We need to get the word out more about this. CISPA is back and it is still a complete violation of our privacy and will practically ruin what the internet is if it passes.
Mike Rogers (a big supporter of CISPA) has already said that the stupid bill is for making money and if you don't agree you are a 14 year old tweeter who needs to be educated.
Not to mention that Mike Rogers wife herself stands to benefit greatly if CISPA passes.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/cispa-2013-house-vote-internet-privacy
CISPA gained 36 new co-sponsors on the same day that IBM flew in 200 executives to lobby Congress on the bill
http://maplight.org/content/73226.
CISPA permits police to do warrantless database searches
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...s-police-to-do-warrantless-database-searches/
Mike Rogers (a big supporter of CISPA) has already said that the stupid bill is for making money and if you don't agree you are a 14 year old tweeter who needs to be educated.
Not to mention that Mike Rogers wife herself stands to benefit greatly if CISPA passes.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml
It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers' wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It's somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.
It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can't even keep his own story straight about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement. Wrong and insulting.
Of course, as we've noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money. Mainly, money to big defense contractors aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive "solutions" to the cybersecurity "problem" -- a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.
So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as "a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world."
Hmm. Sounds like a company like that would benefit greatly to seeing a big ramp up in cybersecurity FUD around the globe, and, with it, big budgets by various government agencies to spend on such things. Indeed, just a few months ago, Rogers penned an article for Washington Life Magazine all about evil hackers trying to "steal information." In it, there's a line that might sound a wee-bit familiar, referring to the impression of hackers as being "the teenager in his or her parent's basement with bunny slippers and a Mountain Dew." Apparently, both of the Rogers really have a thing about teens in basements. The article is typical FUD, making statements with no proof, including repeating the NSA's ridiculous allegation that hackers have led to the "greatest transfer of wealth in American history." It's such a good line, except that it's completely untrue. The top US companies have recently admitted to absolutely no damage from such attacks. The article also lumps in "hacktivists" like Anonymous, as if they're a part of this grand conspiracy that needs new laws.
Tellingly, in the print version of Washington Life that this article appeared in, which you can see embedded below, you'll note that there's a side bar right next to her article about the importance of passing cybersecurity legislation in Congress. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere at all? The fact that Kristi Rogers, author of the fear-mongering article, happens to be married to Rep. Mike Rogers, the guy in charge of pushing through cybersecurity legislation. That sure seems like a rather key point, and a major conflict of interest that neither seemed interested in disclosing. Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she's now the "managing director of federal government affairs and public policies" at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she's apparently focused on "executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors." I'm sure having CISPA in place will suddenly create plenty of demand for such problem solving.
A few months ago, on one of his FUD-filled talks about why we need cybersecurity, Rogers claimed that it was all so scary that he literally couldn't sleep at night until CISPA was passed due to an "unusual source" threatening us. The whole statement seemed odd, until you realize that his statement came out at basically the same time as his wife's fear-mongering article about cybersecurity. I guess when your pillow talk is made up boogeyman stories about threats that don't actually exist, it might make it difficult to fall asleep.
Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard -- and we're not suggesting it wasn't -- this is exactly the kind of situation that Larry Lessig has referred to as soft corruption. It's not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less. At the very least, in discussing all of this stuff, when Mrs. Rogers is writing articles that help the push for CISPA, it seems only fair to disclose that she's married to the guy pushing for the bill. And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing. And yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/cispa-2013-house-vote-internet-privacy
If you are eligible to vote in the United States, please take a break from whatever you're doing today and call your member of the US House of Representatives. Tell the staff member who answers the phone that you value your privacy. And tell him or her that you are deeply unhappy that the House seems poised to destroy everyone's online – and by extension offline – privacy by passing the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa).
You might also mention that you're not a "14-year-old tweeter in the basement," which is how the chief backer of this wretched legislation has described its countless opponents.
The House is likely to vote on Cispa Thursday morning. On Tuesday, a committee rejected a collection of amendments aimed at fixing a bill whose main goal, purportedly, is to help the nation protect itself from malicious hackers, criminal and governmental. It invites companies like internet service providers to share information so they can coordinate defenses.
Worthy ideas in the abstract, but horrible in the details: cyber-security is a genuine concern, as we've seen repeatedly. But this bill is easily the worst attack on the open internet since the infamous Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa), an online censorship bill that was killed in the wake of widespread opposition early last year.
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Mark Jaycox put it in an open forum on Reddit last week, here are some of Cispa's consequences:
Companies have new rights to monitor user actions and share data – including potentially sensitive user data – with the government without a warrant.
Cispa overrides existing privacy law, and grants broad immunities to participating companies.
Information provided to the federal government under Cispa would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other state laws that could otherwise require disclosure (unless some law other than Cispa already requires its provision to the government).
Cispa's authors argue that the bill contains limitations on how the federal government can use and disclose information by permitting lawsuits against the government. But if a company sends information about a user that is not cyberthreat information, the government agency does not notify the user, only the company.
