Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet

CISPA 3.0: the Senate's New Bill As Bad As Ever 132

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-blame-easter dept.
Daniel_Stuckey writes: "CISPA is back for a third time—it has lost the 'P,' but it's just as bad for civil liberties as ever. The Senate Intelligence Committee is considering a new cybersecurity bill that contains many of the provisions that civil liberties groups hated about the Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). Most notably, under the proposed bill companies could not be sued for incorrectly sharing too much customer information with the federal government, and broad law enforcement sharing could allow for the creation of backdoor wiretaps. The bill, called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014, was written by Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and is currently circulating around the committee right now but has not yet been introduced. Right now, the bill is only a 'discussion draft,' and the committee is still looking to make revisions to the bill before it is officially introduced."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CISPA 3.0: the Senate's New Bill As Bad As Ever

Comments Filter:
  • by fche (36607) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:17PM (#46872505)

    Will no one rid me of this turbulent senator?

    • by MoFoQ (584566)

      I've never voted for her since I don't share her views.

      the funny thing is...with regards to the NSA spying stuff, neither do her constituents.

      • Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:48PM (#46872835)

        I've never voted for her since I don't share her views.

        Sharing.

        There's that word again.

        "I am working with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) on bipartisan legislation to facilitate the sharing of cyber related information among companies and with the government and to provide protection from liability,"

        I see it a lot in marketingspeak too. "This is how we share your private information with our marketing affiliates..."

        Why is it when individuals share the secrets of governments and corporations amongst themselves, it's "stealing" or "leaking," but when governments and corporations steal and resell our secrets to each other, it's called "sharing?"

        Orwell would be proud in more ways than one. Difi doubleplusgood duckspeak blackwhite doublethink.

        • by mmell (832646) <mmell@hotmail.com> on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @06:45PM (#46873309)
          I don't steal mp3's, I share them.

          Not saying it's right, just that it's so.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            I don't steal mp3's, I share them. Not saying it's right, just that it's so.

            No, it isn't.

            Copying and downloading have NEVER been "theft", according to U.S. law.

            Further, you want to see how the copyright owners treat the content creators? [techdirt.com]

            Before you start making arguments about ethics and karma, maybe you should make sure you're on the right side of said argument.

            • by mmell (832646)
              It wasn't an argument, merely an observation. One based on my personal experiences and opinions. Yours may differ - but I still feel that they can define what they do with the information we give them as sharing. More so than sharing music online - in the case of corporations and the government, there's definitely an understanding between both parties involved. To be honest, when I've shared music, I doubt seriously that the original source was ever specifically aware of my existence. When corporations
              • Incidentally, I know your opinions and ethics differ from mine, but I'm not interested in arguing.

                Okay, let me amend what I wrote above. You may not have been arguing, but it appeared to me that you were making societal value judgments based on (A) an inaccurate interpretation of the law and the ethics of downloading, and (B) on the side of people who have themselves notoriously worked to skew the law in favor of their greedy corporate agenda, despite the societal havoc that behavior has demonstrably caused.

                That is what you seemed to be saying, from my point of view. I could be wrong.

                I may end up on the losing side of this debate - but I'm not so sure it'll be the wrong one.

                I am pretty conf

                • Just to say - if you address all of the readers instead of the poster (me, in this case) you have a far greater opportunity of actually being heard by everyone. I think you'll agree that it takes far more thought to craft a message for the larger audience - and you're more likely to influence more who read this. It's worth the extra effort (IMHO).

                  With that said, I'm obliged to point out that large corporations know which side their bread is buttered on. They play ball with governments because that's how

                • That's wrong. You were direct and intelligent in your response. Somebody please mod JQP back up?

                  Moderation is about intelligence of post - not about personal agreement or disagreement.

      • "I've never voted for her since I don't share her views."

        Funny that, as even she doesn't seem to share her views....

        http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/03/dianne-feinstein-calls-out-the-cia-for-spying-on-the-senate.html
    • by Spritzer (950539)
      I've never voted for Tax-me Shameless(RINO-GA), but thankfully, he's retiring. I guess this is one of his last acts of idiocy before we get to replace him.
      • by gmhowell (26755)

        I've never voted for Tax-me Shameless(RINO-GA), but thankfully, he's retiring. I guess this is one of his last acts of idiocy before we get to replace him.

