Ron Paul: CISPA is the marriage of govt intelligence and large corporations

[cheguevara]

he seems to be the only one fighting this right now.

"If you believe in privacy and free markets, you should be deeply concerned about the proposed marriage of government intelligence gathering with private, profit-seeking companies. CISPA is Big Brother writ large, putting the resources of private industry to work for the nefarious purpose of spying on the American people.We can only hope the public responds to CISPA as it did to SOPA back in January. I urge you to learn more about the bill by reading a synopsis provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on their website at eff.org. I also urge you to call your federal Senators and Representatives and urge them to oppose CISPA and similar bills that attack internet freedom."

http://www.examiner.com/article/ron-...#ixzz1sxuCcbSh

[cheguevara]

Opposition to CISPA Increases: Free Market Coalition and Ron Paul Come Out Against Bill

The recent Week of Action against CISPA, the dangerously vague ‘cybersecurity’ bill , highlights the growing bi-partisan disapproval of the many provisions that would gut all existing privacy laws. Internet users across the political spectrum voiced their concerns with how the bill allows companies to spy on users, filter content, and transfer personal information to agencies like the NSA.

This week, the Free Market Coalition, a coalition that includes FreedomWorks, the American Conservative Union, the Liberty Coalition, and Americans For Limited Government, reiterated problems EFF has mentioned in numerous articles. They are joined by Ron Paul, who described the bill as "Big Brother writ large." The Free Market Coalition sent a letter to Congress decrying the broad immunity provisions, unprecedented government information sharing, and the ability to supersede current federal and state privacy law. Among others, the groups join DemandProgress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and the White House in expressing disapproval about core problems of the bill.

EFF also shares these concerns. That's why we encourage other groups to join our Voices of Opposition list. In addition, we hope individuals will continue to tweet and send emails to their member representative to make it clear that the government has no right to spy on our private lives.
eff.org

[boutons_deux]

False.

Some Dem politicians are complaining,and the progressives are all over it.

My guess is with the public trial of AQ in progress, CISPA will pass. Most Americans are too fat, dumb, and lazy to give a .

This is unstoppable. Repugs will scream "soft on terrorism" at anybody who opposes.

It will all get a lot worse if the 1% buys itself the WH and both chambers.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...news&tag= le

http://www.naturalnews.com/035638_CI...ee_speech.html

http://www.alternet.org/news/155056/...paign=alternet

http://digg.com/newsbar/Technology/e...how_to_stop_it

etc, etc, etc.

If CISPA doesn't pass now, it will pass later under different acronym(s).

[boutons_deux]

Barry said he would veto CISPA

Randian Paul irrelevant, as always.

[TeyshaBlue]

Barry says lots of things.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...khT_story.html

you say nothing GFY

[cheguevara]

Barry says lots of things.

so true

it doesn't matter if he vetos CISPA. there are dozens if not hundreds of bills in line that will be the next SOPA, CISPA ,etc.

for the right deal, Barry and the rest of politicians will let one pass. The only incorruptible is Ron Paul, everyone knows this.

[hater]

yup. these bills are like a legion of flies coming. eventually one will make it through.

ing BS

Aple btw

[TeyshaBlue]

Aple btw

[cheguevara]

easily passes House. You know the same house that wouldn't pass a budget at the cost of credit downgrade

CISPA Passes the House, Targets Terrorists, Pornographers and You
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco...phers-and-you/

While not specifically an anti-piracy bill (though it could easily be used for those purposes), many deem CISPA worse than SOPA as it decimates internet privacy, and essentially seems to say that the fourth amendment does not exist on the web. There hasn’t been nearly as much protest about CISPA, but now with the news that the bill has actually just passed the House, 248-168, it might be time to start sweating.

Even worse, before passage, new provisions were added to the bill. They claimed to “limit” the government’s authority granted in the bill, but all the new items say are that privacy protection can be cir vented for “investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children.” So as long as the government can claim that any of those three issues are at stake, anyone and everyone’s personal information can be delivered directly to them, effectively nullifying privacy on the web.

What does this mean for you? Well, if need be, the government can read your email, Facebook messages, forum postings, web history, pretty much anything you’ve ever done on the internet. You may believe that as you’re not a terrorist or child pornographer, the government should have no reason to, but the problem is the language in this bill is so loose, they can access your information for almost any reason at all. Ever visited a torrent site or watched an unofficial YouTube video of copyrighted material? Ever reposted a picture without the explicit permission of the rights holder? Well, you’re now tangentially related to a cybersecurity crime, and your entire internet history is fair game for careful examination. And don’t think Google Chrome Incognito mode will save you.

