Thread: SOPA changes name to CISPA

ACTA: The State of Play in the US

Gwen Hinze and Maira Sutton
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:26 CDT





© n/a


In the last few weeks, we've seen surprising and significant developments with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in both the US and the EU. As we've noted before, ACTA is a plurilateral agreement designed to broaden and extend existing intellectual property enforcement laws to the Internet. In both process and in substance, it is a deeply undemocratic initiative that has bypassed checks and balances of existing international IP norm-setting bodies, without any meaningful input from national parliaments, policymakers, or their citizens.

This is the first in a series of posts detailing the current state of play. Today, we're reviewing recent U.S. developments and what we and others are doing to highlight the illegitimacy of this controversial agreement. In February, EFF submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. State Department, seeking a copy of the "Circular 175" memorandum for ACTA, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law - key documents regarding the constitutionality of ACTA. The State Department is due to respond tomorrow.

The U.S. Trade Ambassador, Ronald Kirk, signed ACTA in October 2011 at a much-heralded ceremony in Tokyo. However, that does not necessarily mean that ACTA is a done deal in the U.S. Whether ACTA is now binding on the U.S. government, and whether Congress should have any role in reviewing ACTA, continue to be much-debated questions. Several U.S. Congressional representatives have recently taken action to highlight the unusually secretive process used to negotiate ACTA as compared to other IP agreements, and the particular efforts that were taken to evade normal Congressional review of the agreement.

Since 2008, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office (USTR) has repeatedly stated that ACTA was negotiated as a "sole executive agreement" under the President's power to conclude agreements regarding matters delegated to the President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and therefore does not need to be put before Congress for review and approval. That view has been criticized by leading U.S. Constitutional Law professors on several occasions (see here, here, and here, and our views).

As Senator Ron Wyden pointed out in his letter to the President last October, the question is not whether ACTA would or would not require changes to U.S. law (which is far from clear), but rather, whether the U.S. Executive Branch (of which the USTR is a part) has constitutional authority to negotiate and enter into an agreement dealing with issues within the powers delegated exclusively to Congress under the Constitution, like the power to make new IP laws:

"The statement by the USTR confuses the issue by conflating two separate stages of the process required for binding the U.S. to international agreements: entry and implementation. It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law. But, regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law, a point that is contested with respect to ACTA, the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval."

This is more than just an academic question. If ACTA were characterized as a treaty, it would need approval of two-thirds of the Senate before it could be ratified. As Congressional Representative Darrell Issa stated on March 6, when he posted the text of ACTA on his KeepTheWebOpen platform for public comment, the decision to negotiate ACTA as a sole executive agreement can be seen as a power grab by the U.S. executive branch, to bypass Congress' constitutional power over international commerce and intellectual property law.

Not satisfied with the response he received last year, in January, Senator Wyden asked the State Department for its analysis of why the USTR's negotiation of ACTA complies with US constitutional law. The Legal Advisor to the State Department, Howard Koh, responded to Senator Wyden on March 6. His letter implied that Congress had authorized the Executive to negotiate ACTA in response to the 2008 Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act.

"The ACTA was negotiated in response to express Congressional calls for international cooperation to enhance enforcement of intellectual property rights. Congress has passed legislation explicitly calling for the Executive Branch to work with other countries to enhance enforcement of intellectual property rights. For example, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-403, codified at 15 U.S.C. 8113(a), calls for the Executive Branch to develop and implement a plan aimed at "eliminating ..international counterfeiting and infringement networks" and to "work[] with other countries to establish international standards and policies for the effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights." The ACTA helps to answer that legislative call."

The U.S. Trade Ambassador followed suit at a hearing in the U.S. Senate's Trade Subcommittee on 7 March. Ambassador Kirk quoted from the State Department's letter, suggesting that Congress had authorized the Executive to negotiate ACTA, and stated that ACTA was in fact already binding on the United States. By implication, Congress has no role in reviewing and approving ACTA.

As others have noted, these statements were interesting for several reasons. First, they contradicted previous statements from the USTR that ACTA does not create a binding obligation on the United States. That makes us wonder whether something has changed, or whether the previous statements were made without internal U.S. government legal vetting.

Second, in citing the PRO-IP Act of 2008, the State Department's letter highlights the haphazard and unusual way in which ACTA has been concluded. The letter from the State Department suggests that ACTA came about to help "answer the legislative call" of the PRO-IP Act, even though ACTA was announced the year before, in October 2007. Although the State Department's letter stopped short of calling ACTA a Congressional-Executive Agreement, it certainly seemed intended to give that impression. But outside of the clear terms of the PRO - IP Act, it would be misleading to suggest that Congress gave the Executive full rein to enter into an international agreement with broad IP enforcement powers that would restrict Congress from engaging in domestic reform of controversial parts of U.S. law. ACTA also includes a new ACTA Committee that will have the final say on ACTA's implementation in national law. By enacting the PRO-IP Act, did Congress intend to hand power to determine what should be in US law to the new non-elected ACTA Committee? We suspect many Congressional members would find this problematic, adding to the impression that the PRO-IP Act was a justification found after the fact.

Senator Wyden was obviously not satisfied with the State Department's response either. On March 19 he tabled several amendments to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (H.R. 3606). Although they were ultimately not adopted due to the short timetable for Congressional review of that Bill, the first amendment would have prevented ACTA from going into force "without the formal and express approval of Congress."

In February, EFF submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. State Department, seeking a copy of the "Circular 175" memorandum for ACTA, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law. As the State Department's website states, the Circular 175 procedure is the way that the State Department "seeks to confirm that the making of treaties and other international agreements by the United States is carried out within constitutional and other legal limitations, with due consideration of the agreement's foreign policy implications, and with appropriate involvement by the State Department."

The State Department is required to prepare these documents for all treaties and other international instruments that bind the United States
as a matter of international law under 22 CFR Part 181. American University's PIJIP also submitted a FOIA request for these documents in March 2012.

No agencies can conclude an international agreement in the name of the United States without first consulting with the State Department. The determination of whether an agreement is an international agreement for this purpose must be made by the Office of the Legal Advisor to the State Department (and not the USTR).

Circular 175 memoranda must be accompanied by a Memorandum of Law prepared by the Office of the Legal Advisor in the State Department. The Memo of Law generally includes the following information:

• A discussion and justification of the designation given to the proposed agreement (treaty vs. executive agreement);
• An explanation of the legal authority for negotiating and/or concluding the proposed agreement, including an analysis of the Constitutional powers relied upon as well as any pertinent legislation;
• An analysis of the issues surrounding the agreement's implementation as a matter of domestic law (e.g., whether the agreement is self-executing, whether domestic implementing legislation or regulations will be necessary before or after the agreement's execution).

The State Department's analysis of these issues for ACTA should be particularly interesting, given the significant ongoing controversy about ACTA's constitutionality.

More than ever before, the constitutionality of ACTA is a matter of great importance for citizens of the U.S. and of European ACTA negotiating countries.

