Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

House Passes CISPA 616

Posted by samzenpus
from the bad-ideas dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • First (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:13PM (#39814055) Homepage Journal

    George Orwell

    • Re:First (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:18PM (#39814115)

      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml [house.gov] Handy list of the reps who voted for this turd.

      • Thanks. Good to see that my rep seems to be doing ok so far. Against CSIPA, against SOPA/PIPA, and a couple of other bills that were important. Go Honda!

        • Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:47PM (#39814471) Homepage Journal

          "Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatenedâ"again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power."
          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml [techdirt.com]

          • Re:First (Score:5, Informative)

            by Moryath (553296) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:05PM (#39814659)

            TL;DR version - CISPA is how "Total Information Awareness" [wikipedia.org] 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.

            • Sad Little People (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:21PM (#39814819) Homepage Journal

              Can't get it through your heads, but it's true:
              Your
              Republic
              is
              Gone

              The throw little bones your way, called things like a "Ron Paul" or a "Democratic Alternative" so you can't quite give up hope, in pursuit something which became quite impossible, some time ago...

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Bullets in the hands of citizens solve ALOT of problems.

                • by reboot246 (623534) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:53PM (#39815229) Homepage
                  Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.
                  • by SuperTechnoNerd (964528) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @10:58PM (#39816481)
                    Now you have done it. Here comes the feds!
                  • by NIN1385 (760712)
                    I can't help but wonder if this is their end-game... I mean are they looking for this kind of thing to happen so they become martyrs? Seriously, I am wondering if this is what they want so they can rally the masses behind even more legislation to make this just like 1984. Think about it, the possibilities are limitless when you get the angry mob on your side. When people see red, they don't think they just react. It's not until the situation is DE-escalated when most people stop and think real hard about wh
                    • Psychologically it's easily explained: There is no saturation point for power (or money for that matter) where the powerful or the rich says, "you know, I've got enough now, so I'm going to settle down, stop going for ever more power and cash, and I will just enjoy what I have amassed from now on." Never going to happen.

                      So the striving for more power and money continues, but as the gap widens between the powerful and the exploited (or rich and poor), the ones on top must jealously guard their position again

                  • by Githaron (2462596) on Friday April 27, 2012 @01:32AM (#39817283)

                    Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

                    Actually, that creates problems.

                • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday April 27, 2012 @06:44AM (#39818713) Journal

                  So, how many problems in the US in, say, the last 10 years have been solved by an armed populous? The USAPATRIOT Act? The DMCA? The TSA?

                  Or do bullets just act as a security blanket to prevent people from bothering to get actively involved in the democratic process because they 'can always overthrow the government later if it gets really bad...'

                • by iter8 (742854) on Friday April 27, 2012 @07:45AM (#39818985)
                  This country is awash in guns. What good has that done? Brains in the heads of citizens would do much more.
              • Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)

                by DreadPiratePizz (803402) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:59PM (#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 @09:06PM (#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 @09:11PM (#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 @09:17PM (#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:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)

                    by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:48PM (#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:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)

                      by Lothsahn (221388) <Lothsahn@@@SPAM_ ... u_bastardsyahocm> on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:55PM (#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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY [youtube.com]

                      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 cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:59PM (#39815899)

                      Too bad the Supreme Court already nullified that (and other) executive orders which try to change law. They have ruled time-and-time again that the Legislative Power lies with the congress, not the president, and the written act of the bill overrules signing statements or E.O.s

                      Oh and "it was passed by a vetoproof majority" doesn't mean crap to me. He still could have vetoed it, and then I would have respected the man for honoring his commitment to uphold the Constitution (and the right to trial in the 6th).

                      >>>any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.

                      This doesn't mean crap to me either. The Constitution says a "jury of your peers" shall decide your guilt and punishment (or innocence), not a panel of unelected bureaucrats that serve the pleasure of the president and his desire to be "touch on crime" (think George Bush or Mitt Romney). Heck, not even the right to defend yourself exists.

                  • Our political system is Kang vs. Kodos.

          • Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:08PM (#39815397)

            Now we'll see if Obama keeps his promise
            (veto the bill).
            I'm not holding my breath.

            In other news: Megaupload will likely Not be prosecuted by the U.S. Government because the judge ruled the government has no authority to "serve" a foreign company. Bad news: The U.S.G. still wins because they've destroyed the company, so RIAA and MPAA got their money's worth when they bribed the politicians to act as their puppets and kill megaupload.

            I can't help wondering if the same tactic will be used in the future against sites or persons that Hollywood/the record companies desire to be silenced. No doubt CISPA will make that task so much easier.

            Danm Fcukers.

          • by cpu6502 (1960974)

            I just read a post by a Wikipedia staffmember that said "CISPA is not a bad bill" and then justifies his position.
            It makes me wonder who bribed the wiki corporation & staff to spread that lie.
            No wonder they didn't protest it.

        • Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)

          by _xeno_ (155264) on Friday April 27, 2012 @12:33AM (#39817013) Homepage Journal

          You might also want to check on why your rep voted against it. Mine voted against CISPA too.

          Why?

          Because it didn't go far enough. He essentially wanted it to include an Internet kill switch to stop cyber threats. He did at least mention privacy concerns but one thing is clear: We need an Internet kill switch! We need government regulation describing the exact security software you must be required to buy to place a computer online!

          So check up on your reps. They may have voted "no," but you may not like the reason why.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sounds like the NSA is right on track to get all the legal requirements ready for them before switching on their new data center out West.

    • Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shoehornjob (1632387) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:37PM (#39815669)

      In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy.

      And in the 00's it triumphed over privacy. And we allowed all of this to happen by not standing up for our rights. Apathy rules.

      • by Rogerborg (306625)
        Blow the dust off of your credit card and donate to the EFF and ACLU, since "democracy" is now essentially Government Inc. versus the representatives of We the People in the courts. It pains me that we have to fight a rearguard via lawyers, but I don't see any other practical means.
    • Re:First (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dan541 (1032000) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:53PM (#39815841) Homepage

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

  • by game kid (805301) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:15PM (#39814079) Homepage

    House of Representatives, for peculiar values of "Representatives".

  • No Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tirefire (724526) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:17PM (#39814093)
    I'm gonna take a wild stab here and assume that Ron Paul, R-TX, voted "No" on this shitpile.
    • "Not voting" (Score:5, Informative)

      by Scareduck (177470) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:23PM (#39814175) Homepage Journal

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

      • Re:"Not voting" (Score:4, Interesting)

        by fnj (64210) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:28PM (#39814257)

        That's better than 248 cunts but not as good as 168 principled representatives. Just not good enough.

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

        by shiftless (410350) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:38PM (#39814381) Homepage

        [Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

        You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.

        What the fuck did you do for the cause of liberty today?

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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:47PM (#39814469)

          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.

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

            by Soupster (1242846) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:35PM (#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.

            • by jmerlin (1010641)
              "Hey guys, it looks like we have 200+ people that will vote aye on this bill if we go ahead and take the vote tomorrow," said the sneaky silver tongued congressman from Your-Republican-State-Of-Choice at dinner with 199 of his closest evil buddies, "so let's move the vote up and get it out of the way before anyone can stop us!" The room erupted with cheers and yells "we're gonna be so rich!"

              When does this revolution start?
          • Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:38PM (#39815689)

            You sir are guilty of first-order thinking, rather than looking at the secondary and tertiary effects. Two scenarios:

            (1) Ron Paul cancels his four speaking engagements today and tomorrow, pisses-off ~8000 people who will post "Ron sucks" on facebook (which are then read by ~80,000 other people), flies all the way across the west coast to the east coast to cast just *1* vote..... which would have done nothing to stop CISPA from passing anyhow.

            (2) Skip the vote because he knew he could not stop the passage. And instead talk to those 8000 people in Arizona and Texas, ignite their desire to fight for liberty and the Bill of Rights, share that fire across facebook to their ~80,000 followers, and thus provide the foundation that will inspire these people to run for Delegates and Legislature and the Congress, and eventually repeal CISPA, NDAA, and all the other crap that has been passed.

            Had I been Paul, I would have picked scenario 2.

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

              by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @11:55PM (#39816839)

              Very reasonable.

              But wait a sec... Aren't you the guy who in this same thread condemned Obama as a "lying piece of shit" and "George Bush wearing a mask" because he didn't perform the futile gesture of vetoing the NDAA after it had been passed by a veto-proof majority?

              To copy your two scenarios:

              (1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media and in the minds of millions of Americans for vetoing health care for wounded veterans (which was in the same bill), and it does nothing to stop the NDAA from passing anyhow.

              (2) Obama skips the veto since he knows he can't stop the passage, and does what he can through signing statements and executive orders to weaken it. (Which is what he did.)

              Why do you apply rational thinking towards the actions of people you like (Ron Paul) and not those you hate (Barack Obama)? Can you even really call it rational thinking, if you selectively apply it like that?

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

              by Patch86 (1465427) on Friday April 27, 2012 @03:21AM (#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?

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

          by SeaFox (739806) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:27PM (#39814905)

          [Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

          You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.

          Actions speak louder than words.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            He probably just forgot to vote! He's almost 80
          • Re:"Not voting" (Score:4, Insightful)

            by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Thursday April 26, 2012 @09:50PM (#39815809) Homepage Journal

            Actions speak louder than words.

