House set to revise CISPA language to add more privacy protection

House set to revise CISPA language to add more privacy protection

arste chnica.com

Members of the House said on Tuesday that they will modify the language of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in a nod to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has expressed strong opposition to the bill’s language thus far.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
thehill. com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Even worse than SOPA: New CISPA cybersecurity bill will censor the Web

Kudos to "The Hill" and "ars Technica" for their continuing coverage of this matter BUT....

The only thing they find to complain about is....

CISPA proposes a new system where the federal government has the authority to share information about Internet-based threats to corporations, and vice versa. However, as the language is currently written, information is defined so broadly so that "any other provision of law" cannot supersede it.

((Emphasis mine))

However, this bill has many problematic provisions which demand equal attention... but from the media's presentation it seems that fixing this is all it will take.... forgive my repetition:

Note the perennial verbiage of the corporate/government creep.... (fascism here we come)

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law..."

All of these bills only tell me one thing, people in congress have no clue how technology or the internet work. Its like having companies who know nothing about medicine telling doctors how to treat people... oh wait we do that too...

Yea these bills need to be fought and struck down, not rewritten, more laws equal more government to police it, these laws will create huge agency's and departments to do what they say they will do.

The whole bill needs to die before it ever sees the light of day.

Congress, mark my words -- f*** with the internet and you're going to get a very pissed off populace, especially the younger people.

Constitutional Amendment.
Protect freedom to access information.

Legislation for the masses, that is, to distract from the fact that, imo, there already performing all kinds of data mining, social data extraction, eavesdropping, snooping...privacy went away a long time ago. So did the pre-empire USA.

It is the time PRECEDING empire during which cultures achieve greatness, when people have social mobility and control over their own lives, inspirations and inventions. Empire is inevitably a military excrescence that takes each positive enumeration of civil society and weaponizes it.

Pre-empire cultures are great places to live. But cultures that celebrate empire are miserable ones, full of hate, fear, paranoia and socio-economic and political control.

Save the Internet from the US
secure.avaaz.org...

Send it to me, I will revise it properly. I will shred it, bury it in the woods, then piss on it for good measure. That's the revision this bill deserves.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Send it to me, I will revise it properly. I will shred it, bury it in the woods, then piss on it for good measure. That's the revision this bill deserves.

Might as well. Problem is, another one will come along, then another or they will slide a provision into another bill hidden deep within the bowels of bullchit and only the most tedious research.

Let's keep in mind one of the most important reasons they are attempting to legislate what they are already involved is to keep the occasional and extremely rare judge from overturning a surveillance or arrest,and to ward off civil lawsuits.

Fear porn. Forgot that.

Interesting further development:

White House threatens veto of cybersecurity bill

April 25, 2012 By DONNA CASSATA , Associated Press

(AP) -- The Obama administration on Wednesday threatened to veto a House bill designed to defend critical U.S. industries and corporate networks from electronic attacks by foreign governments, cybercriminals and terrorist groups, arguing the measure falls short in protecting civil liberties.

Kind of makes you wonder if the entire heinous bill was intended to be a "look what we did to save you from this monstrosity" political side-show?

"Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive," the administration said in a statement issued just as proponents of the bill made their case for the legislation at a House hearing.
The administration complained that the House bill, which has bipartisan support, would allow sharing of information with the government without requiring industry and the government to minimize and protect personal information.
The statement said that if the bill were presented to the president in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.

from: phys.org...

Originally posted by Maxmars


Kind of makes you wonder if the entire heinous bill was intended to be a "look what we did to save you from this monstrosity" political side-show?

If so, it implies the GOP controlled house is co-coordinating with the White House, doesnt it?

Originally posted by Maxmars
Interesting further development:

White House threatens veto of cybersecurity bill

April 25, 2012 By DONNA CASSATA , Associated Press

(AP) -- The Obama administration on Wednesday threatened to veto a House bill designed to defend critical U.S. industries and corporate networks from electronic attacks by foreign governments, cybercriminals and terrorist groups, arguing the measure falls short in protecting civil liberties.

Kind of makes you wonder if the entire heinous bill was intended to be a "look what we did to save you from this monstrosity" political side-show?

As stupid as most posters wish to believe the Elite are...they ain't.

Sure, why not? Or why so? They can play this legislation either way, it's almost an election month.

Just wait until 4Q2012.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Of course they are. I think it was Jesse Ventura who made the analogy about politics being like "pro wrestling", nothing but a public show for the drooling masses.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Maxmars


Kind of makes you wonder if the entire heinous bill was intended to be a "look what we did to save you from this monstrosity" political side-show?

If so, it implies the GOP controlled house is co-coordinating with the White House, doesnt it?

It says the GOP controlled House has an agenda and that they realize that their voting constituency delusionally believes this legislation is A-OK.

Think about that.

reply to post by TKDRL


Well, while I don't doubt there is co-ordination, I suspect what really happened here is the members of the House allowed themselves to be pushed by commercial and law enforcement interests even though they dont have a clue about the stuff they seek to regulate.

Because while I can picture the larger orchestration, the notion that junior members of the House were intentionally trying to play into the President's hands seems a stretch, knowing their opinion of the guy and his Party.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Well, while I don't doubt there is co-ordination, I suspect what really happened here is the members of the House allowed themselves to be pushed by commercial and law enforcement interests even though they dont have a clue about the stuff they seek to regulate.

I don't believe that for a moment. Legislators are informed by staff reviews of the intricacies of the effect of bills on the public and, more importantly to them, the public perception of the bill.

The ultimate and primary priority of most legislators is who in the special lobbying groups (i.e. who that feeds them money and/or could blow open their compromised life styles) can rip them a new one of they don't vote properly.

As I said in a previous post, the Elite ain't stupid.

reply to post by AlchemicalBinoculars


But, again, if the discussion is about tactic, why would the house GOP push a bill that is WILDLY unpopular with both their own base and the left's?

So who is worse; is it america with ultra-capitalism or iran with islamic fundamentalism?

Pretty close, right?

Yeah we are soooooo freeeeee. Free to get harrased by disinfo agents, and if you type too many truths get a visit from the feds and thrown in prison. yeehaaawww

I guess we can still own guns though, not have to wear gurkas, show off our bikinnis...a little better!

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by AlchemicalBinoculars

 

But, again, if the discussion is about tactic, why would the house GOP push a bill that is WILDLY unpopular with both their own base and the left's?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Maxmars


The President also said he would veto indefinite detention of American's, but he signed it with a promise that HIS administration would never utilize the provision.