We're expecting a response from the State Department tomorrow. As we did with our previous ACTA FOIA lawsuit (Click on Documents Tab), EFF will make any information we obtain under the FOIA request available on our website, to better inform the public dialogue about ACTA that is currently underway on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

ACTA: The State of Play in the US -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

Obama Administration’s Backdoor Wiretap Bills Threaten Political and Privacy Rights

Antifascist Calling
Wednesday, April 11, 2012

“cybersecurity,” the new all-purpose bogeyman to increase the secret state’s already-formidable reach, the Obama administration and their congressional allies are crafting legislation that will open new backdoors for even more intrusive government surveillance: portals into our lives that will never be shut.

As Antifascist Calling has frequently warned, with the endless “War on Terror” as a backdrop the federal government, most notably the 16 agencies that comprise the so-called “Intelligence Community” (IC), have been constructing vast centralized databases that scoop-up and store all things digital–from financial and medical records to the totality of our electronic communications online–and do so without benefit of a warrant or probable cause.

The shredding of constitutional protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment, granted to the Executive Branch by congressional passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) after the 9/11 attacks, followed shortly thereafter by the oxymoronic USA Patriot Act set the stage for today’s depredations.

Under provisions of multiple bills under consideration by the House and Senate, federal officials will be given broad authority over private networks that will almost certainly hand security officials wide latitude over what is euphemistically called “information-sharing” amongst corporate and government securocrats.

As The Washington Post reported in February, the National Security Agency “has pushed repeatedly over the past year to expand its role in protecting private-sector computer networks from cyberattacks” but has allegedly “been rebuffed by the White House, largely because of privacy concerns.”

“The most contentious issue,” Post reporter Ellen Nakashima wrote, “was a legislative proposal last year that would have required hundreds of companies that provide such critical services as electricity generation to allow their Internet traffic to be continuously scanned using computer threat data provided by the spy agency. The companies would have been expected to turn over evidence of potential cyberattacks to the government.”

Both the White House and Justice Department have argued, according to the Post, that the “proposal would permit unprecedented government monitoring of routine civilian Internet activity.”

National Security Agency chief General Keith Alexander, the dual-hatted commander of NSA and U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), the Pentagon satrapy that wages offensive cyberwar, was warned to “restrain his public comments after speeches in which he argued that more expansive legal authority was necessary to defend the nation against cyberattacks.”

While we can take White House “objections” with a proverbial grain of salt, they do reveal however that NSA, the largest and most well-funded of the secret state’s intel shops will use their formidable surveillance assets to increase their power while undermining civilian control over the military in cahoots with shadowy security corporations who do their bidding. (Readers are well-advised to peruse The Surveillance Catalog posted byThe Wall Street Journal as part of their excellent What They Know series for insight into the burgeoning Surveillance-Industrial Complex).

As investigative journalist James Bamford pointed out recently in Wired Magazine, “the exponential growth in the amount of intelligence data being produced every day by the eavesdropping sensors of the NSA and other intelligence agencies” is “truly staggering.”

In a follow-up piece for Wired, Bamford informed us that when questioned by Congress, Alexander stonewalled a congressional subcommittee when asked whether NSA “has the capability of monitoring the communications of Americans, he never denies it–he simply says, time and again, that NSA can’t do it ‘in the United States.’ In other words it can monitor those communications from satellites in space, undersea cables, or from one of its partner countries, such as Canada or Britain, all of which it has done in the past.”

Call it Echelon on steroids, the massive, secret surveillance program first exposed by journalists Duncan Campbell and Nicky Hager.

And with the eavesdropping agency angling for increased authority to monitor the electronic communications of Americans, the latest front in the secret state’s ongoing war against privacy is “cybersecurity” and “infrastructure protection.”

‘Information Sharing’ or Blanket Surveillance?

Among the four bills currently competing for attention, the most egregious threat to civil liberties is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA, H.R. 3523).

Introduced by Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), the bill amends the National Security Act of 1947, adding language concerning so-called “cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.”

“Cyber threat intelligence” is described 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.”

In keeping with other “openness” mandates of our Transparency Administration™ the Rogers bill will require the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to establish procedures that permit IC elements to “share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities, and (2) encourage the sharing of such intelligence.”

These measures however, will not protect the public at large from attacks by groups of organized cyber criminals since such intelligence is only “shared with certified entities or a person with an appropriate security clearance,” gatekeepers empowered by the state who ensure that access to information is “consistent with the need to protect U.S. national security, and used in a manner that protects such intelligence from unauthorized disclosure.”

In other words, should “cleared” cyber spooks be directed by their corporate or government masters to install state-approved malware on private networks as we discovered last year as a result of the HBGary hack by Anonymous, it would be a crime punishable by years in a federal gulag if official lawbreaking were disclosed.

The bill authorizes “a cybersecurity provider (a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes),” i.e., an outsourced contractor from any one of thousands of spooky “cybersecurity” firms, to use “cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property of the protected entity; and share cyber threat information with any other entity designated by the protected entity, including the federal government.”

Furthermore, the legislation aims to regulate “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.”

And should the public object to the government or private entities trolling through their personal data in the interest of “keeping us safe” well, there’s an app for that too! The bill “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.”

One no longer need wait until constitutional violations are uncovered, the Rogers bill comes with a get-out-of-jail-free card already in place for state-approved scofflaws.

Additionally, the bill also “preempts any state statute that restricts or otherwise regulates an activity authorized by the Act.” In other words, in states like California where residents have “an inalienable right to privacy” under Article 1, Section 1 of the State Constitution, the Rogers bill would be abolish that right and effectively “legalize” unaccountable snooping by the federal government or other “self-protected,” i.e., private entities deputized to do so by the secret state.

Social Media Spying

How would this play out in the real world? As Government Computer News reported, hyped-up threats of an impending “cyber-armageddon” have spawned a host of new actors constellating America’s Surveillance-Industrial Complex: the social media analyst.

“Companies and government agencies alike are using tools to sweep the Internet–blogs, websites, and social media such as Facebook and Twitter feeds–to find out what people are saying about, well, just about anything.”

Indeed, as researchers Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins pointed out last year in Loving the Cyber Bomb?, “An industrial complex reminiscent of the Cold War’s may be emerging in cybersecurity today.”
Brito and Watkins averred that “the military-industrial complex was born out of exaggerated Soviet threats, a defense industry closely allied with the military and Department of Defense, and politicians striving to bring pork and jobs home to constituents. A similar cyber-industrial complex may be emerging today, and its players call for government involvement that may be superfluous and definitely allows for rent seeking and pork barreling.”

Enter social media analysis and the private firms out to make a buck–at our expense.

“Not surprisingly,” GCN’s Patrick Marshall wrote, “intelligence agencies have already been looking at social media as a source of information. The Homeland Security Department has been analyzing traffic on social networks for at least the past three years.”

While DHS claims it does not routinely monitor Facebook or Twitter, and only responds when it receives a “tip,” such assertions are demonstrably false.

Ginger McCall, the director of the Electronic Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Open Government Program told GCN that the department is “explicitly monitoring for criticism of the government, for reports that reflect adversely on the agency, for public reaction to policy proposals.”

But DHS isn’t the only agency monitoring social media sites such as Facebook and Google+.

As Antifascist Calling reported back in 2009, according to New Scientist the National Security Agency “is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks.”

