Thread: Under this new internet censorship bill even employers will know your against illegal

I suggest you read this article about CISPA or HR 3523, this bill can send your information out to your employers and to banks and can help stop you from buying a home or if your against illegal immigration and may stop people from being able to obtain jobs because all your web activity will be given to your employer or people seeking work by the Government. That is why I urge you all to call the Senate at 2022243121 and tell them NO to the Senate CISPA S.2151 The SECURE IT Act. Under CISPA you cannot SUE YOUR ISP, this is why this bill is so dangerous. Who will want to give a donation to ALIPAC if this bill becomes law. The 4th Amendment is thrown out because of this bill. Please Read:

Facebook-backed CISPA off to Senate: Goodbye online privacy! | newjerseynewsroom.com

CISPA Is Ridiculously Hideous (And It Just Passed The House) - Business Insider

Please call Congress at 2022243121 and tell them NO to CISPA Senate Version S.2151 The SECURE IT Act. As you can see the internet and free speech will be gone if CISPA passes the Senate and Obama despite what he says, JUST LIKE WITH NDAA will sign this bill into law:

Please also sign this petition to stop S.2151 The SECURE IT Act.

House Passes CISPA: Make Sure It Dies In The Senate | Demand Progress

THANK YOU

We Need More Support if We Are Going to Take Down these Amnesty Supporters

by ALIPAC
Published on 04-30-2012 12:21 PM Number of Views: 214

Friends of ALIPAC,

Many of you are always saying you really want to throw these Amnesty supporters out of office so now is your chance!

ALIPAC is in a great position to play a deciding role in two important ...

I thought the House was 'Republican'? The Senate is Democrat, so its sure to pass if enough pressure is NOT APPLIED.

Related
http://www.alipac.us/f19/cispa-passe...upport-256268/

ump de bump, this is getting ignored in a major way.

Mozilla Becomes First Tech Company to Slam CISPA
The company behind Firefox tells Forbes that the bill has a "broad and alarming reach."

By Jason Koebler
May 2, 2012 RSS Feed Print

A screen displays the logo of the open-source web browser Firefox.

When the Stop Online Piracy Act was ready to make its way through Congress in January, tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia spoke out against it, with some sites shutting down or running online protest campaigns. Three months later, when Congress again decided to try to regulate the Internet, the outcry surrounding the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act seemed like a whisper compared to SOPA's shouts.

Tuesday, Mozilla became the first tech company to speak up alongside CISPA opponents, which are mostly comprised of civil rights organizations and individual Internet users. No tech company has come out against the bill, with many, including Facebook, endorsing the legislation. The House of Representatives passed the bill last week.

[Debate Club: Should Congress Have Passed CISPA?]

A Mozilla official told Forbes that "CISPA has a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security. The bill infringes on our privacy, includes vague definitions of cybersecurity, and grants immunities to companies and government that are too broad around information misuse."

The move is important because the bill allows the government to share important classified cybersecurity information with tech companies. Although civil liberties organizations argue the bill infringes on users' personal privacy, companies support the bill because it will presumably make fighting domestic and foreign hackers easier and cheaper. Mozilla, too, would theoretically benefit from the bill's passage in the Senate.

[CISPA Author Rogers: China's Cyber Predators Must Be Stopped]

But Mozilla is also known for being ahead of the curve, introducing many security features and keeping its popular Firefox browser open source so users could detect and patch security vulnerabilities on their own. With CISPA, it seems as if the company is also looking out for its users.

"We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation," the company said.

Jason Koebler is a science and technology reporter for U.S. News & World Report. You can follow him on Twitter or reach him at jkoebler@usnews.com


Mozilla Becomes First Tech Company to Slam CISPA - US News and World Report

CIVIL LIBERTIES
Balkinization / By Anjali Dalal

CISPA: Steamrolling Civil Liberties
The devilish details of amendments to the House-passed cyber-security bill, CISPA.
May 1, 2012 |


(This analysis first appeared at Balkinization, a noted civil liberties and legal blog).

