CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited
Summary: The chairman of a key Senate committee cited "insufficient" privacy protections in the cybersecurity bill, recently passed by the House. A new report says the Senate is drafting separate bills.
The Senate will almost certainly kill a controversial cybersecurity bill, recently passed by the House, according to a U.S. Senate Committee member.
The comments were first reported by U.S. News on Thursday.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, said in a statement on April 18 that CISPA's privacy protections are "insufficient."
A committee aide told ZDNet on Thursday that Rockefeller believes the Senate will not take up CISPA. The White House has also said the President won't sign the House bill.
Staff and senators are understood to be "drafting separate bills" that will maintain the cybersecurity information sharing while preserving civil liberties and privacy rights.
Rockefeller's comments are significant as he takes up the lead on the Commerce Committee, which will be the first branch of the Senate that will debate its own cybersecurity legislation.
Michelle Richardson, legislative council with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the publication she thinks CISPA is "dead for now," and said the Senate will "probably pick up where it left off last year."
The Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act, commonly known as CISPA, permits private sector companies — including technology firms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft, among others — to pass "cyber threat" data, including personal user data, to the U.S. government.
This means a company like Facebook, Twitter, Google, or any other technology or telecoms company, including your cell service provider, would be legally able to hand over vast amounts of data to the U.S. government and its law enforcement — for whatever purpose it deems necessary — and face no legal reprisals.
Civil liberties groups have called CISPA a "privacy killer" and "dangerously vague," and warned that it may be in breach of the Fourth Amendment.
After CISPA passed the House the first time last year, the Senate shelved the bill in favor of its own cybersecurity legislation. Following today's statements, the Senate is edging closer to repeating its actions for a second time.
Correction: an earlier version of this story identified Rockefeller as a Senator (D) for New York. He represents West Virginia.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Yahooo! (no not the web site)
the next one will probably get tacked on the back of
Unlikely to be passed as a hidden measure, since,
If you think Melvin`s story is neat.
The Long Parade of CISPA Bills Continues - Here They Come
Yet, these are all, in fact, part of CISPA:
H.R.624 (the CISPA that everyone's heard about),
H.RES.164 (another version of CISPA that almost no-one has heard anything about - it actually mentions CISPA in it),
S.658 (If passed, would turn National Guardspersons into online "Cyber Warriors" (not my words, this is in the proposed law) who could attack you at any time for any reason),
& reintroduction of S.2102 (which Senator Feinstein just announced via e-mail that she would do, in her e-mail announcing that the bill would provide "cybersecurity" via "full immunity" to corporations. This was just a few days ago. (Note that S.2102 was defeated last year... though that's of no importance to Feinstein, who expressly stated she would be reintroducing it.)
The reporters who are doing this story / these stories are NOT doing their homework. CISPA (which is made up of all the parts described above, and is a hydra-headed monster with a variety of bill numbers and names) is VERY much alive.
I suggest WRITING your Senators as follows:
Tell Senators: OPPOSE all #CISPA parts: H.R.624, H.RES.164, S.658 (Cyber Warrior text), & reintroduction of S.2102! https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
^That's a tweet up there, copy it, steal it, paste it, make it your own.
Or use this tweet, retweet it:
https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/326757484066906112
Thanks!
#StopCISPA!
WHy is there no rule against this crap?
There needs to be a law that says that if this many people (and the constitution) say it is no good, then you can't try to pass it again for a long time. It's fairly obvious that they are going to pass this crap no matter what the people think eventually.
agreed
We're supposed to remove them...
Until the Republican party wake up and stop being the party of racists
We need a true LEFT leaning choice in this country but I don't see us getting that.
Until people stop making blatantly rediculous statements like that...
We don't need any laws passed to invade on our constitutional rights and CISPA is one of them, and so is the Patriot Act (which, by the way, was supported by both parties).
Deal with people as they are
But my real point is that *voters* need to be willing to cross party lines (vote for the best candidate, regardless of party, no matter what). Iron clad party loyalty mostly facilitates corruption, which is the last thing we need.
Thinkable doable and how!
Why do you think the ACLU and the EFF exist?
And even if something like this ever did pass, there's still the courts to consider once they are challenged on this.
right, until
Nothing new
It's not dead
As soon as your attention goes away (e.g., when the next explosion happens (false flag), or the next Dorner, or the next Syria announcement, or whatever, the lobbyists, and Senators, will work together to get this thing right back on the legislative calendar. For a vote.
And it will be done quietly -- like all the votes were done during the week of April 15-19 (the week of the Boston, Texas, and ricin events, when NOBODY was paying attention to what Congress was doing).
Pay. Attention.
Do not accept reporters' stories and people's opinions from the Hill as gospel that "CISPA is going away" because lobbyists on K street, corporations, industry, the 'government,' that is to say, the corporation state, does NOT sink millions and millions not to mention THOUSANDS (at least) of hours into this matter simply to watch it disappear after a couple of tries without a whisper.
It will come back in a week, or perhaps in a month, or less.
This is where you can track it -- look up http://thomas.loc.gov/ -- select Bill Number -- and check H.R. 624 as the bill number.. Keep doing this... you may be surprised to find the status may suddenly change. If it does or if you hear someone who tracks these matters on the Hill mention H.R. 624's status change, that's CISPA, that's moving, and it's headed for a vote.
You can also help spread awareness about the need to keep an eye on CISPA by spreading this tweet:
https://twitter.com/DC_Camp/status/326892854536458240
Use that tweet. Please spread it. Thank you.
#StopCISPA
When you mess with freedom, you pay the price!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=594024220622878&set=a.102954009729904.6532.100000459151951&type=1&theater
Permits - or compels?
While this says the bill "permits" private sector companies to "pass on" information
In reality - shouldn't it read - the bill "compels" private sector companies to "pass on" information?
Re: Permits - or compels?
There is absolutely no "may infringe on the fourth amendment" here. CISPA basically is negating the Constitution, which is in direct violation of both Constitutional law as well as our representatives' oaths of office.
This will not end until there are none of the "old guard" left to fight it. Then, the new generation will just accept it as the norm.
It is ONLY permits, and it's only on cyberthreats - I read the bill