Not to be outdone, the CIA’s venture capital investment arm,In-Q-Tel, has poured millions of dollars into Visible Technologies, a Bellevue, Washington-based firm specializing in “integrated marketing, social servicing, digital experience management, and consumer intelligence.”

According to In-Q-Tel “Visible Technologies has developed TruCast®, which takes an innovative and holistic approach to social media management. TruCast has been architected as an enterprise-level solution that provides the ability to track, analyze, and respond to social media from a single, Web-based platform.”

Along similar lines, the CIA has heavily invested in Recorded Future, a firm which “extracts time and event information from the web. The company offers users new ways to analyze the past, present, and the predicted future.”

The firm’s defense and intelligence analytics division promises to “help analysts understand trends in big data, and foresee what may happen in the future. Groundbreaking algorithms extract temporal and predictive signals from unstructured text. Recorded Future organizes this information, delineates results over interactive timelines, visualizes past trends, and maps future events–all while providing traceability back to sources. From OSINT to classified data, Recorded Future offers innovative, massively scalable solutions.”

As Government Computer News pointed out, in January the FBI “put out a request for vendors to provide information about available technologies for monitoring and analyzing social media.” Accordingly, the Bureau is seeking the ability to:

• Detect specific, credible threats or monitor adversarial situations.
• Geospatially locate bad actors or groups and analyze their movements, vulnerabilities, limitations, and possible adverse actions.
• Predict likely developments in the situation or future actions taken by bad actors (by conducting trend, pattern, association, and timeline analysis).
• Detect instances of deception in intent or action by bad actors for the explicit purpose of misleading law enforcement.
• Develop domain assessments for the area of interest (more so for routine scenarios and special events).

So much for privacy in our Orwellian New World Order!
Backdoor Official Secrets Act

Social media “harvesting” by private firms hot-wired into the state’s Surveillance-Industrial Complex will be protected from challenges under provisions of CISPA.

As the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) pointed out, “a company that protects itself or other companies against ‘cybersecurity threats’ can ‘use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property’ of the company under threat. But because ‘us[ing] cybersecurity systems’ is incredibly vague, it could be interpreted to mean monitoring email, filtering content, or even blocking access to sites. A company acting on a ‘cybersecurity threat’ would be able to bypass all existing laws, including laws prohibiting telcos from routinely monitoring communications, so long as it acted in ‘good faith’.”

And as EFF’s Rainey Reitman and Lee Tien aver, the “broad language” concerning what constitutes a cybersecurity “threat,” is an invitation for the secret state and their private “partners” to include “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”

“Yes,” Reitman and Tien wrote, “intellectual property. 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.”

More troubling, “the government and Internet companies could use this language to block sites like WikiLeaks and NewYorkTimes.com, both of which have published classified information.”

Should CISPA pass muster it could serve as the basis for establishing an American “Official Secrets Act.” In the United Kingdom, the Act has been used against whistleblowers to prohibit disclosure of government crimes. But it does more than that. The state can also issue restrictive “D-Notices” that “advise” editors not to publish material on subjects deemed sensitive to the “national security.”

EFF warns that “online publishers like WikiLeaks are currently afforded protection under the First Amendment; receiving and publishing classified documents from a whistleblower is a common journalistic practice. While there’s uncertainty about whether the Espionage Act could be brought to bear against WikiLeaks, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the Espionage Act would apply to WikiLeaks without equally applying to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and in fact everyone who reads about the cablegate releases.”

And with the Obama regime’s crusade to prosecute and punish whistleblowers, as the recent indictment of former CIA officerJohn Kiriakou for alleged violations of the Espionage Act and the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for disclosing information on the CIA’s torture programs, we have yet another sterling example of administration “transparency”! While Kiriakou faces 30 years in prison, the former head of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who was responsible for the destruction of 92 torture videotapes held by the Agency, was not charged by the government and was given a free pass by the Justice Department.

As the World Socialist Web Site points out: “More fundamentally, the prosecution of Kiriakou is part of a policy of state secrecy and repression that pervades the US government under Obama, who came into office promising ‘the most transparent administration in history.’”

Critic Bill Van Auken observed that Kiriakou’s prosecution “marks the sixth government whistleblower to be charged by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act, twice as many such prosecutions as have been brought by all preceding administrations combined. Prominent among them is Private Bradley Manning, who is alleged to have leaked documents exposing US war crimes to WikiLeaks. He has been held under conditions tantamount to torture and faces a possible death penalty.”

“In all of these cases,” the World Socialist Web Site noted, “the World War I-era Espionage Act is being used to punish not spying on behalf of a foreign government, but exposing the US government’s own crimes to the American people. The utter lawlessness of US foreign policy goes hand in hand with the collapse of democracy at home.”

The current crop of “cybersecurity” bills are sure to hasten that collapse.

Under Rogers’ legislation, “the government would have new, powerful tools to go after WikiLeaks,” or anyone else who challenges the lies of the U.S. government by publishing classified information that contradicts the dominant narrative.

“By claiming that WikiLeaks constituted ‘cyber threat intelligence’ (aka ‘theft or misappropriation of private or government information’),” EFF avers, “the government may be empowering itself and other companies to monitor and block the site. This means that the previous tactics used to silence WikiLeaks–including a financial blockade and shutting down their accounts with online service providers–could be supplemented by very direct means. The government could proclaim that WikiLeaks constitutes a cybersecurity threat and have new, broad powers to filter and block communication with the journalistic website.”

Since January, Obama has signed legislation (NDAA) granting the Executive Branch authority to condemn alleged “enemy combatants,” including U.S. citizens detained in America, indefinite military detention without charges or trials, and with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asserting that the president has the “right” to assassinate American citizens anywhere on earth, it clear to anyone who hasn’t drunk the Hope and Change™ Kool-Aid, that the architecture of an American police state is now in place.

Prison Planet.com » Obama Administration’s Backdoor Wiretap Bills Threaten Political and Privacy Rights

Red Alert! The 'Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act' CISPA (HR 3523) Already Has Over 100 Co-sponsors

Mon, 04/16/2012 - 17:55
Politics & Law

Link to the EFF's Action Page

This bill already has over 100 Congressional co-sponsors, and is bolting through Congress! This is very upsetting! I just called my PA Congressman (Rep. Thomas Marino) and asked if he was a co-sponsor. They said, yes. I said, "Well you tell him I said not to support this bill, and if he does the next time his name comes around, HE IS OUT!"

THIS BILL WILL GIVE THEM CONTROL OF THE INTERNET!!!!! I am told it is worse than SOPA, the last bill they tried to control the internet with. Everyone yelled and SOPA was taken off the floor.

WE CAN DO IT AGAIN!!!!! PLEASE STOP RIGHT NOW AND CALL!!!!!!

Text, cosponsors & full information from Open Congress: H.R.3523 - Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011

* * EFF's Action Page * *

Red Alert! The 'Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act' CISPA (HR 3523) Already Has Over 100 Co-sponsors | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Ron Paul 2012

CISPA: Draconian Bill Would Forces Companies to Spy for The FED

Infowars.com
Tuesday, April 17, 2012

A coalition of advocacy groups has begun a week of intensive protests against the latest attack on the free and open internet, The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). The draconian legislation would force companies to ignore existing privacy laws and share information with the federal government.



