It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

House Committee Rushing to Approve Dangerous "Information Sharing" Bill

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
I just heard about this bill this morning. Has anyone else heard of this? It's not the other bill about American citizens being detained as enemy combatants that has been discussed recently, this appears to be something totally different.

I know it's a lot to take in but I recommend everyone in the USA takes a look at this bill. It seems that the USA is adopting similar internet laws as Canada, Australia, UK and many other nations. We're watching it happen and there isn't much anyone can do about it since it's coming at us from so many directions.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011


We’re for better network, computer, and device security. Unfortunately, "cybersecurity" bills often go off track—case in point: the " Internet kill switch. " The latest example comes courtesy of the leaders of the House Intelligence Committee. Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) are introducing "The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011"(PDF).

The bill would allow a broad swath of ISPs and other private entities to "use cybersecurity systems" to collect and share masses of user data with the government, other businesses, or "any other entity" so long as it’s for a vaguely-defined "cybersecurity purpose." It would trump existing privacy statutes that strictly limit the interception and disclosure of your private communications data, as well as any other state or federal law that might get in the way. Indeed, the language may be broad enough to bless the covert use of spyware if done in "good faith" for a "cybersecurity purpose."

This broad data-sharing between companies wouldn’t be subject to any oversight or transparency measures (users can’t restrict companies’ sharing), while the only oversight for sharing with the federal government, ironically, would be through the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board—which hasn’t existed since January 2008.

Worse yet, the bill doesn’t limit what the federal government can do with the data or private communications that ISPs and others hand over, except to say that it can’t be used for "regulatory" purposes—apparently it can be used for law enforcement and intelligence targeting purposes.

Based on how this proposal diverges from the White House’s own cybersecurity proposal from May 12, we hope and expect that the Administration isn’t happy with this House Intelligence bill for several reasons—insufficient privacy protections, lack of oversight, skepticism about efficacy. Perhaps at the top of the list is concern over the fact that the bill allows information sharing with any federal agency—including the National Security Agency (NSA)—thereby threatening civilian control of domestic cybersecurity efforts. As Rod Beckstrom, former Director of DHS’s National Cybersecurity Center, said when he resigned in March 2009:



"NSA currently dominates most national cyber efforts…. I believe this is a bad strategy…. The intelligence culture is very different from a network operations or a security culture [and] the threats to our democratic processes are significant if all top level government network security and monitoring are handled by any one organization (either directly or indirectly).


Considering how greatly this bill would change the law and cybersecurity policy generally, the timing is especially shocking: the bill, introduced today, was only shown to privacy advocates such as EFF yesterday, and yet the Committee intends to "mark-up" and vote on whether to recommend passage of the bill TOMORROW.

Lawmakers should not rush to approve such a broad expansion of government power to obtain private information about its citizens without so much as a hearing on the bill. EFF flatly opposes this bill, and urges House Intelligence Committee members to oppose the bill and support any amendments to make it more privacy-protective if and when the Committee considers the proposal tomorrow. Eviscerating our online privacy protections won’t strengthen our cybersecurity, it will only undermine it.

Source


If I was an American I wouldn't want this bill approved. The article claims they're rushing it through so they must want it to pass as quick as possible without too much attention being drawn to it. That itself should be enough to make you wonder.
edit on 1-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
And of course these bills always have exemptions that override the people's rights. I wonder what it takes to qualify as a "protected-entity" or an act of good faith.

page 6...


‘(3) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY.—No civil or
12 criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in
13 Federal or State court against a protected entity,
14 self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an
15 officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self-
16 protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in
17 good faith—



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
No doubt ATSers would be watched. Then it would be people that use social media to organize gatherings. Then anyone that doesn't post using acronyms such as "lol, i was sooooo drunk at the part last night. TTYL." Then even those will be watched.
Also, add this on with the attempt to censor websites, and the internet is almost the powers that be property.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

Thanks for your dilligence.

In answer to one of your questions:


(7) PROTECTED ENTITY.—The term ‘protected entity’ means an entity, other than an individual, that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for goods or services to be used for cybersecurity purposes.


This is still only a discussion draft, according to your source, so we've got a long time to go yet. I hope they clarify some of the things that seem ambiguous.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


In my opinion they leave the details ambiguous on purpose.

The language usually leaves the authorities with extra powers, in this case to share your private information with any "protected" entity.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Sounds like George Orwell's prediction to me. This bill is likely meant to be used in tandem with the Defense Authorization Act. This bill is probably meant to identify dissenters and spirit them away to the camps.
It is beginning to feel like time to stop posting altogether, as no amount of posting and dissenting is going to stop the NWO from coming to fruition. The treasonous people have too much money and power.

edit on 2-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Along with the trampling of the 1st Amendment. America seems to have died this week.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Along with the trampling of the 1st Amendment. America seems to have died this week.


Really a lot of bad stuff happening lately. No more calling it tin foil conspiracy if you ask me...



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


The world must be ending if we're agreeing lol.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




Really a lot of bad stuff happening lately. No more calling it tin foil conspiracy if you ask me...


It's gotten to the point where I almost don't want to listen to the news.



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join