Thread: SOPA changes name to CISPA

CISPA: Nightmare Cybersecurity Bill



Move over SOPA & PIPA - here comes CISPA - internet censorship

By Anne Sewell
Digital Journal

In the wake of SOPA and PIPA, there is yet another terrifying bill on the table. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short) which is currently being discussed by Congress.

In Washington, Congress is discussing the best way to avert the ongoing cyberattacks and some legislators have put forward a new act which, if it passes Congress, will allow the government access to personal correspondence of any person of their choosing.

Much like the Big Brother tactics in the United Kingdom recently, this bill will likely cause an outcry of condemnation and criticism, as happened with the deceased SOPA and PIPA bills.

The title of this controversial act is H.R. 3523 and it has been dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short). It is feared that CISPA is far worse than SOPA and PIPA in its possible effects on the internet.

While this paper has been created under the guise of being a necessary weapon in the U.S. war against cyberattacks, the wording of the paper is vague and broad. It is thought that the act could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and would allow the monitoring and censorship of any user and also stop online communications which they deem disruptive to the government or to private parties.

Critics say that CISPA would give any federal entity that claims it is threatened by online interactions the ability to take action against the "perpetrator". Unlike the SOPA and PIPA acts which were eventually discarded after a successful online campaign, widespread recognition of what the latest proposed law will do has yet to surface to the same degree.

Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT:

�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.�

She states that the bill, as it stands, allows the U.S. government to involve itself in any online correspondence if it believes there is reason to suspect cyber crime.

As with other recent attempts at internet censorship that have been discussed in Congress, the wording within the CISPA allows the government to interpret the law so broadly, that any online communication or interaction could then be suspect, and monitored without the knowledge of the parties concerned.

Read more: Move over SOPA & PIPA: Here comes CISPA

It's always the same; overly broad language, hidden clauses, and
the loss of 'formerly' guaranteed rights.

Sell it like it's good, right? Most con games work because they
offer the sucker something they want, but the sucker doesn't get
what they signed on for, they get robbed.

H.R. 3523 or the 'Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act'
(CISPA for short) is a bill being considered by Congress that could
basically destroy First Amendment and Fourth Amendment Rights on
the world wide web under the guise of 'security', which you ain't
gonna get.

I figure that since you're reading this online right now, you might
want to know that the latest and greatest threat to internet
freedom is very close to being realized.

A nightmare cybersecurity bill...

Video:

Censorship CISPA: Nightmare Cybersecurity Bill

Goodman Green
- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.


"Rockefella" has his name in this tell you anything yet? This needs to be stopped

The end of the era of Internet freedom? New PIPA / SOPA / ACTA = CISPA




Apr 4, 2012

Even worse than SOPA: CISPA cybersecurity bill will censor the Web. FREEDOM Coming to an END?

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.

related: http://www.alipac.us/f19/government-...3/#post1271197

Secret Plan Underway To Revive Internet Censorship Bill SOPA

Motion Picture Association of America CEO “confident” similar legislation will become law

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
April 6, 2012


Motion Picture Association of America CEO and former Senator Chris Dodd has revealed perhaps more than he intended to in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter with regards to the much maligned Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
Despite the fact that the legislation was indefinitely shelved in January, Dodd said he was “confident” that there are conversations going on between Hollywood and Silicon Valley to help revive SOPA.
“Between now and sometime next year [after the presidential election], the two industries need to come to an understanding,” Dodd told the magazine.
When asked whether there are negotiations going on now, Dodd replied: “I’m confident that’s the case, but I’m not going to go into more detail because obviously if I do, it becomes counterproductive.”
Clearly Dodd does not want a repeat of the widespread publicity and large scale protests that aided the defeat of the legislation at the beginning of the year.
Dodd said he believes higher ups who are “smart and highly respected in both communities”, such as eBay founder and movie producer Jeff Skoll, are working to forge a deal with government to bring back SOPA in a new form.
Dodd added that he believes president Obama is also keen to help revive the legislation.
“I’m confident he’s using his good relationships in both communities to do exactly what you and I have been talking about.” Dodd said.
“There are not a huge number of people who understand that content and technology absolutely need each other,” he added.
Following press coverage of Dodd’s comments, the MPAA on Friday issued a statement denying that there were any secret plans to resurrect SOPA.
“Sen Dodd did not say SOPA is coming back to life.” the statement reads. “He said the tech and entertainment industries need to come together to work on a new solution and those conversations are beginning. SOPA is gone. The path forward now is a serious conversation between all involved industries about new solutions, and that was Sen Dodd’s point.”
SOPA, and the Protecting IP Act (PIPA), the Senate version of the bill, caused a huge backlash when it became clear that they constituted part of a long running agenda to completely re-structure and centralize the internet under government control.
Had the bills become law, they would have provided the U.S. government, through the office of the Attorney General, the power to pursue court orders against any website believed to be engaging in or ‘facilitating’ extremely broadly defined ‘copyright infringement’.
The terminology in the legislation was so encompassing that entire web sites faced the threat of being effectively seized and shut down for merely displaying one ‘offending’ hyperlink.
The bills would also have forced compliance from search engines and Internet Service Providers, demanding they create a list of banned web sites and prevent their users from accessing the sites. Advertising networks, payment providers and credit card processors would also have been ordered to stop doing business with any site deemed to be acting unlawfully under SOPA.
As we have previously noted, however, SOPA was merely a legal cover for action the government is already carrying out. The Department of Homeland Security has already seized scores of web sites merely for linking to copyrighted material, despite the fact that such material isn’t even hosted on the web site itself.
As we reported yesterday, the attempted crackdown on the open internet has not subsided with the defeat of SOPA and PIPA. If anything it has substantially accelerated.
—————————————————————-
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