        He has to guarantee himself a nice consulting or executive gig when he leaves office. (See also: Chris Dodd)

      • by BiIl_the_Engineer (3618863) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @06:36PM (#46873241)

        There are certainly a lot of RINOs and DINOs. The problem with terms like these is that they make it seem as if the parties aren't filled with these scumbags, but they are; the parties themselves are evil. This isn't just a few people; it's the entire parties.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by erichill (583191)
      I'd vote for a viable alternative in a heartbeat. Not only is she somehow beholden to the state security apparatus, she also does whatever Big Content wants. She's definitely in with, if not one of, the oligarchs.
      • She's also one of those people who believe that there should be no CCW permits...

        Except her CCW permit, of course.

        She thinks people like her having guns is perfectly fine, not so much the riffraff.

  • So in a sense, it's 5 past 12.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Version 3.0, 4.0, infinity, it must be stopped!!!!

  • by PortHaven (242123) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:21PM (#46872551) Homepage

    On May 5th, 9pm EST....let's all think of Diane Fienstein dying of a natural cause. And see if thoughts actually influence the universe.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DigiShaman (671371)

      May 5th, 9pm EST, I will be praying to God to deliver justice upon her and people like her. Let Him decide her fate.

    • Alarm set.

      See you in the collective unconscious.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I noticed you left out Saxby Chambliss.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        He does have a pretty cool name.

        My anagram generator comes up with, "Scab Ax Limbs Shy".

    • by mellon (7048) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @07:01PM (#46873433) Homepage

      Or, instead, here's a thought: go find out if your senator is on the Senate Intelligence Committee [wikipedia.org]. If so, call them and tell them you don't want the bill to get out of committee. Explain why. Extra credit: go read TFA so that you know why before calling. But if you don't want to do that, you can always just tell the staffer that you don't like the bill. Make sure you don't identify it as "CISPA" since that's not its current name.

      • Oh, sure, that'll work. Those nice senators are always SO ready to listen to people's phone calls. I'm sure they just sit around all day hoping that someone will call them and tell them what to do, because they just get so much pleasure out of serving the people. I mean, they just put so MUCH importance on the will of the people. Guess that's why their approval rating is so gosh-darn high.
        • by mellon (7048)

          What do you think killed the last few iterations of this clunker? What killed SOPA and PIPA? Massive public outcry. They don't care all that much about the will of the people, but phone calls? Those they pay attention to, if enough come in. The glare of the spotlight makes them self-conscious.

          • Right. That's why they keep bringing it back again and again until it passes. All those phone calls really got their attention.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:21PM (#46872555)

    They will simply continue to refluff the bill and push it on us again and again until it passes.

    The US government is a corrupt oligarchy and needs to be torn down.

    • by imatter (2749965)
      I have to imagine that the real reason they didn't pass before was because they weren't evil enough. I agree though, they will keep coming until one passes.
    • They will simply continue to refluff the bill and push it on us again and again until it passes.

      The US government is a corrupt oligarchy and needs to be torn down.

      Yep. Much like the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act", which was designed to make bankruptcy relief (used commonly by corporations to escape debt) virtually inaccessible to consumers. It was proposed in 1997 and rejected year after year until finally it passed in 2005. What the corporations and political establishment want, they will get - sooner or later.

  • Surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:22PM (#46872565)

    Oh, look, Feinstein is once again taking action to fuck over the populace while positioning herself (and friends) in the elite ruling class.

    Isn't that shocking?

    • And these people fancy themselves on the level of founding fathers in that they know, just know, they are capable of editing the first and second amendments because Modernity i.e. they get in the senators' political way, I mean FER DA PEEPUL!!!1!11

  • by litehacksaur111 (2895607) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:25PM (#46872597)
    I think it would be nice if congress went on recess forever instead of returning to enact shit like this.
    • by geekmux (1040042)

      I think it would be nice if congress went on recess forever instead of returning to enact shit like this.

      Wow. I never imagined such a utopia until you mentioned it here.