            He wasn't voting today because he's at his home with his advisers who are plotting their (succeeding) delegates strategy to challenge Romney for the Republican nomination, so Paul can end the wars and all of the abuses of the Executive Branch (TSA, et. al.), de-fang the Federal Reserve (i.e. stop breaking the economy), veto bad legislation like CISPA, and return the country to a system based on Rule of Law.

            But, yeah, he didn't cast this one vote. You'll have to decide if that's abrogation of duty or not.

        • Re:"Not voting" (Score:4, Insightful)

          by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland.yahoo@com> on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:50PM (#39815191) Homepage Journal

          he did the same thing as Ron Paul did today, nothing.

          You really need to get over your Ron Paul man crush.
          He's a guy with a few good ideas, but a lot of nonsense. Especially his economy crap.

  • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:25PM (#39814195) Homepage Journal

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

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml [house.gov]

    • Because here is how modern American politics work: the state gets expanded at every possible opportunity. This is what the Democrats want (so long as they can get more entitlements) and what the Republicans want (so long as they can get free rein to send the military into new wars). The only question is, what gets expanded?

      As I have said elsewhere, it's pretty obvious that the government plans on listening to everything going on on the Internet. This is just legal formalism.

      • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:37PM (#39814365) Homepage Journal

        Jesus H. Christ. Here is a very clear-cut case, having practically nothing to do with either entitlements or war, in which a strong majority of Democrats voted against expanding the power of the state, and a strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Just out of curiosity, is there anything that could convince you that there's a meaningful difference between the parties?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Princeofcups (150855)

          Jesus H. Christ. Here is a very clear-cut case, having practically nothing to do with either entitlements or war, in which a strong majority of Democrats voted against expanding the power of the state, and a strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Just out of curiosity, is there anything that could convince you that there's a meaningful difference between the parties?

          My Sig speaks for itself.

        • by BoberFett (127537)

          Republicans were against SOPA while Democrats backed it.

          So now the roles are reversed and you want to use that as evidence that there's a difference?

  • by Spiked_Three (626260) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:26PM (#39814221)
    Whine all you want. How many sent a message to your representatives on this issue? How many will lounge at home come next election? Taking advantage of lethargy is what democracy is all about. Sit around and whine about it and do nothing .... perfect.
  • by oneiros27 (46144) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:27PM (#39814235) Homepage

    Here's how each representative voted (or not):

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192 [govtrack.us]

    But does anyone know where to find the details about what each of the various amendments was? ('amendment 10 [govtrack.us]' isn't really all that useful)

  • Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dripdry (1062282) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:37PM (#39814377) Journal

    my long-time girlfriend and I have been debating whether to leave the country. I guess the strategy is to keep our heads down as long as possible, ignore using the internet, learn another language or two, save up as much as we can, and get the fuck out of this country.

    For some reason I was really starting to think I could settle down in this country, have a family, and be productive.

    • my long-time girlfriend and I have been debating whether to leave the country. I guess the strategy is to keep our heads down as long as possible, ignore using the internet, learn another language or two, save up as much as we can, and get the fuck out of this country.

      And where were you considering going to?
      Be sure to check deeply into their immigration laws, and see if they will even consider you.
  • by Tanman (90298) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:45PM (#39814443)

    "When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet."

        -- Lyle Myhur

  • I currently have a VPS that I use as a VPN server for my mobile devices and laptop when I am on travel and redirect all of my traffic through. I do this mainly to keep Verizon and ATT (specifically ATT when I tether) grubby little mitts of my data.

    I think it is time to switch to a foreign VPS provider, somewhere in the EU or Asia, and reroute ALL of my traffic through there. My only issue is currently my FIOS speeds far exceed my throughput at my current VPS..

  • by tyrione (134248) on Thursday April 26, 2012 @07:53PM (#39814551) Homepage

    All you GOP hack lovers who espouse about their love of Privacy, Liberty, Guns, blah, blah, blah take a look at the count:

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml [house.gov]

    AYES: GOP 206, DEM 42
    NOES: GOP 28, DEM 140
    NOT VOTING: GOP 8, DEM 7

    Don't tell me the GOP is for your privacy. Stew in your own bull****.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Howitzer86 (964585)

      The Democrats will screw you in the name of ending piracy, safety, global-warming, and taxes. The Republicans will screw you in the name of security, starting wars, policing pornography, and enforcing morality. The one guy you thought was awesome, the one you you thought was different? Well turns out he's a coward.

      Does voting even matter at this point?

    • Fortunately for the Republicans, enough Dems went along with the stupidity that the bill passed. If those 42 Dems hadn't voted against their constituents' interests, the final vote would've been 206 GOP ayes versus 210 mostly-Dem noes.

      Why can't Congress ever work together on something I want?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 26, 2012 @08:00PM (#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.

You are an insult to my intelligence! I demand that you log off immediately.

Working...