The House bill's sponsor, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers – the man who thinks you're a juvenile if you want to protect your privacy – has consistently made clear his contempt for anyone who objects to Cispa – opponents including every civil liberties organization that matters and more than 70 security specialists, academics and policy experts (note: I'm a signer). When he dismisses common sense calls for fixing this bill in this way, you have to reach one of two conclusions: either he's ignorant of what he's doing, or he's contemptuous not only of opposition, but also of fundamental liberty.
If Cispa passes in the House, as it's likely to do, the next stop will be the Senate. Last year, when the same legislation came up, a Senate filibuster killed it. We cannot count on being so fortunate again. And please don't assume that President Obama will follow through on Tuesday's warning that he might veto the bill (pdf) if passed in its current form. This is a president, after all, who has made so many civil liberties vows that he later broke.
With this week's Boston bombs and ricin scares, Congress is surely in its standard "do something to show we're tough on security" mode. Cispa will have an easier time passing than it should as a result.
It's up to all of us to say, "We're not going to sacrifice all of our liberties for the illusion of safety." If you value any semblance of privacy in our increasingly digital world, call your House member's office.
CISPA gained 36 new co-sponsors on the same day that IBM flew in 200 executives to lobby Congress on the bill
http://maplight.org/content/73226.
On Monday, the same day that IBM flew nearly 200 executives to Washington D.C. to lobby Congress in support of CISPA, 36 members of the House signed onto the bill as new co-sponsors. Prior to Monday, CISPA had only 2 co-sponsors since being introduced in February.
On Tuesday, the Obama administration issued a veto threat against the bill in its current form citing privacy concerns.
Data: MapLight analysis of reported contributions to the 36 new CISPA co-sponsors and the entire House from interest groups supporting and opposing CISPA.
- New co-sponsors have received 38 times as much money ($7,626,081) from interests supporting CISPA than from interests opposing ($200,362).
- Members of the House in total have received 16 times as much money ($67,665,694) from interests supporting CISPA than from interests opposing ($4,164,596).
CISPA permits police to do warrantless database searches
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-5...s-police-to-do-warrantless-database-searches/
A controversial data-sharing bill being debated today in the U.S. House of Representatives authorizes federal agencies to conduct warrantless searches of information they obtain from e-mail and Internet providers.
Rep. Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat, proposed a one-sentence amendment (PDF) that would have required the National Security Agency, the FBI, Homeland Security, and other agencies to secure a "warrant obtained in accordance with the Fourth Amendment" before searching a database for evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Grayson complained this morning on Twitter that House Republicans "wouldn't even allow debate on requiring a warrant before a search."
That's a reference to a vote this week by the House Rules committee that rejected a series of privacy-protective amendments, meaning they could not be proposed and debated during today's floor proceedings. Another amendment (PDF) that was rejected would have ensured that companies' privacy promises -- including their terms of use and privacy policies -- remained valid and legally enforceable in the future.
CISPA is controversial because it overrules all existing federal and state laws by saying "notwithstanding any other provision of law," including privacy policies and wiretap laws, companies may share cybersecurity-related information "with any other entity, including the federal government." It would not, however, require them to do so.
That language has alarmed dozens of advocacy groups, including the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders, which sent a letter (PDF) to Congress last month opposing CISPA. It says: "CISPA's information-sharing regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like Internet records or the content of e-mails, to any agency in the government." President Obama this week threatened to veto CISPA.
CISPA's advocates say it's needed to encourage companies to share more information with the federal government, and to a lesser extent among themselves, especially in the wake of an increasing number of successful and attempted intrusions. A "Myth v. Fact" paper (PDF) prepared by the House Intelligence committee says any claim that "this legislation creates a wide-ranging government surveillance program" is a myth.
Unlike last year's Stop Online Piracy Act outcry, in which Internet users and civil liberties groups allied with technology companies against Hollywood, no broad alliance exists this time. Companies including AT&T, Comcast, EMC, IBM, Intel, McAfee, Oracle, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon have instead signed on as CISPA supporters.
Because Grayson's amendment was not permitted, CISPA will allow the federal government to compile a database of information shared by private companies and search that information for possible violations of hundreds, if not thousands, of criminal laws.
Those include searching the database for "cybersecurity purposes," for the "investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes," for "child pornography" offenses, for "kidnapping," for "serious threats to the physical safety of minors," and any other crime related to protecting anyone from "serious bodily harm."
Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat and former Internet entrepreneur, said the "serious bodily harm" language was vague enough to allow federal police agencies to go on fishing expeditions for electronic evidence.
"The government could use this information to investigate gun shows" and football games because of the threat of serious bodily harm if accidents occurred, Polis said. "What do these things even have to do with cybersecurity?... From football to gun show organizing, you're really far afield."
That's why the ACLU continues to oppose this bill, says Michelle Richardson, the group's legislative counsel. Thanks to the amendments that were not permitted, Richardson says, "there's a disconnect here between what they say is going to happen and what the legislation says."
Update, 11 a.m. PT: The House has overwhelmingly approved CISPA, by a 288-127 vote. Here's our article with the details.