» CISPA: Draconian Bill Would Forces Companies to Spy for The FED Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Similar/Related Articles

1. CISPA – HR 3523: The New SOPA
2. SOPA’s Evil Twin Sister – CISPA
3. CISPA: Congress Takes Another Run at the Internet
4. Cybersecurity Bill Authors Defend Legislation Against ‘Privacy Disaster’ Claims
5. Activists Aim To Crush Internet Censorship Bill
6. House Committee Rushing to Approve Dangerous “Information Sharing” Bill
7. Obama Uses Staged Cyber Attack To Sell Draconian Cybersecurity Bill
8. New Cybersecurity Bill Gives Obama ‘Power To Shut Down Companies’
9. Draconian Anti-Piracy Censorship Bill Passes Senate Committee
10. Activists plan week of protests against new House cybersecurity legislation
11. Farmer, consumer outcry helping to stop passage of draconian ‘food safety’ bill
12. Draconian Gun Law Guts 2nd Amendment Privacy

Tuesday, April 17, 2012
800+ major corporations and U.S. Chamber of Commerce support internet freedom-crushing CISPA
Madison Ruppert, Contributor
Activist Post

It’s quite sad for me to say that over 3 million businesses in the United States represented by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, not to mention 800+ other major corporations (see below list), all have shown their support for the disturbing legislation known as CISPA, or the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.

This long list includes corporations like Google, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, IBM, Boeing, Intel, the Financial Services Roundtable, Lockheed Martin, Qualcomm, Northrop Grumman, VeriSign, Symantec, Oracle, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the Internet Security Alliance, the information Technology Industry Council, the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, Cyber, the Space & Intelligence Association, CTIA – the Wireless Association, the Business Roundtable and more (all of which are listed below).

Please take a moment out of your day to either share this article or at least the list of corporations behind this legislation in order to help coordinate a boycott effort.

I believe it would also be beneficial to call them repeatedly (inundating their phone lines can be a major headache), shower them with emails, letters, etc. all in an attempt to get them to back away from CISPA.

Widespread protest efforts were quite successful in bringing down the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), but now we have to keep in mind that many of the corporations who were anti-SOPA are actually pro-CISPA.

This means that the public will have to be engaged to a much more significant degree in order to have an impact even remotely comparable to what we saw in opposition to SOPA and the Protect IP Act (PIPA).


The real reason that corporations who were against SOPA and PIPA but are now behind CISPA is because, unlike the previous legislation, it removes all liability from the corporations and shifts the regulatory pressure away from the company.

SOPA actually required private corporations to keep tabs on all of their user activity and made them liable for their users and their activities.

CISPA, on the other hand, shifts that responsibility away from the private corporations completely and hands that role over to a government entity.

This makes it so corporations are protected from lawsuits from a user who has their private information given to the government under CISPA.

Now I’m sure you can see why companies like Google (which protested SOPA in a quite visible manner) and Facebook (which also voiced opposition to SOPA) are champing at the bit to get behind CISPA.

“CISPA 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,” according to the Activism Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Rainey Reitman. “The language of this bill is dangerously vague, so that personal online activity — from the mundane to the intimate — could be implicated.”

What exactly does “dangerously vague” mean, you ask? Well, the EFF has done a fantastic job of explaining exactly what they mean.

CISPA would allow “access to any information regarding a ‘cyber threat’ is granted to the government, privacy security agencies and private companies.”

CISPA’s definition of a “cyber threat” is as follows:

Efforts to disrupt or destroy government or private systems or networks.
Theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

In this context, misappropriation means “wrongful borrowing” and intellectual property means anything protected by a copyright including programs like Photoshop and Microsoft Office, MP3s, television shows and movies, and absolutely anything in between.

The purposefully vague language of CISPA leaves room for abuse in the following ways (according to this informative infographic from the EFF):

The government, private security agencies (think HB Gary and many more), and private companies (which are already being brought into the fold) acting in “good faith” actually means maybe you did it (whatever it allegedly may be).
These entities can share “cyber threat information” which, in reality, is your personal information with other private companies, private security agencies and government entities.
They can do this all with total anonymity, meaning that they don’t have to tell you what they’re doing or if they’re sending your information to someone or even who they are sending it to.
It also gives these entities immunity to legal action, which means that you can’t take action against any of them, even if they made a mistake with your information.

The EFF graphic aptly sums it up by saying, “Privacy policy? LOL.”

“Any existing legal protections of user privacy will be usurped by CISPA. The bill clearly states that the information may be shared ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law,’” they add.

Recently, Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s vice president for U.S. public policy, attempted to reassure users. In my opinion, he failed miserably in attempting to say that it only would allow them to share information about possible cyber attacks while not forcing any new data sharing obligations, adding:

[W]e recognize that a number of privacy and civil liberties groups have raised concerns about the bill – in particular about provisions that enable private companies to voluntarily share cyber threat data with the government. The concern is that companies will share sensitive personal information with the government in the name of protecting cybersecurity. Facebook has no intention of doing this and it is unrelated to the things we liked about HR 3523 in the first place — the additional information it would provide us about specific cyber threats to our systems and users.

EFF shot back in a quite thorough blog post entitled, “What Facebook Wants in Cybersecurity Doesn’t Require Trampling On Our Privacy Rights.”

They note that the government can already share information about supposed cyber threats with corporations like Facebook without “any of the CISPA provisions that allow companies to routinely monitor private communications and share personal user data gleaned from those communications with the government.”

They also make it very clear that they do not trust Facebook’s claims in writing:

But let’s be clear: Internet users don’t want promises from companies not to intercept our private communications and share that data with one another and the government. We want strong laws that make such egregious privacy violations illegal, that require the government to follow legal process (judicial oversight in most case), and that allow us or the government to sue persons who break the law. Ironically, hard-won, long-standing privacy laws—like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act—already exist, although they are by no means ideal. There are already too many exceptions that allow the government to gain access to sensitive user data. But CISPA would upend these existing legal protections and leave the door wide open to companies handing sensitive personal information to the government without so much as a subpoena, let alone a warrant.

Considered together, this information paints nothing short of a disturbing picture. With Silicon Valley’s data mining capabilities more sophisticated than ever before, and with many peoples’ information being captured without their knowledge or consent, the information that will be readily available is almost incomprehensible in its scope.

The house will be voting on CISPA on April 23 and I highly recommend that you make an effort to put this legislation down before we see even more of our rights trampled on by our tyrannical federal government.

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.