After a flurry of last minute amendments last week, the House unexpectedly passed CISPA on Thursday evening. A week ago, I described my concerns with the version of the bill that made it out of the House Committee on Intelligence. In the intervening week, there was considerable outcry around the bill led in part by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Center for Democracy and Technology


Learning their lesson from SOPA, the House decided to invite civil liberties constituencies to the table so as to avoid having to witness another implosion of a major legislative goal. As a result, a number of amendments were introduced that began to address some of the most egregious parts of the bill, and, in response, some members of the civil liberties community decided to withhold further, vocal opposition. Then, on Thursday evening, it all fell apart. As Josh Smith at the National Journal described, the CISPA that was passed by the House on Thursday didn’t reflect this negotiation:

The Center for Democracy and Technology and the Constitution Project never really dropped objections to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, but after discussions with the bill’s sponsors, the groups said on April 24 they would not actively oppose the bill and focus on amendments instead. But on April 25, the House Rules Committee shot down 22 of 43 submitted amendments to the bill, known as CISPA. All but one Republican amendments were made in order, while four out of 19 Democratic amendments and four with 10 bipartisan support made the cut. Five amendments were withdrawn.

Unhappy with this outcome, the civil liberties groups are doubling down their efforts for the next stage of this battle -- the Senate.

That’s the quick recap of what happened last week.

This bill still poses serious issues. Here is the version of the bill that reflects all the amendments made. For those who want to compare, this is the original bill without the amendments and these are the eleven amendments that were added on top of it.

I’ll spend the rest of this post providing a summary of the amendments made and provide my thoughts on the problems they create and solve. I’ve ordered them, roughly, by importance.

1. Goodlatte Amendment: Provides more detail around what “cybersercurity” means under this bill:

This amendment places under the umbrella of cybersecurity:

(i) a vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity;

(ii) a threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network;

(iii) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity; or

(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government

or private entity, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity

Cyber threat information, under this amendment, now specifically covers information relating to a threat to the “integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network.”

Confidentiality is defined as “including the means for protecting proprietary information.” This sounds a lot like intellectual property. If that’s correct, than it means that cybersecurity threats now include intellectual property piracy. Accordingly, private companies can send warrantless surveillance information regarding threats of copyright piracy to the government, and the government is authorized to act on them. It’s not exactly the Son of SOPA, but it does elevate the crime of copyright piracy so that it is now on par with distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks and Stuxnet type viruses.



CISPA: Steamrolling Civil Liberties | Civil Liberties | AlterNet

4 Things to Know About CISPA

—By Asawin Suebsaeng
Fri Apr. 27, 2012 3:00 AM PDT


privacy wongwean/Shutterstock

On Thursday, the House passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (HR 3523) by a 248-168 vote. The bill, commonly known by its acronym, CISPA, aims to make it easier for government agencies and private industry to share information about cyber threats. But all that information-sharing worries privacy advocates and civil libertarians, who say the bill lacks safeguards against abuse. Supporters like Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who introduced the bill last November, insist that it is a necessary step in cracking down on illegal hacking and foreign spying, and would not be used to target things like file-sharing sites and free speech on the internet.

Now that the bill has passed the House, the focus shifts to the Senate, which is crafting an alternate version of the bill that could be voted on as early as May. Here are four things to know about CISPA.

1. Those for, those against. The usual suspects on both sides—rights organizations, consumer groups, big business, telecommunications—came out to endorse or condemn the bill. Here are some big names that have issued ringing endorsements of CISPA:

TechAmerica
Verizon
AT&T
Time Warner Cable
US Chamber of Commerce
Lockheed Martin
Boeing
Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association
Facebook
Microsoft
IBM
Intel
National Defense Industrial Association
The Heritage Foundation

…and some key players that have denounced the bill:

Fight for the Future
Sunlight Foundation
Reporters Without Borders
TechFreedom
American Library Association
Avaaz
Free Press
Electronic Frontier Foundation
American Civil Liberties Union
Demand Progress

2. The vague language. As with charges leveled at other recent controversial pieces of legislation, much of the debate over CISPA is about what the language in the bill actually means. CISPA would allow and encourage companies and government agencies to share internet users' information with each other without court orders or subpoenas so long as the company or agency can cite a "cybersecurity purpose." Proponents say that this will allow companies facing online attacks to report intrusions to the government and get help promptly without having to worry about unnecessary red tape. Critics, however, say there is a substantial potential for abuse in the vagueness of the phrase "cybersecurity purpose." "Right now, companies can only look at your communications in very specific, very narrow situations," Trevor Timm, a blogger and activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the Daily Beast on Monday. "The government, if they want to read them, needs some sort of warrant and probable cause. This allows companies to read your communication as long as they can claim a cybersecurity purpose."

