:

“Congress has no particular capacity or knowledge of how to do cybersecurity,” Harper says. “It’s not a choice between two different versions in the House and two different versions in the Senate. The question is still open: is Congress capable of doing any good here?”
Unfortunately, in the mad dash to pass these bills (which appear to be much more about who gets to control multi-billion dollar “cybersecurity budgets” than anything else), no one in Congress seems willing to address the basic question of what problem this really solves.

Congress Ending Our Privacy with CISPA? Fight Back With TMI!!!

What is CISPA?

A cybersecurity bill that lets any company share your info with all of government, with no limits. In short, CISPA is the end of meaningful privacy for anyone with personal data on US-based services.

What is TMI?

They’re your inappropriate, awkward, often embarrassing personal details — the kind that the FBI, NSA, CIA, IRS, and local police will soon have access to if CISPA passes.

What’s the plan?

Make Congress embarrassed of their support for CISPA and, well, just embarrassed period, by giving them all the awkward details of our personal lives. They want your personal data? Bury them in it.

Go to the link above to tweet embarrassing information that would be made public with the passage of CISPA. Bombard the idiotic representatives and senators with the information.

White House questions #CISPA cybersecurity bill #stopCISPA #antiCISPA

anonymissexpress:

The Obama administration didn’t threaten a veto. But it did say information-sharing bills must preserve “privacy and civil liberties” — something that critics say CISPA does not do.

by , April 17, 2012

The White House today expressed concerns about a controversial cybersecurity bill that would authorize Internet companies to divulge confidential customer records and communications.

Opposition from the Obama administration — which stopped short of a veto threat — could imperil the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which is scheduled for a House of Representatives floor vote next week. CISPA is intended to improve computer security by allowing companies and government agencies to share sensitive information.

In a statement provided to The Hill newspaper, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said:

While information sharing legislation is an essential component of comprehensive legislation to address critical infrastructure risks, information sharing provisions must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. Legislation without new authorities to address our nation’s critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, or legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security, will not meet our nation’s urgent needs.

Three months ago, the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, was defeated by a broad alliance of companies and civil liberties groups. But no such coalition exists here: the House Intelligence committee proudly lists letters of support from Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle, Symantec, Verizon, AT&T, and Intel (which today called CISPA an “important step forward”). And over two dozen trade associations sent a letter to Congress today (PDF) applauding “greater sharing of information.”

Civil liberties groups, on the other hand, remain steadfastly opposed to legal authorization for such broad information-sharing. The American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the libertarian-leaning TechFreedom, and other groups launched a “Stop Cyber Spying” campaign yesterday — complete with a write-your-congresscritter-via-Twitter app — and over 670,000 people have signed an anti-CISPA Web petition.

CNet: White House questions CISPA cybersecurity bill

(via theamericanbear)

Source: lilithlela

Here are some CISPA petitions:

pugsandpaintbrushes:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa/

http://act2.freepress.net/sign/cispa/

Sadly, there is not one up yet on the White House’s website.

What is CISPA?

This info graphic sums it up:

The House Rules Committee has set a deadline of Tuesday April 24 at 1:30 p.m. PT for amendments to be proposed to CISPA before a floor vote expected later next week.

ACT FAST!

Top