http://www.infowars.com/secret-plan-...hip-bill-sopa/

Similar/Related Articles

SOPA: Endgame Is Total Internet Censorship
Vote On PIPA Internet Censorship Bill Postponed
Is Harry Reid Slipping SOPA Into A New Cyber-Security Bill?
SOPA/PIPA Battle Rages: Tell Congress We Will Not Accept Censorship
Boycott “GoDaddy” for Supporting SOPA: Internet Activist Frederick Reports
SOPA shelved until ‘consensus’ is found
SOPA Is “Unconstitutional”, Would “Criminalize” the Internet … Modeled On China
Rand Paul Vows To Block Internet Censorship Bills
Google Is Already Using SOPA-Like Censorship
Bill Killed: SOPA death celebrated as Congress recalls anti-piracy acts
The Secret Behind SOPA
Class Action Protest: SOPA rebels join forces on web blackout

former Senator Chris Dodd

Why isnt this Fat Head Blow Hard In Prison for Any NUMBER of Crimes he commited while in Office

His side kick Slim Shady Deal McCain should have an adjoining prison cell with Dodd

matter of fact throw Lindsey in the cell too ... he would fit in well with the late night activities

CISPA – HR 3523: The New SOPA

Green Pirate
April 5, 2012

Due process? Probable Cause? Screw that.

Some US legislators are intent on being able to monitor all of your online activity, lurking in your internets like pedobear at a playground. The bill H.R. 3523, or Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), appears to be the next brewing threat to internet privacy and freedom.
Accord to the EFF, the bill contains “sweeping language [that] would give companies and the government new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement. It could also be a powerful weapon to use against whistleblower websites like WikiLeaks.”
As long as “cyber security” is cited as a cause for violating your rights, the bill would apparently give a green light to governments and companies who wish to spy on user activity. ISPs, search engines and social networks would be able to make your data available to government agencies, leaving you with virtually no privacy.
“It effectively creates a “cybersecurity” exemption to all existing laws.”
A scary aspect of this bill is that it allows a company to block or modify your communication.
What does it take for an entity to claim it is spying on you because you were a potential “cyber threat”? According to the definition in the text of the bill:

(2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence’ means information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from–
`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or
`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

Aside from the ability to censor any speech that a given service does not approve of, that definition sums up the target of this bill pretty bluntly. A was written would make it easier to hunt down anyone suspect in participating in Anonymous activism and B opens hunting season on pirates of the file-sharing variety.
There’s no telling yet if this bill will be met with significant public resistance, but if the huge public response to SOPA and ACTA are any indication, a vast majority of the public do not want to suffer a violation of their rights for the benefit of a few elite anti-pirate groups. Will framing file-sharing and DDoS attacks as a major threat to “cybersecurity” be enough to convince the public to forgo their rights or will it be yet another failed propaganda campaign that ends with Chris Dodd whining about how Google and Wikipedia had a greater sphere of influence on what was actually a grass roots protest to preserve our rights and freedoms? Perhaps it will require more peer review, but my money is on the latter.