AT&T
Boeing
BSA
Business Roundtable
A.O. Smith
ABB Inc. USA
Abbott
Accenture pic
ACE Limited
AES
Aetena, Inc.
AGCO
AK Steel
Alcoa Inc.
Allstate
Altec, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express
Amerigroup
Ameriprise Financial
Amgen, Inc.
Anadarko Petroleum
Apache Corp.
Arch Coal, Inc.
AT&T
Automatic Data Processing
Avery Dennison
Avis Budget Group
Ball Corp.
Bank of America
Barclays PLC
Bausch + Lomb
Bayer AG
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BlackRock, Inc.
Blackstone Group
BNSF Railway
Boeing
BorgWarner, Inc.
C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.
CA Technologies
Caesars Entertainment
Campbell Soup Company
Cardinal Health, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Caterpillar Inc.
CBRE Group, Inc.
CF Industries
CH2M HILL Companies, Ltd.
Charles Shwab
Chesapeake Energy
Chevron
Chrysler Group LLC
CIGNA
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Citigroup, Inc.
Coca-Cola
Cognizant Technology Solutions
Comcast
Computer Sciences Corporation
ConocoPhillips
Convergys Corporation
Cooper Industries PLC
Corning Inc.
Covidien pic
Crane Co.
CSX
Cummins Inc.
CVS Caremark
Danaher Corp.
Darden Restaruants, Inc.
DaVita Inc.
Deere & Company
Dell
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
DIRECTV
Dominion Resources
Dow Chemical
Duke Energy
DuPont
Eastman Chemical
Eaton Corp.
Edison International
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corp.
Ernst & Young
Exelis Inc.
Express Scripts
Exxon Mobil
FedEx
First Solar, Inc.
Fluor Corp.
FMC Corp.
Ford Motor Company
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.
Frontier Communications
Gannet Co., Inc.
General Electric
General Mills
General Motors
Goldman Sachs Group
Goodrich
Grainger
Hanes Brands Inc.
Harman International Industries
Harris Corp.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Hasbro, Inc.
Hertz
Hess Corp.
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC – North America
Humana Inc.
INgersol-Rand PLC
Intel
IBM
International Paper Company
Interpublic Group
ITC Holdings
ITT Corp.
Johnson & Johnson
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase
Kelly Services, Inc.
Kindred Healthcare
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual
Liz Claiborne
Macy’s
Marathon Oil
MassMutual Financial
MasterCard
McDermott International
McGraw-Hill
McKesson Corp.
Medtronic, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc.
Meredith Corp.
Meritor, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Microsoft
Motorola Mobility
Motorola Solutions
NASDAQ OMX
National Gypsum Company
Navistar
New York Life Insurance
NextEra Energy
Norfolk Southern Corp.
Northrop Grumman Corp.
Nucor Corp.
Ownes Corning
Peabody Energy Corp.
PepsiCo
Peter Kiewit Sons’, Inc.
Pfizer
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Proctor & Gamble
Prudential Financial
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.
Qualcomm
R.R. Donnelley & Sons
Realogy Corp.
Rockwell Automation, Inc
Rockwell Collins, Inc.
Ryder Systems, Inc.
Sanofi-Aventis
SAP
SAS Institute Inc.
Sealed Air Corp.
Shell Oil Company
Siemens
Simon Property Group, Inc.
Southern Company
Stanley Black & Decker
State Farm
Suffolk Construction Company, Inc.
SunGuard
Target
Telephone and Data Systems
Tenet Healthcare Corp.
Tenneco, Inc.
Texas Instruments
Textron Inc.
The Brink’s Company
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
Time Warner Cable
Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P.
Travelers Companies
Tyco International
Union Pacific Corp.
UPS
United Technologies Corp.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
Universal Health Services, Inc.
Verizon
Viacom
Visa
Wal-Mart
WellCare Health Plans, Inc.
WellPoint, Inc.
WESCO International, Inc.
Western & Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corp.
Williams Companies
Windstream Corp.
WL Ross & Co. LLC
World Fuel Services Corp.
Wyndham Worldwide Corp.
Xerox
Yahoo!
CSC
COMPTEL
CTIA – The Wireless Association
Allied Wireless Communications Corporation
Aloha Partners II, L.P.
AT&T
Barat Wireless, L.P.
Bluegrass Cellular, Inc.
Carolina West Wireless
Cavalier Wireless, LLC
Cellcom
Cellular Properties Inc, dba Cellular One
Clearwire Corporation
Cox Communications, Inc
DoCoMo Pacific, Inc.
East Kentucky Network LLC dba Appalachian Wireless
GCI Communication Corp.
GreatCall, Inc.
Leap Wireless
LightSquared
Mohave Wireless
MTA Wireless
MTS Communications, Inc.
Nex-Tech Wireless
NTELOS, Inc.
Pioneer/Enid Cellular
Smith Bagley, Inc. DBA Cellular One of N.E. AZ
SouthernLINC Wireless
SpectrumCo, LLC
Sprint Nextel Corporation
Stelera Wireless, L.L.C.
TerreStar Network Services, Inc
T-Mobile USA
TracFone Wireless, Inc
U.S. Cellular
Union Telephone Company
Verizon Wireless
Vitelcom Cellular, Inc. d/b/a Innovative Wireless
Westlink Communications, Inc.
3Cinteractive
Access Telecom, Inc.
AirCell, Inc.
Alcatel-Lucent
AMGOO
Anritsu Company
AnyDATA, Inc
Apple Inc
Assurant Solutions
Asurion
BilltoMobile
BlueAnt Wireless
Bluetest AB
Bravo Tech Inc.
Brightstar Corporation
Bytemobile, Inc.
CBS Interactive
Cequint, Inc.
Cibernet
Cisco, Inc.
ClearSky Technologies, Inc.
CNN Mobile
DBSD North America, Inc.
Disney Mobile
EMC Test Systems, L.P., (ETS-Lindgren)
Ericsson, Inc.
eSecuritel Holdings, LLC
FiberTower Corporation
Finsphere Corporation
Frontline Test Equipment
Garmin
GOGII, Inc.
Good Technology
Google Inc
GroupMe, Inc.
Harris Information Technology Services
HEAD acoustics GmbH
HTC America, Inc.
Huawei Technologies USA Inc
HyperCube LLC
IDI Billing Solutions
Inmar
Inteliquent
Interop Technologies
Intrado, Inc
Intuit
kgb
Kore Telematics Inc.
LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc.
LOC-AID Technologies, Inc
M Seven System
Major League Baseball, Advanced Media, L.P.
MapInfo Corporation
Medio Systems, Inc
MI Technologies
Microsemi Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Mobile Messenger
Mobile Posse, Inc.
Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Motricity
Movius Interactive Corporation
National Analysis Center, Inc
NBCUniversal Digital Networks
NeuStar, Inc.
