Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

House Passes CISPA 616

wiedzmin writes "The House approved Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act with a 248 to 168 vote today. CISPA allows internet service providers to share Internet 'threat' information with government agencies, including DHS and NSA, without having to protect any personally identifying data of its customers, without a court order. It effectively immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for disclosing customer information, grants them anti-trust protection on colluding on cybersecurity issues and allows them to bypass privacy laws when sharing data with each other."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Passes CISPA

Comments Filter:
  • Re:First (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2012 @06:18PM (#39814115) [] Handy list of the reps who voted for this turd.

  • "Not voting" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Scareduck (177470) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @06:23PM (#39814175) Homepage Journal

    Roll call here []. He was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

  • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @06:25PM (#39814195) Homepage Journal

    ... and then tell me "there's no difference" between Democrats and Republicans. []

  • by Bowling Moses (591924) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @06:42PM (#39814415) Journal
    Obama has issued a veto threat [].
  • Re:So now what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @06:59PM (#39814609)
    When does this go into effect?

    After it is passed by the Senate, and then after the President signs it. What classes do you miss in elementary school?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:00PM (#39814617)

    Let me just give you a sample of the kind of data they will have access to, without a warrant, if Obama doesn't veto this.

    Every transaction you have made involving a card, ever, including the date, time of day, name of the merchant, city and state of the merchant, ID number of the terminal where the card was swiped, amount of transaction, etc etc etc.

    Every time you withdrew money from an ATM. it stores the amount, the location of the ATM, the time of day, etc.

    The same goes for online transactions.

    An image of every check you have ever written.

    Every deposit slip you have used.

    Every time you have talked to a teller in person, the interaction is recorded.

    Every time you have called the bank on the telephone.

    It is all there. Waiting for the government to use it, as it sees fit.


    Now, link that up with records from places like Wal-Mart. They can correlate card numbers with items. They know what brand of toothpaste you buy. They know what kind of toilet paper you use. They know if you like to buy a lot of baggies (are you a drug dealer?), if you buy a lot of cold medicine (are you a meth dealer?), if you buy a lot of condoms (are you a pimp?), etc etc etc.


    Now, link this up with projects like the CINDER (Cyber Insider Threat) ADAMS, and PRODIGAL (some of which have been program-managed by former hackers like Mudge from l0pht heavy industries). If you dig through these 'proposals', you will find academics saying things like "Maybe a target goes to lunch at a different time of day. that might indicate a threat". This is where our tax money is going. This is what is being built.

  • Re:First (Score:5, Informative)

    by Moryath (553296) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:05PM (#39814659)

    TL;DR version - CISPA is how "Total Information Awareness" [] and spying on every US citizen without cause becomes legal.

    What's really sad is that the current Supreme Court couldn't even be counted on to assert the 4th amendment if this got challenged in court. After all, 5 of those senile delinquents recently ruled that you can be strip-searched for jaywalking.

  • Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)

    by DreadPiratePizz (803402) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:59PM (#39815295)
    You do know this isn't law yet, right? And you also know that Obama has said he would veto it if it ever came to his desk right? The sky isn't falling dude.
  • Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:06PM (#39815387)

    Just like he was gonna veto NDAA until it gave him more power?

  • Re:Sad Little People (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:11PM (#39815419)

    If it doesn't get vetoed, then it's time to use the ammo box. This just fucked up the future of my children. I will give my life for them.

  • Re:Sad Little People (Score:4, Informative)

    by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:17PM (#39815481)

    >>>Obama has said he would veto it

    Wow you're a gullible little fucker. Didn't he ALSO say he would veto the NDAA? Yes. Then he signed it. The lying piece of shit.... I suspect Obama is really George Bush wearing a mask.

  • Re:First (Score:5, Informative)

    by someSnarkyBastard (1521235) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:30PM (#39815591)

    Not to feed the troll here but actually it breaks down as thus:
            Yea - 206
            Nay - 28
            Not Voting - 7

            Yea - 42
            Nay - 140
            Not Voting - 8

    Percentage-wise it breaks down as 28% Dems approved the bill vs 85% Repubs supporting.

  • Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Soupster (1242846) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:35PM (#39815643)

    By not voting, the estimable Ron Paul did as much as most people posting about it here on /. have done. So he has a bigger microphone, by not voting on it, he did not do his job.

    They pushed the voting day up by one at the last minute. Ron Paul was campaigning in Texas at the time, it was probably logistically impossible for him to get back in time to vote.

  • Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)

    by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:48PM (#39815789)

    It was passed by a veto-proof majority. Obama subsequently weakened it by executive order stating that any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.

    I swear, that "Obama supports the NDAA!" propaganda is the most devastatingly insidious lie since the "swiftboat veterans" for "truth".

  • Re:First (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dan541 (1032000) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:53PM (#39815841) Homepage

    By "cybersecurity issues" they really mean "piracy".

  • No, he didn't (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:53PM (#39815843)

    No Vote R Paul, Ronald “Ron” TX 14th

  • Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lothsahn (221388) <Lothsahn@@@SPAM_ ... u_bastardsyahocm> on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:55PM (#39815857)
    I'm sorry. He signed the bill into law. Had he truly been opposed to it, he could have vetoed it. Sure, his veto could have been overruled, but at least he'd be officially on the record that he didn't support it.

    Also, Obama specifically requested the removal of language that said the NDAA would not apply to US citizens or lawful residents. See: []

    I'm sorry--I think there's a big difference between "swiftboat veterans" for "truth" and "Obama supported the NDAA and specifically requested some of the draconian language in the bill"
  • by quacking duck (607555) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:01PM (#39815917)

    At least the SCOTUS ruling that political donations = free speech, and can remain anonymous, has made official what we already knew--your vote doesn't matter. Those with money get to "vote" for both sides, so they own whoever wins regardless.

  • Re:First (Score:5, Informative)

    by wonkavader (605434) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:23PM (#39816131)

    I think it's worse than that. I think the dems didn't vote for it because they knew there was enough votes in the Republican camp to carry it. If there weren't, then they would have been required to vote for it.

    They all have the same handlers, after all.

  • by Baloroth (2370816) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @10:02PM (#39816519)

    No more so than newspapers or television or radio allowed, and look at how bad those are at supplying good information. The Internet is as full, if not more so, of bad information than the world was before it. The reality is no cure for human stupidity and ignorance exists. What is more, the problem has grown much much worse: there is so much information online, it is literally impossible to know even a small fraction of it, much less figure out what of it is important and what is not. Relying on sites like Slashdot or Reddit doesn't work: they are so full of groupthink, actual open discussion (while it does exist) rarely hits the front page.

    All the people cannot be well informed on everything. Most people don't even know what "well informed" actually looks like. On some issues, yes, but even then, there are always interests controlling the media (even the Internet, yes even Slashdot) that direct people towards their own point of view. And if you continually only hear one side of the news, you will start to believe it. Everyone does: it's human nature. Or they only listen to one side because they already believe it (happens as often as not too). Either way, the Internet isn't a solution. It's practically part of the problem.

  • Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Patch86 (1465427) on Friday April 27, 2012 @02:21AM (#39817783)

    Here in the UK, we have a (slightly quaint) process for if an MP can't attend a vote. They contact someone who they know is going to vote the opposite way to them, and agree with them that they will both abstain (which has the same effect as if they had voted opposite ways and cancelled each other out). This is the trick usually used by the Prime Minister and senior Ministers (who are both members of the government and the legislature) when they need to go jetsetting around the world meeting foreign leaders and whatnot.

    Could Ron Paul not have made similar arrangements?

  • by iphinome (810750) on Friday April 27, 2012 @02:32AM (#39817847)
    He wants to outlaw abortion. That's not being for liberty.
  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday April 27, 2012 @05:53AM (#39818753) Journal
    You know, that's only true as long as the majority of the US population keeps voting for the person who spends the most money...
  • by moeinvt (851793) on Friday April 27, 2012 @07:18AM (#39819173)

    Since 2000, we've seen the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, telecom immunity for the aforementioned, indefinite detention(and now assassination!) of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, NDAA ... and this relentless effort to legalize internet espionage.

    Furthermore, it's no secret that the NSA is building a huge new data center in Utah. []

    This stuff isn't in the realm of "conspiracy theories" nor exclusive to wearers of tinfoil hats.

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]