» CISPA

Similar/Related Articles

House Committee Rushing to Approve Dangerous “Information Sharing” Bill
Is Harry Reid Slipping SOPA Into A New Cyber-Security Bill?
Fascism Comes to the Internet: Introducing CISPA
Cybersecurity bill would establish ‘federal big brother’
Draft cyber bill gives DHS controversial authorities
Should Obama Control the Internet?
Cybersecurity Act Returns With a Fresh Coat of Paint
DHS takes the lead in Senate cybersecurity bill
Presidential Powers During Cybersecurity Emergencies
How the White House views the right to online privacy
Why We Must Stop SOPA
SOPA: Endgame Is Total Internet Censorship

MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd Wants to Resurrect SOPA, Confirms Secret Negotiations

The Intel Hub
By Madison Ruppert
April 8, 2012
1 Comment

Many people thought that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was going to be dead for good after it was protested by millions of Internet users and some of the web’s largest entities like Google, Wikipedia, reddit and more.

Unfortunately, Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and formerly a long-time Senator and Congressman, wants to bring it back and once again threaten everything that the Internet was built upon.

When asked if there were negotiations currently going on surrounding a revival of SOPA, Dodd said that he was “confident that’s the case.”

However, he wants to keep this out of the public eye and away from the scrutiny it deserves. “I’m not going to go into more detail because, obviously, if I do, it becomes counterproductive,” Dodd said.

While this isn’t a current legislator standing up and demanding that it be brought back on the floor, Dodd is the head of one of the entertainment industry’s most powerful lobbyist groups while also being a man with major connections on Capitol Hill.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Dodd says that the legislation now needs to be reworked by a group of people who understand both content and technology and the connections between them.

“There are not a huge number of people who understand that content and technology absolutely need each other,” Dodd said.

Dodd wants people who have a foot in both worlds, like Jeff Skoll, founder of eBay and film producer, along with other “smart and highly respected [individuals] in both communities” to bring both sides together to push for legislation before the upcoming presidential election.

According to Dodd, Obama is on his side and is attempting to bridge the gap between the worlds of content and technology to refocus the legislative efforts which are supposedly aimed at stopping piracy.

Of course, in reality, such anti-piracy operations end up allowing for massive domestic surveillance operations like the one soon to be voluntarily implemented by most major Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

Dodd noted that Obama has close relationships in both the technology and content world, adding that he is “confident” that the president is leveraging his connections.

Dodd seems to be advocating the top figures in both the entertainment and technology world to come together to draft legislation behind closed doors while making an end run around the American people, effectively eradicating what little role we still have in the American political system.

The people of the world have consistently said that they want nothing to do with draconian legislation which crushes internet freedoms like SOPA.

Take, for instance, the massive protests against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in Europe.

Unfortunately, here in the United States ACTA has already been signed under our noses without so much as a ceremonial vote in Congress.

Dodd’s behind-closed-doors approach to the legislative process is thoroughly despicable but it seems to have worked out for him in the case of ISPs.

The entire controversy surrounding SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), SOPA’s sister bill, is a perfect example of just how corrupt and undemocratic America has become.

Remember, GoDaddy openly boasted about having a large role in crafting the legislation (something which later was used against them) and now Dodd is talking about secret negotiations to get SOPA back on the agenda.

Such blatant corruption is thoroughly disturbing, especially since they make absolutely no effort to hide it since many Americans are ignorant either by choice or by design, with the help of the establishment media.

Dodd has claimed that he doesn’t seek to “revisit the events of last winter,” but when he is doing the exact thing which brought about the events, it’s hard to expect a different outcome.

Dodd and his cronies are perfectly exemplifying insanity, as defined by Albert Einstein, “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I’d love to hear your opinion, take a look at your story tips, and even your original writing if you would like to get it published. Please email me at Admin@EndtheLie.com

Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

This article originally appeared on End the Lie

MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd Wants to Resurrect SOPA, Confirms Secret Negotiations :

Netflix creates pro-SOPA super-PAC

Published: 09 April, 2012, 20:36
A screen grab shows the access to Netflix online, as displayed on a television screen (Reuters/Mike Blake)

TRENDS:SOPA
TAGS:Politics, Law, Internet, Information Technology, USA

As United States lawmakers continue to consider anti-piracy legislation in Congress, they’ve found an ally in Netflix. Now the streaming content giant has created its own super PAC, whose main goal is to promote SOPA-like legislation.

Hollywood and record industry support didn’t help Congress get SOPA and PIPA to pass the House and Senate, but now they have a new accomplice in their continuing fight to try and push for anti-piracy legislation. Netflix, the number one name in (legally) streaming video services in the US has announced the formation of their own political action committee. Appropriately titled FLIXPAC, the just established-agency will be able to endorse politicians by way of stuffing their pockets, which in turn could influence even more congressmen to condone increasingly controversial bills that are being considered in the House and the Senate.