NextG Networks, Inc
Nokia, Inc.
Numerex Corp
OnStar
OpenMarket
Openwave Systems
Opticon, Inc.
Panasonic Solutions Company
Paratek Microwave, Inc.
PaymentOne Corporation
PCTest Engineering
Personal Communications Devices, LLC (PCD)
Petra Industries, Inc.
Plantronics Inc
Plum Mobile
PPC
Qualcomm, Inc.
Quality One Wireless, LLC
QuickPlay Media Inc.
RealNetworks
Recellular, Inc.
RemoteMDx Inc.
Research In Motion
Samsung Telecommunications America, L.P.
Sasken Communication Technologies Limited
SEQUANS Communication
SGS US Testing Company, Inc.
Single Touch Interactive, Inc.
Smartcomm LLC
SMC Networks Inc.
Smith Micro Software, Inc.
Snackable Media
Southwire Company
StreamWIDE, Inc.
Sybase, Inc
Syniverse Technologies
Taqua, LLC
TARGUSinfo
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc
Telefonica Internacional USA, Inc.
The Howland Company, Inc
The NPD Group
The Weather Channel
Transaction Network Services
Tri-L Solutions, Inc.
TSB PLUS DEAL, Corp d/b/a EYO AMERICA
Vibes Media
WMC Global
Zipwhip, Inc.
Zong, Inc
Zoove Corp.
7 layers
AccuWeather, Inc.
Agilent Technologies
Alaska Communications Systems
American Roamer Company, Inc.
AT4 Wireless
ATC Logistics & Electronics
Audience, Inc.
Azimuth Systems, Inc
Bechtel Telecommunications
BeQuick Software
Bloomberg Government
Bluetooth SIG
Boingo Wireless, Inc.
Boku, Inc.
BOX
Bragg Communications DBA Eastlink Wireless
Brightpoint, Inc.
Broadcom Corporation
Bureau Veritas ADT
Capital Telecom, LLC
Caterpillar
CDMA Development Group
Cellairis.com
Cenoplex, Inc.
CETECOM
CExchange, LLC
China Telecommunication Technology Labs (CTTL)
Ciena Corporation
Cloudmark, Inc.
Commscope
Compliance Certification Services
comScore
ComSource, Inc
Corning Cable Systems
CT Miami LLC
CWG LLC (Communications Wireless Group)
Dell Inc.
Deloitte & Touche, LLP.
Dolby
Elektrobit System Test Ltd.
ETAK Systems, Inc.
Fibrebond Corporation
Ford Motor Company
GENERAC Power Systems, Inc.
GetJar
Hyper Taiwan Technology, Inc.
Incipio
Ingram Micro
Intec Billing Inc.
Intel Corporation
Intertek
iQmetrix
Jumptap, Inc.
Juniper Networks
Kathrein Inc. Scala Division
KGP Logistics
Kyocera Communications, Inc.
Lenco Mobile Inc.
Lenovo Inc.
Malsha LLC
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.
mBlox, Inc.
Metrico Wireless
Millennial Media
Mobileistic
MobiTV, Inc
Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.
National Electronics
NEC Corporation of America
New Retail Solutions
NEXPRO International, LLC
Novatel Wireless
NTT DoCoMo USA, Inc.
Offwire
Omnilert, LLC
Oracle Corporation
Palm, Inc
Plateau Telecommunications
Powermat
Protect Cell
Qmadix
Qualcomm Q-Lab
Radio Frequency Systems
RBC Capital Markets, LLC
Rohde & Schwarz
Sabre Industries, Inc.
SATIMO
SETAR-Servicio Di Telecomunicacion
Sierra Wireless
Simplexity LLC
Smart Synch
Sony Corporation of America
SPEAG (Schmid & Partner Eng. AG)
Spirent Communications
Sporton International Inc.
Stargreetz
Strategy Analytics, Inc.
Superior Communications
Symantec Corporation
Synchronoss Technologies
Talley, Inc
TCT Mobile Inc.
TECORE, Inc.
TEKELEC
Telecom Expert Group, LLC
Telecom. Metrology Center/Ministry of Information
Telecommunications Technology Association (TTA)
TELUS Communications Company
Texas Instruments, Inc.
The Management Network Group, Inc. (TMNG)
The Washington Post
TUV Rheinland Group
Twilio, Inc.
Unnecto/Parktel USA
Valor Communication Inc.
Ventus
VoltDelta/LSSi
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Wiley Rein LLP
Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP
Wireless One, Inc.
Xentris, LLC
ZAGG Inc.
ZTE Corporation
Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association – Ed. Note: There is no information about this organization, what it is, what it does, or who its members are. We are looking into the matter further.
Edison Electric
EMC
Exelon
Facebook
The Financial Services Roundtable
AEGON USA, Inc
Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.
Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America
Allstate
Ally Financial, Inc.
American Honda Finance Corp.
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
Ares Capital Corp.
Associated Banc-Corp
Assurant, Inc.
Aviva USA
AXA Financial, Inc.
BankcorpSouth, Inc.
BancWest Corp.
Bank of America
Bank of Hawaii
The BNY Mellon Corp.
Barclays Capital, Inc.
BB&T Corp.
BBVA Compass
BlackRock, Inc.
BMO Financial Corp.
Brown & Brown Insurance
Capital One
Caterpillar Financial Services Corp.
Charles Schwab
The Chubb Corp.
CIT group, Inc.
Citigroup, Inc.
City National Corporation
Comerica Incorporated
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
Discover Financial Services
Edward Jones
E*Trade
Fidelity Investments
Fifth Third Bankcorp
First Horizon National Corp.
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.
Ford Motor Credit Company
Fulton Financial Corp.
General Electric
Genworth Financial
Hancock Holding Company
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.
The Hartford
HSBC North America
Huntington Bancshares, Inc.
ING
John Deere Financial Serivces
Jon Hancock Financial Services
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
KeyCorp
Liberty Mutual
Lincoln National Corp.
LPL Financial
M&T Bank
MasterCard
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.
Nationwide
New York Life Insurance Co.
People’s United Bank
The PMI Group, Inc.
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
Popular, Inc.
Principal Financial Group
The Private Bank
Protective Life Corp.
Prudential Financial Inc.
Putnam Investments
Raymond James Financial, Inc.
RBC Bank, USA
RBS Americas
Regions Financial Corporation
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
Sallie Mae, Inc
Sovereign
State Farm Insurance
State Street Corp.
SunTrust Banks, Inc.
Swiss Reinsurance America Corp.
Synovus
TD Bank
Toyota Motor Credit Corp.
Trustmark Corp.
TSYS
UnionBanCal Corp.
United Bankshares, Inc.
Unum
U.S. Bancorp
Visa
Webster Financial Corp.
Wells Fargo & Copmany
Western & Southern Financial Group
Zions Bancorporation
IBM
Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
CenturyLink
