Congress Considering CISPA Amendments 85
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the ACTA-by-any-other-name dept.
from the ACTA-by-any-other-name dept.
First time accepted submitter casac8 writes "As Friday's House vote on CISPA nears, it appears Congress members are getting nervous. Literally millions of people around the world have signed petitions voicing their opposition, and it appears Congress has heard their concerns, as House members are considering a number of amendments aimed at limiting the negative impacts the legislation would have on Internet privacy. For instance, one amendment likely to pass would tighten the bill's language to ensure its provisions are only applied in the pursuit of legit crimes and other rare instances, rather than whenever the NSA wants to target Joe Web-user. And another would increase possible liability on the parts of companies who hand personal information over to the government."
Getting the foot in the door. (Score:5, Interesting)
The best part of the proposed amendments is the supposed liability for the companies violating privacy and handing over info to the government. How'd that work out with the massive illegal NSA wiretapping? Oh that's right, everyone was granted retroactive immunity and the whistle blower got criminal prosecution for his trouble. Somehow, I seriously doubt that the privacy provisions will carry much weight or have any teeth. This bill needs to die.
Legal framework around existing spyware (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple of points about this. First, if the recent Wired article on the under-construction Utah data center [wired.com] is accurate, mass spying is already underway with increasing volumes being planned. So I think it is fair to say that this is a reflection of Total Information Awareness [wikipedia.org] and the post-Admiral Poindexter philosophy of spying: build it and let 'em try and take it away later. CISPA, then, is best thought of as a legal framework around existing and planned hardware buildouts. While I do not expect the Obama White House to be forthcoming with its real reasoning for threatening a veto [cnet.com], I presume that the real reason is that CISPA does not go far enough so far as the executive branch is concerned.
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Just done.
"Dear congressional employee:
"I am dissatisfied with your work. You've already proved you're delinquency by passing the Patriot Act, TARP bailouts, mandatory purchase of insurance (which I don't want), support for destruction of perfectly usable cars via Cash for Clunkers, and the NDAA "Shut up, you don't get a lawyer" provision.
"So I won't be the least surprised if you pass CISPA, giving corporations authority to spy on my internet usage for the benefit of the Homeland Security, and thereby confirming my initial conjecture. I'll be campaigning against you in the fall. Please pack-up your desk and remove your belongs by the end of the year."
Signed,
Your boss,
We the people.
Re:Tor (Score:5, Interesting)
Paul is -- I can't believe I'm saying this -- right.
CISPA provides one monster carrot to those who "voluntarily" participate in CISPA, and that's immunity from ever being sued for failing to safeguard the privacy of their users.
Have a hacker steal millions of financial records, health records, or credit card numbers, and as long as they were participating in CISPA, and sharing "threat" data, they were acting in "good faith" to secure their networks, and as such can not be sued for failing to protect their customer's personal data.
CISPA could literally save a company millions of dollars, and that's why Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and many, many more are supporters .
More at http://www.isights.org/2012/04/cispas-good-faith-carrot-needs-no-stick.html [isights.org]