White House Threatens to Veto CISPA

CISPA is essentially SOPA but slightly different and potentially much worse and Obama realizes that: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75612.html

 

I think everybody knows that the only thing the US government can actually do well is create acronyms.
Everybody saw this coming...

 

Saw what exactly coming?

 

I got tweeted this earlier, good to see that he understands the impact of it. I wish there was more coverage over it though. Even if it comes off as biased, just so that people would know about it. Then again, I think they were partially hoping it doesn't go viral so that it catches hardly any opposition.

 

This a simple video for anyone wanting to find out about CISPA:



Anyway, I hope the Obama administration doesn't pull an NDAA, and back off their veto threats.
Also, it's great to see the internet won't stand for bills like this, and are fighting for what the people want.

 

A new SOPA / PIPA replacement

 

I'm completely against CISPA but I'm wondering if you could in your opinion explain why republicans are so supportive of this bill. Typically they hate BIG GOVERNMENT with tons regulations however in this case government regulation almost perfectly fine with them. It may be because Obama opposes CISPA and that makes it bad and helps Republicans explain to voters why they voted for it to pass.

That being said, this type of logic scares me, and I'm wondering why you think Republicans are so supportive of a controlling/power grab. Do you think it's because of lobbyist money, "national security" or another reasons I am completely missing?

 

I do not support this bill. Its no where near as defined as SOPA or PIPA, which is saying something.

Republicans or not, I think that it will hurt those who vote for this - I don't understand why they are voting for it though - This is what my/our lawmakers swore to fight...

 

I'm not entirely up to date on what the bill really does so I can't comment specifically. The bill did pass with some bipartisan support but it was mainly republicans with about 40 or 50 democrats joining them, if I have my facts correct. The bill does not mandate that companies give the government information. It simply says that they can share any information they want with the government or other companies to prevent cyber crime. Its about running under the national security banner and keeping tabs on citizens if I had to guess.

 

Interesting, I'm going to quote a techdirt article that states: http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/Reports/HRPT-112-HR3523HR4628.pdf 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.

 

Right and even if they limited it to national security they would still do what ever they wanted because of the massive amount of secrecy and how they simply say anything and everything is a matter of national security. 9/11 scared people into giving away their freedoms due to fear.

 

I think they are right to VETO it go OBAMA.

 

He still believes in some sort of bill that would increase surveillance, but just not this one.