Cincinnati Bell
Comporium Communications
Consolidated Communications
FairPoint Communications
Hargray Communications
HickoryTech Communications
SureWest Communications
TDS Telecom
Information Technology Industry Council
Accenture
Adobe
Agilent Technologies
Alcatel Lucent
Altera
AMD
Aol
APC
Apple
Applied Materials
Autodesk
Broadcom
CA Technologies
Canon
Cisco
Cognizant
Corning
Dell
Kodak
eBay
EMC2
Ericsson
Fujitsu
Google
HP
IBM
Intel
Intuit
Lenovo
Lexmark
Micron
Microsoft
Monster.com
Motorola
NCR
Nokia
Oracle
Panasonic
Qualcomm
Ricoh
RIM
SAP
Sony
Symantec
Synopsys
Teradata
Texas Instruments
VeriSign
VMWare
Intel
Internet Security Alliance
AVG
BNY Mellon
Boeing
Carnegie Mellon University-CyLab
Dell
Direct Computer Resources
Lockheed Martin
National Association of Manufacturers
NJVC
Northrop Grumman
Raytheon
SAIC
Symantec
VeriSign
Verizon
USAA
Zurich North America
Computer Sciences Corps. (CSC)
GovDelivery
Infineon Technologies North America
Intuit
L-3 Communications
Qualcomm
Reed Elsevier
Phillips Nizer, LLP
Chartis Insurance
Mitsubishi
Palindrome Technologies
Power & Telephone Supply Co.
Salare Security, LLC
Sentar, Inc.
TASC
The Association for Manufacturing Technology (AMT)
Wipro Technologies, Inc.
Lockheed Martin
Microsoft
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
A+E Networks
ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.
Acumen Solutions, Inc.
Advance/Newhouse Communications
Advanced Digital Broadcast, Inc. (ADB, Inc.)
Africa Channel
Alcatel-Lucent
Alticast, Inc.
AMC Networks Inc.
ARRIS
Aurora Networks, Inc.
Azar Computer Software Services, Inc.
BCM
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ
Beechwoods Software, Inc.
BelAir Networks
BendBroadband
BET Networks
BigBand Networks, Inc.
BlackArrow, Inc.
Blonder-Tongue Labs, Inc.
BlueHighways TV
Bond & Pecaro
Bonneville Distribution
Bortz Media & Sports Group, Inc.
Brigade Capital Management LLC
Broadlogic Network Technologies Inc.
Broken Bow TV
Cablevision Systems Corp.
Carlsen Resources, Inc.
Casa Systems
Castalia Communications Corp.
CatholicTV
CEA Associates, LLC
Charter Communications
CHR Solutions
Cim-Tel Cable, Inc.
Cisco Systems
Clear Creek Mutual Telephone
Clearleap, Inc.
CLIINTEL
Coaxial Cable TV Corp.
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP
Colton Cable TV & Telephone Co
Comcast Corporation
Comcast Programming
Com-Link, Inc.
CommScope, Inc.
Conax As
Consolidated Cable Solutions
Convergys
Cox Communications, Inc.
C-SPAN
Current TV
Cycle30, Inc.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Discovery Communications, Inc.
Disney Media Networks
Dow Lohnes, PLLC
Duff & Phelps, LLC
Eagle Cablevision, Inc.
Eagle Communications
EATEL Corp.
Ebru TV
EchoStar Technologies, L.L.C.
Edwards Wildman Palmer, LLP
Ensequence, Inc.
Entone, Inc.
Entropic Communications, Inc.
Ericsson
ESRI
Euronews
EWTN Global Catholic Network
FamilyNet, Inc.
Fox Networks Group
France 24
Front Porch Inc.
Funai Electric Co., Ltd.
Game Show Network (GSN)
GCI Cable Inc.
Goltv, Inc.
Gospel Music Channel
Great Lakes Data Systems, Inc.
Hallmark Channel (Crown Media Holdings)
Hamilton County Cable TV Inc.
HDNet, LLC
Hearst Corporation
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Home Box Office (HBO)
Home Shopping Network
Hood Canal Cablevision
Horror Entertainment, LLC dba FEARnet
Hostopia.com Inc.
HRTV: HorseRacing TV
Huawei Technologies USA
icueTv, Inc.
Imagine Communications
iN DEMAND
InfoSpace, Inc.
Infosys Technologies Limited
Insight Communications, Inc.
Inspiration Networks (INSP)
Integrated BroadBand Services, LLC
Intraway Corporation S.R.L.
ION Media Networks
itaas, Inc
Juniper Networks
Karmaloop TV
Keene Valley Video, Inc.
Kennedy Network Services, Inc.
KPMG
Lifetime Entertainment Services
Lode Data Corporation
Massillon Cable TV
Mav’rick Entertainment Network, Inc.
McGuire Wood LLP
Mediacom Communications Corporation
METASWITCH
MGM HD
Midcontinent Communications
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C.
Mixed Signals, Inc.
Momentum Telecom Wholesale
Motorola, Inc.
Moultrie Telecomm. Inc.
Mountain Zone TV
MTV Networks
NagraVision S.A.
NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc.
National Geographic Channel (NGC)
NBC Universal
NDS Americas Inc.
Nelson County Cablevision Inc.
NEUSTAR, Inc.
NHK Cosmomedia America, Inc
New Visions Communications, Inc.
One World Sports
Outdoor Channel
Ovation TV
Pace Micro Technology PLC
QVC, Inc.
Qwest Communications
Rasenberger Media LLC
RBC Daniels
RCH Cable
Red Bull Media House North America
ReelzChannel
Rentrak Corporation
Retirement Living TV, LLC
RFD TV
Rovi Corporation
Scripps Networks Interactive
SeaChange International
Service Electric Cablevision
SES World Skies
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
Si’ TV
Sigma Systems
Silver Star Communications
Sjoberg’s, Inc
Smithsonian Networks
SomosTV LLC
Sony Movie Channel
Starz Entertainment Group
Strategy & Technology Ltd.
Suddenlink Communications
Synacor, Inc.
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.
TBN – Trinity Broadcasting Network
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
Television Cable Co. of Andalusia
Tellabs, Inc.
TelVue Corporation
The eScapes Network LLC
The Sportsman Channel, Inc.
This Technology, Inc
Time Warner Cable
Times Fiber Communications, Inc.
TiVo, Inc.
TMNG Global
Toner Cable Equipment, Inc.
Turner Cable Networks
TV Guide Network Group
TV One
Universal Electronics, Inc.
Universal Remote Control, Inc.
Univision Communications Inc.
US Cable Corporation
Veria TV
Veronis Suhler Stevenson
Viacom/CBS
Viamedia
Visual Advertising Sales Technology
Vivicast Media, LLC
Vozzcom, Inc.
Waitsfield Cable Company
Waller Capital Corporation
Wealth TV
Weather Central, LLC
Weather Channel, Inc., The
White & Case LLP
WideOrbit Inc.
Wilson West Communications Inc.
Womble Carlyle Sandbridge & Rice
Worldcast
Youtoo TV
Zodiac Interactive
NDIA
Oracle
Symantec
TechAmerica: Full list not readily available
US Chamber of Commerce: Includes more than 3 million businesses
US Telecom – The Broadband Association: Full list not available
Verizon