      Just imagine all the Rights we might get to keep...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is all due to your legal bribing you americans call "lobbying" that sh*t like this keep coming back.

    • by Kuroji (990107)

      Oh please, Mr. Anonymous, share with us your wisdom as to how we can get someone who is a viable option to remove these lobbying problems from our government. Tell me who we can elect that has the means to run a successful campaign without accepting lobbying money and who will be an incorruptible politician!

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Me, except they would build a wall around me, just like they did Jimmy Carter.

        We only need a single law that can act like a wedge to start breaking open this cesspool we call government.

        Start with a real whisteblower law.

        • by Kuroji (990107)

          I'd be happy to. But the people who are up there making these laws are the people who are trying to force through CISPA for the third or fourth time now.

          We can't make any laws like this until we get someone good in there. We can't get someone good in there until we start breaking it open. We can't start breaking it open until we can pass laws like this.

          • by cmdr_tofu (826352)

            Does your state have a ballot iniative process? Put forward an initiative that the people vote on instead of the politicians!

            Once idea would be to try to pass legislation that limited the salaries of politicians (including the income that they could recieve as gifts) and their family members too (definitely spouses) for time during office and for the next 10 years. You want to be a politcian? Fine, but you have to live like a grad student or a Peace Corps worker to do it.

  • Eternal Vigilance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tokolosh (1256448) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:35PM (#46872709)

    Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

    We need to adopt similar structures and systems. To me, the EFF is a good rallying point, so I urge you to give all the support you can. I say, without irony, "Think of your children."

    • by BiIl_the_Engineer (3618863) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @05:36PM (#46872729)

      Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

      Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

      • by Tokolosh (1256448)

        True dat. By my definition "arms" includes everything from bare knuckles to thermonuclear devices. Also, "bear" means you have to carry it yourself.

        • by tragedy (27079)

          Does your definition of "carry it yourself" allow for powered exoskeletons or cybernetic limbs?

          • by cmdr_tofu (826352)

            Exoskeletons no, because the arms would be bearing you and we don't have the right to be borne by arms. Cybernetic arms (as in upper torso appendages) yes, but not legs or feet unless you walk on your hands.

      • by stoploss (2842505)

        Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

        Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

        It's not for nothing that the NRA is sometimes referred to as "Negotiate Rights Away". That's why years ago I chose to avoid the compromise-loving, surrender monkey NRA and joined GOA [gunowners.org] instead.

        However, the NRA did a decent job helping to protect our rights after Newton, so perhaps they have finally grown a spine.

      • by swillden (191260)

        Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

        Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

        Not only that, they actually helped write some of the gun control bills. But that's in the past and the NRA of the last decade or so has caught on to the ideas of eternal vigilance and incrementalism (pushing your view inch by inch, always taking as much as you can get, but not refusing just because it's not all you want).

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

      The influence of industry dollars? Sorry, I don't think there are any privacy manufacturers.

      • by swillden (191260)

        Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

        The influence of industry dollars? Sorry, I don't think there are any privacy manufacturers.

        In 2011, the NRA raised over $200M from individual contributors. Between 2005 and 2012, the NRA received $15M from gun manufacturers, which averages to a little over $2M per year.

        This means that the industry funds approximately 1% of the NRA; the other 99% comes from its membership.

        Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek. [businessweek.com]

        • by cmdr_tofu (826352)

          Officially, sure - but I'm sure NRA leaders go on "hunting retreats" in moutain resorts funded by industry leaders and get all kinds of unofficial bribes. "Where is the proof?", you ask. I respond to this by adding an extra layer of foil to my hat.

    • Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

      And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters. It's like a man of sartorial elegance who refuses a haircut, and, distracted by the wonder of his hair, gets stabbed in the stomach by the barber. Then he wonders why, why didn't his right to refuse a haircut protect him from fatal abdominal wounds?

      The fact of the matter is, liberal numbers of personal firearms and the right to carry those firearms wherever is just window dressing.

      • by swillden (191260)

        And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters.

        Examples? I see no reason we have to pick and choose which rights to protect.

        It's sartorial nonsense as far as protecting liberty goes. After a moments thought, it's obvious why - shooting someone is illegal. If you shoot a public official, the legality of your gun and you carrying that gun is irrelevant. There is no way for you to exercise your right to a gun in a way that protects the erosion of the central liberties.