[cheguevara]

What’s the next step past this, if CISPA or a law like it does pass? “We’re just going to install these cameras in your home. Don’t worry, we won’t turn them on unless we believe you’re a criminal.” This is a slippery slope, and we shouldn’t be handing the government access to our personal information, even if that personal information is in fact innocuous. Should we trust them to have a camera in our house, based on the promise that they won’t watch the footage unless they have to? This is the digital equivalent of that, and it’s something that should have all citizens, regardless of party upset.

But the bill passed the House mostly along party lines, with something like 80% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats voting for it. It’s a bit confusing as to why “limited government conservatives” always seem to be the ones who want to let the government spy on citizens, while the “big government liberals” want to keep Washington out of our web browsers. The party split begs the question of whether it can pass in the Senate, and there have already been rumblings of a possible Obama veto if necessary.

If it comes to that, will Obama strike this down? Let’s pretend the moral argument is off the table, despite this being an obvious affront to civil liberties. The reality is that this is an election year, and Obama was carried to victory on the backs of the tech savvy in the last election. Passing a law that angers an entire segment of his base would not be in his best political interest, and I hardly think that if he vetos it, Republicans are going to use it as an attack line ahead of the economy, jobs and so on. There’s really no upside if he signs it, and as such, hopefully these veto rumors turn out to be true.

The web activists that protested SOPA should not only be focusing on CISPA, but direct their ire toward the legislators who think that constantly offering up internet censorship bills is a good thing for this country. As long as congressmen are still being elected with cash from big media companies, legislation like this will continue to be proposed until finally, one manages to slip by and become law. And that just can’t happen.

[cheguevara]

It’s a bit confusing as to why “limited government conservatives” always seem to be the ones who want to let the government spy on citizens



ing neocons

pathetic animals

[Winehole23]

CISPA, the cyberspying bill, is back in Congress and plagued with many of the same problems as last year—vague definitions and the grim government access loophole to name just a few. The bill also grants broad immunity to companies as long as a company acts in "good faith." One section of the immunity clause even grants immunity for any "decision made" based on information about a perceived threat. The clause opens up a wide door for abuse and is yet another reason why we urge users to stop CISPA.

The most dangerous section grants immunity for any "decision" a company makes based on information it learns about a perceived network threat. The clause is yet another example of why the bill must be killed. A company could use this section to act against a perceived threat believing it was immune from any legal liability as long as the decision was based on information about a threat. The immunity could cover decisions to violate other laws, like computer crime laws or privacy laws intended to protect users. Companies should not be given carte blanche immunity to violate long-standing computer crime and privacy law.

The requirement that companies act in good faith is an ineffective check on CISPA power grant. It is notoriously hard to prove that a company acted in bad faith, in the few cir stances where you would actually find out your privacy had been violated.
It also opens the door for government abuse. If the government asks for your information, and only tells the company it's needed for secret cybersecurity reasons, the company could claim to rely, in good faith, on the government’s unverified tale. Voila! Immunity from lawsuits.

This was precisely the problem with the FISA Amendment Act (FAA), which granted retroactive immunity to telecoms for the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Tragically, the FAA allowed immunity for disclosures just on the government's say-so. Let's not make the same mistake again.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/0...legal-immunity

[Nbadan]

op

[boutons_deux]

Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other Internet companies and e-mail providers will be prohibited from making legally binding promises to protect your privacy, thanks to a vote this afternoon in the U.S. House of Representatives.

By a 5-8 vote, the House Rules committee rejected a bipartisan fix to the CISPA data-sharing billthat would have ensured companies' privacy promises -- including their terms of use and privacy policies -- remained valid and legally enforceable in the future.

The vote came after Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who's the committee's influential chairman, urged his colleagues to vote against the amendment (PDF). All of the committee's eight GOP members voted against the amendment, and all the Democrats supported it. (See CNET's CISPA FAQ.)

It also came hours after a formal veto threat from the Obama administration, citing privacy and other concerns about CISPA. A House floor debate is scheduled to begin tomorrow, which now will not include a vote on the amendment.


Otherwise, Polis said, CISPA means Internet and other companies will be "completely exonerated from any risk of liability" if they open their databases with confidential customer information to the feds and even private-sector firms.