Special thanks to Digital Trends for the above list.

This article first appeared at End the Lie.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm -- 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com


Activist Post: 800+ major corporations and U.S. Chamber of Commerce support internet freedom-crushing CISPA

House Intel Chair: Google Secretly Backs CISPA
Google Declines Official Comment on Controversial Bill
by Jason Ditz, April 17, 2012
Print This | Share This

After Google played a central role rallying the public against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R – MI) claims that Google is secretly supporting the bill many are calling “SOPA 2.”

“They’ve been helpful and supportive of trying to find the right language in the bill,” Rogers said of Google, which declined to comment on the new bill called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

The bill aims primarily at the sharing of private information, empowering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to collect data from private companies on anything they decide is a “cyber threat.”

Though officials insist that the bill isn’t meant to be used in this manner, the text explicitly includes “misappropriation” of intellectual property as a “cyber threat” to be dealt with by the DHS through a variety of means, and empowers it with the use of “cybersecurity systems” to move against such threats.

House Intel Chair: Google Secretly Backs CISPA -- News from Antiwar.com

Red Alert: We Must Resist CISPA Takeover of the Internet!

Infowars.com
Friday, April 20, 2012
CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, is picking up sponsors and it looks like the legislation will make it to the House floor for a vote next week. Hosted by Alex Jones.



» Red Alert: We Must Resist CISPA Takeover of the Internet! Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Similar/Related Articles

1. Red Alert: Draconian CISPA Bill Picking Up Sponsors Ahead of Vote Next Week
2. SOPA’s Evil Twin Sister – CISPA
3. CISPA: Congress Takes Another Run at the Internet
4. CISPA: Draconian Bill Would Forces Companies to Spy for The FED
5. Activists plan week of protests against new House cybersecurity legislation
6. CISPA – HR 3523: The New SOPA
7. Fascism Comes to the Internet: Introducing CISPA
8. Activists Aim To Crush Internet Censorship Bill
9. RED ALERT: The Total Takeover Of America Enters Its Final Phase
10. The Cloud: Trojan Horse For Internet Takeover
11. Google Yanks “Kill The Web” Article That Warned Of Internet Takeover
12. Government Internet Takeover Kicks Into High Gear

SOPA mutates into much worse CISPA, the latest threat to internet free speech

Saturday, April 21, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Just because SOPA and PIPA, the infamous internet "kill switch" bills, are largely dead does not mean the threat to internet free speech has become any less serious. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), also known as H.R. 3523, is the latest mutation of these internet censorship and spying bills to hit the U.S. Congress -- and unless the American people speak up now to stop it, CISPA could lead to far worse repercussions for online free speech than SOPA or PIPA ever would have.

CNET, the popular technology news website that was among many others who spoke up against SOPA and PIPA earlier in the year, is also one of many now sounding the alarm about CISPA, which was authored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.). Though the bill's promoters are marketing it as being nothing like SOPA or PIPA, CISPA is exactly like those bills, except worse.

What CISPA will do, if passed, is remove all the legal barriers that currently stop internet service providers, government agencies, and others from arbitrarily spying on internet users. In the name of "cybersecurity," a term that is undefined in the bill, CISPA will essentially allow internet users to be surveilled by the government without probable cause or a search warrant, which is a clear violation of users' constitutional civil liberties.

Additionally, it will allow websites like Google, Facebook, and Twitter to intercept emails, text messages, and other private information that might be considered a threat to "cybersecurity." The government can then demand access to this information, even if it has nothing to do with copyright infringement, which is one of the excuses being used for why such a bill is needed in the first place.

Internet users are already required to abide by the same laws as everyone else

"Just because you commit a crime on the internet doesn't immunize you from liability just because it's on the internet," said Kendall Burman from the Center for Democracy & Technology, an internet freedom of speech advocacy group, to Russia Today (RT) in a recent interview. "Law enforcement has many tools to go after crimes that are committed anywhere, including the internet."

And Burman is right. Contrary to what former presidential candidate Rick Santorum and others have inferred about the internet being an unregulated "free for all," internet users are already required to abide by the same rules as everyone else. And those who commit crimes online are subject to the same legal obligations as those who commit them offline.

"When you talk about using information that the government receives that's purportedly for the purpose of protecting cybersecurity, and you're using it for law enforcement purposes or national security purposes that don't have anything to do with cybersecurity, well law enforcement has tools already to go after those crimes," added Burman. "And we very much fear that the information sharing machine that's related to cybersecurity could very much become a backdoor wiretap or a surveillance program by another name."

You can watch the full RT interview with Burman here:
Even worse than SOPA: New CISPA cybersecurity bill will censor the Web — RT

In truth, there is no legitimate need to pass any "cybersecurity" bills because legal mechanisms to address internet crimes are already in place.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), another internet civil rights group, has created an Action Alert page where you can learn more about CISPA, and also petition your Congressmen to oppose it: https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8444

Sources for this article include:

http://news.cnet.com

SOPA mutates into much worse CISPA, the latest threat to internet free speech

Here We Go Again: Congress Pushes CISPA

Please donate to help offset the cost of running the site and continue the fight for liberty.
It seems like just yesterday that the Internet had united with one common goal: to defeat the bills known as SOPA and PIPA that would have destroyed the Internet as we know it. The bills would have imposed penalties on websites that illegally host intellectual property, making it impossible to sustain sites like YouTube and Facebook where copyrighted material is posted by thousands of users daily. The task of filtering copyrighted content is an impossible one for sites with such large user bases.

As news of the bills spread across the Web, mass protests erupted all over the world, both online and off. Several major Internet entities, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter came out in strong opposition to the bill. Wikipedia even engaged in a “blackout”, in which the online encyclopedia shut down for 24 hours, replacing the home page with a black screen explaining the potential grave consequences of the legislation. This mass outcry by the Internet community caused many of the co-sponsors of the legislation, originally over 100 members of the House, to withdraw their support and effectively render the legislation dead. With the belief that the battle had been won, the focus of the Internet returned to LOLcats and other guilty pleasures.

Fast toward to today: a bill has been introduced in the House known as CISPA, with a focus not on intellectual property but privacy. The bill would effectively nullify privacy policies and allow the government to seize user information without a warrant. Proponents of the bill claim it would assist efforts to combat cybercrime; be that as it may, the threat to civil liberties is just too much to risk. By posting information on a website, the user and the site are engaging in a contract through the privacy policy to protect user information. The government has no authority to nullify this contract, no matter the intent.

The outcry of opposition that arose with SOPA and PIPA is nowhere to be seen with CISPA. Companies like Facebook and Google have even come out in support of the legislation. This is because there is absolutely no incentive for these sites to oppose it. Previously, their utter existence had been in jeopardy; with CISPA there is no threat to them and they see no reason not to comply with government attempts to hijack user information.

The fact that the government is once again attempting to regulate the Internet tells us that there is no regard for civil liberties from either side of the aisle. Not only does there need to be as much of an uprising as there was with SOPA and PIPA, but the American public must reject politics as usual and find an alternative to the failed two-party system.

Here We Go Again: Congress Pushes CISPA « Give Me Liberty

By Robin Kostrikin hope people go to Ben Swann's Reality Check on line and listen to what he has uncovered about CISPA. You won't hear about it on the MSM. These issues are not reported, and you have to ask yourself why? Right now this piece of legislation has 100 supporters=bi-partisan support. If you value your right to privacy, listen to what Ben has to say. I also looked into it, but he has done a very thorough job explaining the implications of this bill. We know Wyden and Merkley will be against it as they were with SOPA, but they are a contradiction in that they have supported other legislation that violates our personal liberties/constitution like 30,000 spy drones to spy on Americans by 2020, and the Food Safety Bill, just to name two. I can't remember if they both endorsed the NDAA as well. These are pieces of legislation we all need to be concerned about, so I plan to contact them to see where they stand on this and why they voted for these other bills? Who in Oregon is protecting our constitutional rights and liberties consistently?

Published on Apr 20, 2012 by BenSwannRealityCheck

Ben takes a look at the latest internet privacy bill working its way through Congress. Why CISPA is more than you are being told.



Before It's News