Following the defeat of the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act (or SOPA and PIPA, respectively), Congress has been drafting an array of options that, if passed, are being touted as the long-awaited solution to what lawmakers consider a dire problem in the States: online piracy. While the newest SOPA-substituting legislation have been authored already and ushered through Congress, the backing of streaming behemoth Netflix could ensure that the next attempt at censoring the Web sees US President Barack Obama signing it in no time.
Among the newest bills authored out of Washington is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA. While proposed under the guise of legislation necessary to implement federal protection from foreign and domestic cyberattacks, if passed CISPA would also put in the hands of the government the power to monitor and interfere with practically any online interactions. Only last week, George W. Bush’s former special adviser on cybersecurity, Richard A. Clarke, also addressed the necessity for such laws and proposed that the Department of Homeland Security start moderating what goes in and out of the United States’ Internet “borders.”

The last time anti-piracy legislation came close to approval, massive Internet campaigns stopped SOPA and PIPA dead in their tracks, but only after opponents practically waged a war against the entertainment industry and supporters of the bills. Netflix, a long-time opponent of online piracy, will now be able to endorse elected officials by way of big-time contributions, with the PAC now approved to hand out up to $5,000 per election. At the dawn of the SOPA scandal, Netflix was among the entertainment industry titans to support the proposed bill, only to late alter their stance as “neutral” amid massive public backlash. With other Internet services and service providers still throwing their weight behind the newest anti-piracy bills, however, Netflix is expected to follow suit, and use more than just urging to influence lawmakers. As they become one of the biggest names in Hollywood, the pull Netflix has over politicians could be major in terms of seeing CISPA or other similar acts are signed.

While SOPA and PIPA saw support from both the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, the stance taken by Netflix in terms of what Washington has to offer is bound to be only viewed as more important as time goes by. Trade publication HIS Screen Digest released a study last week estimating that the 3.4 billion online viewings expected to occur by the end of 2012 will outweigh 2.4 billion DVD and Blu-Ray disc views estimated for the same timeframe. Additionally, online streams and downloads in 2011 were clocked at only 1.4, which showcases the seriousness of how Netflix will be respected in both Washington and Hollywood in the coming months.

Netflix creates pro-SOPA super-PAC — RT

CISPA: New Internet Bill Could Practically Shred the First Amendment

The Intel Hub
By Brent Daggett
March 9, 2012


Official portrait for Rep. Mike Rogers (Image credit: house.gov)


If ACTA, SOPA and PIPA were not enough to squelch Internet freedom, a new cyber bill could basically delete any remains of our first amendment.On November 30, 2011 representatives Michael “Mike” Rogers (R-MI) and C.A. Ruppersberger (D-MD) introduced H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011, which has 106 co-sponsors.

[Editor’s note: for other cybersecurity proposals, see McCain’s legislation which would give even more control to the military and National Security Agency, as well as the alternative proposal which would hand over broad control to the Department of Homeland Security.

Also consider the scheme to be voluntarily implemented by Internet Service Providers wherein they will conduct massive surveillance on all Americans in the name of stopping piracy.]

As reported by The Hill, the main goal of this legislation is to assist companies in increasing their defenses against hackers that could steal business secrets, rob customer financial information and cause chaos on computer systems.
“Every day U.S. businesses are targeted by nation-state actors like China for cyber exploitation and theft,” Rogers said in a statement last month.

“The broad base of support for this bill shows that Congress recognizes the urgent need to help our private sector better defend itself from these insidious attacks.”

Govtrack.us reveals the synopsis of H.R. 3523:

“Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 – Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing. Defines “cyber threat intelligence” as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from: (1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information. Requires the Director of National Intelligence to: (1) establish procedures to allow intelligence community elements to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities, and (2) encourage the sharing of such intelligence. Requires the procedures established to ensure that such intelligence is only: (1) shared with certified entities or a person with an appropriate security clearance, (2) shared consistent with the need to protect U.S. national security, and (3) used in a manner that protects such intelligence from unauthorized disclosure. Provides for guidelines for the granting of security clearance approvals to certified entities or officers or employees of such entities. Authorizes a cybersecurity provider (a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes), with the express consent of a protected entity (an entity that contracts with a cybersecurity provider) to: (1) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property of the protected entity; and (2) share cyber threat information with any other entity designated by the protected entity, including the federal government. Regulates the use and protection of shared information, including prohibiting the use of such information to gain a competitive advantage and, if shared with the federal government, exempts such information from public disclosure. Prohibits a civil or criminal cause of action against a protected entity, a self-protected entity (an entity that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself), or a cybersecurity provider acting in good faith under the above circumstances. Directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to submit annually to Congress a review of the sharing and use of such information by the federal government, as well as recommendations for improvements and modifications to address privacy and civil liberties concerns. Preempts any state statute that restricts or otherwise regulates an activity authorized by the Act.”