The amendment was only six lines long. It would have altered the latest version of CISPA (PDF) by saying the legislation does not authorize a company "to breach a contract with any other party," including a terms of service agreement.

If it had been adopted during the floor debate, it would have allowed e-mail providers, social networks, and other companies to pledge not to share customers' confidential information with the National Security Agency, Homeland Security, or any other organization under CISPA -- and made that pledge legally enforceable in court.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57579958-38/cispa-vote-means-companies-cant-promise-to-protect-privacy/

[boutons_deux]

CISPA passed in the House

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, known as CISPA, passed by a margin of 288 to 127, despite receiving a late veto threat from the Obama administration, which warned that the bill does not sufficiently protect civil liberties. The veto threat was particularly noteworthy, given President Barack Obama's Department of Justice has been urging Congress to expand its data-gathering and cybercrime powers for years. Congress shelved a similar bill last year after the White House expressed its formal opposition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3109504.html


the police state corporatocracy is unstoppable.

[cheguevara]

yup it passed and not surprised one bit about it. The corps had time to prepare and brief the media outlets this time as you can see the media being crickets about it so far. But no, the mainstream media does not participate in propaganda and is nonbiased

[boutons_deux]

Repug asshole slandering dissenters.

Mike Rogers: CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Opponents Are Teens In Their Basements

"People on the Internet -- if you're, you know, a 14-year-old tweeter in your basement … I took my nephew, I had to work with him a lot on this bill because he didn't understand the mechanics of it," he continued. "I hear that a lot. Once you understand the threat and you understand the mechanics of how it works and you understand that people are not monitoring your content of your emails, most people go, 'got it.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3097027.html

of course the big internet companies want to be shielded from liability for raping their customers' privacy. got ing damn duh!

btw, Repug Congress recently had to tell their hated IRS boogeyman, taxes!!!, to stop reading peoples' emails.

[boutons_deux]

corporations, full partners is the national security police state, shielded from liability for spying on customers

U.S. gives big, secret push to Internet surveillance


Justice Department agreed to issue "2511 letters" immunizing AT&T and other companies participating in a cybersecurity program from criminal prosecution under the Wiretap Act

Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws.

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12.

"The Justice Department is helping private companies evade federal wiretap laws," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which obtained over 1,000 pages of internal government do ents and provided them to CNET this week. "Alarm bells should be going off."

Those do ents show the National Security Agency and the Defense Department were deeply involved in pressing for the secret legal authorization, with NSA director Keith Alexander participating in some of the discussions personally. Despite initial reservations, including from industry participants, Justice Department attorneys eventually signed off on the project.
The Justice Department agreed to grant legal immunity to the participating network providers in the form of what participants in the confidential discussions refer to as "2511 letters," a reference to the Wiretap Act codified at 18 USC 2511 in the federal statute books.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...news&tag= le

[SA210]

"activists and Internet users protesting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act -- a cybersecurity bill that passed the House of Representatives Thursday -- have spun the battle as big business interests versus the privacy of individual citizens. If lobbying dollars are anything to go by, they're right: Pro-CISPA businesses and interests have spent 140 times more money on lobbying than anti-CISPA interests, according to the Sunlight Foundation."*

CISPA passed overwhelmingly in the house, despite its promise to allow corporations and the government access to your private data, completely unchecked. It's no wonder after seeing how much money was poured into lobbying for the invasive bill, and who stands to profit. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down with Kim Horcher (Nerd Alert).

TYT: CISPA - Corporations Buy Politicians and Your Privacy

[boutons_deux]

CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited


http://www.zdnet.com/cispa-dead-in-s...ed-7000014536/

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, not a fan of this bill at all. I hope the above link that boutons is citing is true.

[Nbadan]

Seems to be true...


source: US News

CISPA is all but dead, again.

The controversial cybersecurity bill known as the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act, which passed the House of Representatives last week, will almost certainly be shelved by the Senate, according to a representative of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The bill would have allowed the federal government to share classified "cyber threat" information with companies, but it also provided provisions that would have allowed companies to share information about specific users with the government. Privacy advocates also worried that the National Security Administration would have gotten involved.

"We're not taking up," the committee representative says. "Staff and senators are divvying up the issues and the key provisions everyone agrees would need to be handled if we're going to strengthen cybersecurity. They'll be drafting separate bills."

Read more: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...s-dead-for-now

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It’s a bit confusing as to why “limited government conservatives” always seem to be the ones who want to let the government spy on citizens



ing neocons

pathetic animals

truth bombs