Under CISPA, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, others can't promise to protect your privacy

Summary: An amendment to CISPA failed to pass. This now means major tech and Web companies will be disallowed under law to promise to protect your privacy.

Major technology and Web companies — not limited to Google, Facebook, Twitter and Microsoft — will not be allowed to promise to protect users' privacy should CISPA pass Congress.

capdometwi7610x430-620x366
CISPA will soon be voted on in the coming few weeks. (Image: CNET)

For those out of the loop, CISPA will allow private sector firms to search personal and sensitive user data of ordinary U.S. residents to identify this so-called "threat information", and to then share that information with each other and the US government — without the need for a court-ordered warrant.

Under a new amendment voted on earlier today in the U.S. House [PDF], U.S. companies would have been able to keep their privacy policies intact and their promises valid, including terms of service, legally enforceable in the future. 

But the Republicans narrowly failed to get it through by a 5-8 vote to reject the amendment.

According to CNET's Declan McCullagh, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who chairs the House Rules Committee, urged his colleagues to reject the amendment. And they did. All Republican members of the committee voted against, despite a unanimous show of support from the Democratic membership.

It would have allowed companies to make promises to their customers not to voluntarily share their data with other private firms or the U.S. government under the law, which would have been legally valid and enforceable in court.

It means that those who signed up to services under the explicit terms that data would not be shared — with perhaps the exception of the U.S. government if a valid court order or subpoena is served — would no longer have such rights going forward.

The amendment would have weakened CISPA's position. Now it gives these private firms watertight legal immunity under CISPA to share their customer and user data with other firms and the U.S. government, by being "completely exonerated from any risk of liability," according to Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) speaking to our sister site CNET.

This gives private sector firms the right to hand over private user data, while circumventing existing privacy laws, such as emails, text messages, and cloud-stored documents and files, with the U.S. government and its law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Today, the White House threw its weight behind a threat that would see CISPA, known as its full title as the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, vetoed by President Obama should it pass his desk.

A vote on CISPA will go ahead on the House floor either on April 17 or April 18.

(Via CNET)

Topics: Security, Government US

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

26 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • One question I have is...

    ...if the President of the U.S, who is responsible for supervising the government agencies with whom private companies would be sharing data, doesn't want this, why do so many members of Congress want it? Even if the bill were to pass over President Obama's veto (fat chance), he could issue an executive order barring federal agencies from cooperating, making the law a dead letter until he leaves office.
    John L. Ries
    • What makes you think Obama doesn't want this?

      This is the guy that has expanded the Patriot Act, given himself executive authority to shut down the internet, etc. Of course he wants this.
      baggins_z
      • He threatened to veto it

        Any other stupid questions?
        John L. Ries
        • So?

          He threatened to veto NDAA 2011 too, just before he signed it. Your point?
          PepperdotNet
          • Bad comparison

            Bullshit comparison. Obama had to sign the NDAA, otherwise the military would have lost all its funding. He used the veto threat to get Congress to put a loophole in the NDAA so that he could nullify its indefinite detention clause by executive order, which he did upon signing. You may not like Obama (neither do I) but at least give credit where credit is due-- he was between a rock and a hard place, and wriggled out of it in the only way possible.

            If Obama vetoes CISPA... it dies. End of story. Nothing loses funding. So there's no reason Obama would threaten to veto it unless he actually wants it to be gone.
            Zachary Taylor
  • wake up!

    its your fault, people....you are lazy, you don't fight, you deserve it!
    wake up, people and vote completely new parties with professionals, not bankers!
    anywherehome
    • How about...

      ...voting for individuals instead; even if you don't think they can win?
      John L. Ries
    • Agreed, but..

      ..the problem is people will never wake up. They continue living their lives after tragedy strikes rather than taking action to better our world. Next time a bombing, shooting or any other disaster remember this.. it can be prevented. Don't know how it can be? If you designed your own future, the way you want to be treated, how you want life to be then you will see that it is possible to prevent most crisis. Just like this.. get to the root of the problem. One example is money. People do things for profit & they don't care who gets hurt. But like i said, people will move on no matter whether or not CISPA takes effect. Instead of voting for the acceptable candidate, we need to put proper people in office who will really make the world a better place, that may never happen though.. because people will never wake up. But, people do have a choice. Either go with the flow or do something about the issues, can't expect someone else to do it, because they won't.
      spineshank155
      • Has to start somewhere

        Andrew Jackson is alleged to have said "one man with courage is a majority". Just understand that activism isn't a financially rewarding occupation for most people.
        John L. Ries
        • Reply to John Ries

          Activism is/was financially rewarding for Obama.
          rPeterJoshua
    • Don't look at me.

      I didn't vote for this "clown" that called himself a "presidential candidate". Only 3 more years until 2016, though, and I don't think that the "two-term" amendment will be deemed "unconstitutional" by then.
      Richard Estes
  • I swear...

    Everyday these idiot politicians do something to make me want to move to a cabin in the woods of Montana and unplug from everything.
    Badgered
    • Just don't start sending bombs

      We've had enough of that already.
      John L. Ries
      • Thanks for the vote of confidence....

        but I'm not a nut... well, at least not the kind that would hurt people.
        Badgered
  • Unlike the blog author, apparently, I actually

    went and read the bill. It's not the apocalypse everyone is telling you it is.

    Page 6, starting at line 21: "(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing.

    Page 11, starting at line 9: "(3) ANTI-TASKING RESTRICTION. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Federal Government to--
    "(A)" require a private-sector entity to share information with the Federal Government.
    baggins_z
    • I guess one of the questions is...

      ...do you think that the subjects of data collected collected in confidence have any right to prevent its further distribution. That is to say, do people have any moral (not necessarily legal) right to privacy at all?

      And do the feds have ways to "encourage" the patriotic sharing of data (especially with DOJ prosecutors)? I think they do.
      John L. Ries
  • Journalism

    "Throwed"?

    Even if you ignore the blatant inflammatory spin applied to the facts, it's impossible to take the article seriously after reading that the White House "throwed" its weight.
    kevindsingleton
    • Perhaps he's learning from SJVN

      You know, poor quality, no grammatical reviews, using tools that can't be trusted and generally inaccurate conclusions.

      More ZD Net standard reporting.
      Cynical99
  • Big Brother is watching you...

    Beriya is jealous from beyond the grave
    wizardjr
  • Any information that leaves the privacy of your home

    either physically or electronically, can be gotten for anyone that wants it badly enough and is willing to pay an appropriate amount of money. Anyone who wants to store information "in the cloud" has to assume that, unless that information is securely encrypted and the holder of these data is the ONLY one that has the decryption key. Even then, if an entity, especially a government really really wants that information, they will use "the rubber hose decryption method" if they have custody of the owner of the information and believe they can get said information that way. Fortunately for most of us, the information we put on the Internet is not THAT valuable.
    arminw