While Rogers’ intentions maybe to prevent cyber exploitations, advocacy groups are still concerned with the bill’s overreaching capabilities.

In a letter to Rogers and Ruppersberger, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) illustrated their disdain.

December 1, 2011
The Honorable Mike Rogers, Chairman
The Honorable C. A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger, Ranking Member House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
HVC-304 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: ACLU Opposition to H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011
Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, a non-partisan organization with over half a million members, countless additional activists and supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide, we write in opposition to H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011. We ask that you delay markup to consider the privacy implications of the bill that would allow companies to share private data with the government. We urge you to amend the bill to include explicit collection and use limitations and rigorous oversight mechanisms. In the absence of such amendments, we will vigorously oppose this legislation as inconsistent with the long tradition of Americans’ reasonable expectations of privacy.

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.

Beyond the potential for massive data collection authorization, the bill would provide no meaningful oversight of, or accountability for, the use of these new information-sharing authorities. Congressional reporting would be delegated to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). But the PCLOB has never been activated, therefore making it likely that no regular, institutionalized and substantive reporting will happen at all. Moreover, no federal agency or official has been tasked with issuing guidance to companies and government agencies as to how best protect privacy.


Writing a statute to govern the sharing of cybersecurity information is a complex and challenging task. But any new programs simply must respect privacy. The White House’s May legislative draft, the Recommendations of the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force, and the Privacy Impact Assessment of Einstein 3 all contained more explicit privacy protections than the new bill. We encourage the committee to borrow from any of these documents in improving the privacy provisions of the legislation. Any new information-sharing legislation must at a minimum do the following:
· Narrowly define the privacy laws it will contravene. The committee must carefully consider what privacy laws truly inhibit necessary information-sharing and craft narrow exceptions limited to just those critical circumstances.

· House domestic cybersecurity efforts in a civilian agency. Congress must not empower military or intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency to collect the internet usage data of Americans. Cybersecurity efforts on American soil should be led by the private sector, and any government information collection must be coordinated by a civilian government agency.

· Require companies to remove personally identifiable information (PII) from data they share with the government. While sharing technical data can take place without implicating civil liberties, a presumption of privacy should protect PII. Sharing PII should be an exception and not the norm, even if there could be certain limited exceptions to cover legitimate emergencies or other narrowly defined situations.

· Limit government use of information shared for cybersecurity purposes. Cybersecurity information-sharing should not become a windfall of data for the federal government to use as it pleases. Any information shared with the government must have strict use limitations to ensure that this new program doesn’t become an end run around privacy laws that would otherwise offer stronger protections.

· Create an oversight and accountability structure that includes public and congressional reporting. The executive branch must provide regular, substantive and public reporting, ideally by multiple Inspectors General and/or privacy officers.

We appreciate your consideration and look forward to working with you in the coming months as cybersecurity legislation advances through the House. Please contact Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson if you should have questions or comments about this correspondence.

Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office
Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel
CC: Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The ACLU is not the only organization fighting the bill.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a donor-funded nonprofit organization founded in 1990 that champions digital rights, privacy and censorship concerns.

EFF released this statement, the entirety of which can be found here:

“…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.” That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats…”

Is there any validity to the statements made by the ACLU and EFF?

Unfortunately, yes.

Here is an excerpt from the bill, and can be read in its entirety at govtrack.us (linked above):

“2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence’ means information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from–
`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or
`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”

The bill is set to be voted on during the week of April 23 and hopefully, congress will vote down this authoritarian piece of legislation.

Because it is passed this would open Pandora’s Box for other restrictions on privacy and sweeping internet censorship.

“There’s no way to rule an innocent man. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that is becomes impossible to live without breaking laws,” Ayn Rand.

Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.
This article originally appeared on End the Lie

CISPA: New Internet Bill Could Practically Shred the First Amendment :

CISPA: Congress Takes Another Run at the Internet

Daisy Luther
Infowars.com
April 10, 2012

Once upon a time there was a bill called SOPA. Some evil trolls who worked and conducted meetings in a big domed building in Washington DC tried to make a wicked law to allow them to close people’s internet-based businesses and websites whenever they wanted, for the silliest of reasons, much to the delight of the head ogre who lived in a big White House. The people of the land all stood up angrily and complained to fight against the law, and through their efforts, defeated the trolls and the head ogre. The laws of the internet remained fair, the trolls were duly chastened, the ogre pretended benevolence and the people lived happily ever after, internet freedoms intact…..

Well…..until the dragon CISPA reared it’s ugly head.

As we predicted here, the government has been busily creating a law to “protect” us from cyber-attacks like the one recently threatened by Anonymous.

The stated purpose of CISPA is “To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.”
(Personally, my favorite line in that statement is “and for other purposes.” It sets the ambiguous tone for the rest of the bill.)

The outrages that are blatantly laid out in CISPA (The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) are bad enough, but the vagueness of the language takes the intrusion to a level previously unheard of in a country born of the blood of Patriots and allegedly protected by the Constitution.

CISPA allows “cyber entities” (internet service providers, social networks and cell phone companies, to name a few examples) to circumvent internet privacy laws. In an interview with Russia Today, Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology stated that, “the bill, as written, allows the US government to involve itself into any online correspondence… 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.”


The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group, states, “It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’’ exemption to all existing laws…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.”

In the spirit of making things clear, the bill contains several definitions that only add to the general air of vagueness.

CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE ~ “information pertaining to protecting a system or network from—(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”

SELF-PROTECTED ENTITY ~ “an entity, other than an individual, that provides goods or services for cyber security purposes to itself.”

PROTECTED ENTITY ~ “‘protected entity’ means an entity, other than an individual, that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for goods or services to be used for cybersecurity purposes.”
“Cybersecurity” is not defined in the document.

So it’s clear, CISPA will allow for the surveillance and interception of your personal correspondence by the government, email providers, cell phone providers, internet service providers and social networks, to name just a few of the allowable snoopers.

Despite the fact that the bill specifically states that entities cannot use the powers granted “to gain an unfair competitive advantage” one must wonder how a profit can be made via CISPA, especially after the corporate outcry against SOPA, which would have greatly restricted the activities of computer and communications companies. Companies like Facebook, AT&T and Verizon have jumped on the CISPA bandwagon with both feet.

In a letter to Congress, Facebook VP Joel Kaplan wrote, “Your thoughtful bipartisan approach will enhance the ability of companies like Facebook to address cyberthreats…..Your legislation removes burdensome rules that can currently inhibit protection of the cyber-ecosystem.”

Fred Humphries, a Microsoft VP commended Congress in a statement. “The legislation would seek to eliminate barriers and disincentives that currently prevent effective information-sharing to guard against cyber-attacks.”

The United States Chamber of Commerce VP Bruce Josten stated the group’s support of CISPA as “an important step in assisting the nation’s public and private sectors to prevent, deter, and mitigate the array of cyber threats from illicit actors without imposing burdensome regulations on industry.”

The following companies have all written letters of support for CISPA (you can read the letters by clicking on the name of each company).

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

We managed to keep SOPA off the desk of Barack Obama (who we can reliably predict will sign CISPA into law with the glee of a tyrannical zealot.) Let’s keep the momentum going by stepping up to the plate as activists again.
You can find email and mailing addresses for the companies above on their letterhead when you read their glowing commendations for CISPA. Write to them and let them know that your dollars will not be spent with them, either now or in the future, unless they publicly withdraw their support for this bill.

You can find the email addresses of your members of Congress HERE.

Sources:
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011
US House of Representatives Information on CISPA
New CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Will Censor the Web
Daisy Luther’s post taken from her blog.

» CISPA: Congress Takes Another Run at the Internet Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Similar/Related Articles

1. CISPA – HR 3523: The New SOPA
2. Government Surveillance Crackdown On Internet Goes Into Overdrive
3. DHS takes the lead in Senate cybersecurity bill
4. House Committee Rushing to Approve Dangerous “Information Sharing” Bill
5. Fascism Comes to the Internet: Introducing CISPA
6. Reid to lead second effort to expand executive branch authority over Internet
7. Cybersecurity bill would establish ‘federal big brother’
8. Rights Group Urges Congress To Scrap Privacy Busting Internet Bill
9. Congress Declares ‘Offensive’ War on the Internet in NDAA
10. Don’t Let Congress Order Internet Companies to Spy on You
11. Should Obama Control the Internet?
12. Police: Internet providers must keep user logs