        You're conflating two different uses of the right. One is defense of the lives of self and others. I carry a handgun on a daily basis, but have no intention of every shooting a public official (unless that official happens to be illegally and imminently threatening someone's life and that's the only way I can stop it -- but that would be a legally justifiable shooting). For defense against tyranny my little 9mm (or .380 pocket pist

        • And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters.

          Examples? I see no reason we have to pick and choose which rights to protect.

          Unimportant rights frequently must give way to essential rights. For instance, my right to be safe and secure in my own home (as guaranteed by the UNCHR) overrides your right to carry a gun. So you may not carry your gun into my house, or, even (thankfully) into my country. Security and liberty is essential - the right to pack heat, though it makes you feel like a big man, is not.

          As to specific examples as to how the NRA and other ideologues are eroding your basic, essential rights, refer to my previous

          • by ganjadude (952775)

            my right to be safe and secure in my own home (as guaranteed by the UNCHR) overrides your right to carry a gun.

            those 2 rights have NOTHING to do with each other, so no, your right to "feel" safe has nothing to do with my carrying a gun.

            • I refer you to Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

              The article makes no mention of feeling secure. Gun toting idealogues coming into my home are an immediate threat to my family, and hence, my and my families rights to be secure overrides their right not be relieved of their weapon.

              • by ganjadude (952775)
                In your own home you are more than within your right to disarm anyone that is correct, but your right to feel secure in your home and mine are different, neither of us has any more right.than the other. And thebill of rights are all equal rights, no one right is more valuable or has more weight to it than any other
        • by cmdr_tofu (826352)

          So I'm not a police officer or a weapons expert. However it seems to me handguns are not a defensive technology. Their primary purpose is to kill someone. A bulletproof vest I would agree is a defensive technology. But I guess as a culture we have gotten used to doublespeak with terms such as "peacekeeper missile" so your use of the language is not unusual.

          As far as I know, police officers carry handguns as an offensive technology to attack dangerous criminals. They use bullet proof vests to protect ag

    • by Type44Q (1233630)
      No. The NRA is intended to look like they're trying to preserve the 2nd Amendment; they're actually yet another front for the fascists controlling both sides of the debate.

      For an actual gun-rights organization, check out the GOA (Gun Owners of America)...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Subject: CISPA version 3.0 - Also known as Feinstien's CISA

    Right now, Senator Feinstien (D-CA) and Sen. Chambliss (R-GA) are currently circulating around a "discussion draft" of a bill called "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014." This is just as bad for civil liberties as the original CISPA - the Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act - and I would appreciate it, assuming that this bill actually makes it out of comittee, if you were to vote against it. Please remember that every vot

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday April 29, 2014 @07:45PM (#46873791)
    They must be feeling pretty secure if they don't need to pretend they're protecting us.
  • We should be grateful that republicans and democrats come together in our time of need to provide a *safe and secure society*.

  • Thank you, US (Score:5, Interesting)

    by johanw (1001493) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @05:08AM (#46876363)

    For destroying your own cloud industry and giving companies in other countries a better market. I hear already commercials each morning on the radio when I drive to work about a local Dutch company (KPN) advertizing their cloud because no forieghn governments have access to it.

    Cisco and Juniper will be pleased too when they find that more customers move to Huawei. At least the Chinese are not interested in "regime changes" in other countries.

    • So, to follow on from PRISM and the decision [theregister.co.uk] this week that all data stored in a cloud run by a US company is available to anyone in US law enforcement, Congress wants to complete the task of throwing the US IT industry under a bus? No US company can be sued for giving any information they have to the government without permission? What are they thinking of?

    • by _Ludwig (86077)

      At least the Chinese are not interested in "regime changes" in other countries.

      Tibet and Taiwan will be happy to hear that.

  • by sandbagger (654585) on Wednesday April 30, 2014 @09:28AM (#46877795)

    Here we go again. As politics is not an additive art, one hopes that the they managed to lean no lessons last time. One also hopes that the recent revelations will help make it easier for the public to see that unfettered 'We need all the powers, so trust us' lacks credibility.

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...