It's widely known that many major companies—including Facebook and Time Warner, for instance—already share plenty of user information with federal authorities in the interest of monitoring for national security threats or cyber crime. The concern here is that the bill would allow authorities to disregard the standard practice of subpoenas and court orders in such scenarios. "Essentially, this bill would preempt…other laws related to privacy," Greg Nojeim, a senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told Mother Jones.


3. Despite its flaws, the bill is not Zombie SOPA. It's been barely three months since the efforts to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act in the House and Senate collapsed after a torrent of public outcry. Thus, it's not surprising that CISPA has undergone some makeovers in recent weeks (here's the latest draft) aimed at forestalling another round of activist and social-media blowback. Although the bill is still being labeled by some as a stealth revival of SOPA, CISPA doesn't focus on punishing violators of intellectual property and copyright laws, as SOPA did. Its focus is information-sharing. In mid-April, a revised draft nixed the lone line pertaining to theft of intellectual property—a phrase previously included in the bill's definition of the kinds of "cybersecurity purpose[s]" for which companies and agencies could legally share information.

The original phrase:

[T]heft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

Was changed to:

[E]fforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network, including efforts to gain such unauthorized access to steal or misappropriate private or government information.

In an attempt to further assuage the fears of various groups, dozens of amendments were sent to the House Rules Committee for consideration, including one proposed by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) that would flat-out prohibit using the law as legal cover to spy on protesters (those dozens were compressed into just a few). Certain groups, including the Center for Democracy and Technology (which helped lead the push against CISPA), applauded the amendments as "important privacy improvements" but added that fundamental flaws remain and that the group will direct its attention towards pushing for a more privacy-friendly version of the bill in the Senate.

Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU are still unimpressed by the set of privacy amendments. "The amendments also still allow this information to be sent directly to the National Security Agency and other military offices instead of keeping civilians in control of Americans' Internet info," Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the ACLU, told The Hill on Wednesday morning. "The use limitations, while amended, still allow the government to use what it collects for undefined 'national security' purposes."

4. Locking down Obama administration support has been…tricky. Earlier this week, Rogers said that he was "pretty confident" that his bill had the votes needed to pass the House and move on to a Senate vote. Lawmakers had scrambled to attach provisions that they believe will help secure the support of the president and key administration officials—essentially, chiseling it down just enough to squeak through Congress.

Even so, the Obama administration has made clear that it opposes CISPA in its current form due to what it sees as weak privacy safeguards. "There is absolutely a need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation…[but] part of what has been communicated to congressional committees is that we want legislation to come with necessary protections for individuals," Alec Ross, a senior adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, told the Guardian on Tuesday.

On Wednesday afternoon, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a veto threat detailing the ways in which the current bill "fails to provide authorities to ensure that the Nation's core critical infrastructure is protected while repealing important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards."


4 Things to Know About CISPA | Mother Jones

Don’t Let Congress Use "Cybersecurity" Fears to Trample on Civil Liberties

Update: The U.S. House of Representatives has passed CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing & Protection Act), so the fight is moving to the Senate. Congress is now going to attempt to pass legislation on the Senate side and then conference it with the House bill. We can't let that happen.

Tell Congress not to compromise the civil liberties of Internet users. Use our form to contact your representatives today.

Congress is considering legislation that would create backdoor wiretaps into our daily communications. These “cybersecurity” bills would give companies a free pass to monitor and collect communications, including huge amounts of personal data like your text messages and emails. Companies could ship that data wholesale to the government or anyone else provided they claim it was for "cybersecurity purposes." Tell Congress that they can’t use vaguely defined "cybersecurity threats" as a shortcut to shredding the Constitution.

Under Rep. Mike Rogers’ Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA), and Sen. John McCain’s SECURE IT Act, there are almost no restrictions on what information can be spied upon and how it can be used. 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.

Congress wants to use the threat of "cybersecurity" to undermine our Constitutional rights. Tell your lawmakers that we won’t stand for dangerous, unsupervised information sharing under the guise of cybersecurity.

Take Action Now!
https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/90...ction_KEY=8444

Un friggen believable!