CISPA Passes House w/Amendments Make It Even Worse

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

CISPA Passes the House with Amendments Which Make it Even Worse Than it Was

By Madison Ruppert
theintelhub.com
April 27, 2012

The final vote on CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, sponsored by Representatives Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, and Dutch Ruppersberger, a Maryland Democrat, was held today despite it being originally slated for tomorrow.

Brent Daggett previously reported on how dangerous CISPA really is for End the Lie and I have pointed out how over 3,000,000 businesses across the United States – including companies like Google who opposed SOPA – expressed their support for the bill, which likely played a large role in its passage.
It passed with a 248-168 vote and quite unfortunately, the amended version which was voted on is even worse than it was originally, if you can believe that.

While I thought such a thing would never be possible, indeed the final version of CISPA is considerably more dangerous than the previous incarnations.

This is because the amendment, put forth by Representative Ben Quayle, an Arizona Republican, actually expanded the scope of CISPA and allows even more reasons for private information to be shared with the government.

The most insane part about this amendment is that, according to Tech Dirt, it was actually billed as an amendment which would limit the government’s power to obtain personal, private information belonging to Americans.

While previously the government was only able to use information for “cybersecurity” or “national security” purposes (which is already incredibly broad), the amendment actually added three more reasons: investigation and prosecution of alleged cybersecurity crimes, protection of individuals, and protection of children.

As I previously pointed out, the definition of cybersecurity leaves a significant amount of wiggle room for corporations and the government, while “national security” is one of the most ambiguous terms in modern government parlance.

“[T]he amorphous phrase ‘national security’ has invaded many arenas of government action, and has been used to justify much activity that did not involve legitimate terrorist threats. The most obvious (and odious) example is the unfortunately named USA-PATRIOT Act, a law that was sold to the American public as essential to combating terrorism, but which has overwhelmingly been applied to ordinary American citizens never even suspected of terrorism,” notes the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
Essentially, our Fourth Amendment rights – which have already been whittled away considerably by legislation passed under the guise of fighting terrorism – have been completely eradicated on the internet.
Indeed, the government and their corporate cronies are completely protected from any and all violations of privacy protections, thanks to CISPA, and they are now able to do whatever they please with the information they collect so long as they claim it involves cybersecurity, national security or harm to an individual or a child.

So long as they can claim that it falls under one of those headings, they can circumvent each and every law that would otherwise limit the government’s power.

To make matters even worse, CISPA completely protects the corporations who hand over the information, so long as they think they’re doing the right thing.

Indeed, the EFF has pointed out that CISPA “provides ‘good faith’ immunity for using ‘cybersecurity systems’ to obtain information, for not acting on information that a company learns, and for making any decisions based on the information they learn. If a company learns about a security flaw, fails to fix it, and users’ information is misused or stolen, companies cannot be held liable as long as the company acted ‘in good faith’ according to CISPA. Companies “acting in good faith” are also excused from all liability for engaging in potential countermeasures, even if they hurt innocent parties.”

It should hardly be surprising that corporations would grab such an opportunity to have near absolute immunity from legal actions against them.

The simple fact is, this legislation is not necessary and is clearly not designed to protect the United States from vicious, destructive cyber attacks but instead to conduct dragnet surveillance on all Americans without probable cause or any judicial oversight.

“Cybersecurity does not have to mean abdication of Americans’ online privacy. As we’ve seen repeatedly, once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there’s no going back. We encourage the Senate to let this horrible bill fade into obscurity,” said Michelle Richardson, ACLU legislative counsel, according to Wired’s Threat Level.

To make matters even worse, on top of the legal protections already mentioned, CISPA gives companies anti-trust protection in order to make them immune to allegations of collusion on cybersecurity issues.
Furthermore, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are allowed to bypass all privacy laws and share information with each other under the guise of thwarting a cyber attack.

The ISPs are not required to hide any personal data, including information which could identify the individual, when it believes a cybersecurity threat has been detected (the key word here is “believes”).
Keep in mind, CISPA is playing a part in fleshing out the already extensive Big Brother surveillance grid in the United States.

Indeed, combined with the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) new behemoth data center in Utah, the soon-to-be-implemented ISP digital surveillance scheme, and the National Counterterrorism Center’s new powers over data relating to Americans with no links to terrorism, there is likely going to be absolutely zero privacy on the web in the very near future.

The Obama administration has put out a statement in an attempt to make it appear that President Obama will side with civil liberties campaigners and veto the bill, although they made similar promises about the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which eradicated due process, and as I warned, he signed it anyway.

“Without clear legal protections and independent oversight, information sharing legislation will undermine the public’s trust in the Government as well as in the Internet,” the White House stated.
Really? If they really cared about undermining the public’s trust in “the Government” they might be a little more concerned about their claim that they have the power to assassinate any American based on meetings behind closed doors and evidence which is never made public.

Let us not forget, they are not even willing to explain why they think this is legal in a court of law. If anyone still has trust in our government, I seriously doubt that CISPA will undermine that as they would have to be either unbelievably ignorant or equally delusional, or perhaps both.

The statement claimed that if CISPA is delivered to the President in its current form “his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,” although this is about as believable as me claiming that I can make myself invisible on command.

Sure, it would be pretty cool if that were true, but it is completely ludicrous to believe that such a thing is even remotely realistic.

We are in very troubling times indeed. All I can recommend at this point is to continue to contact your Senators as much as humanly possible in an attempt to prevent the legislation from passing the Senate as well.

[Fairmindedcaptain of 1,000]

I can't say I'm surprised. When SOPA/PIPA were shot down I predicted it would only be a few months before the same legislation was put forward cloaked in different language under a different name, and unlike its predecessors no one would notice or try to stop it.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Hmm, had to look that one up.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), would give businesses and the federal government legal protection to share information about cyber-threats with each other. The government does not currently share that data because the information is classified and companies fear violating anti-trust law. The bill would remove legal barriers so they can do so.

Whats so bad about it? Just askin...

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

Hmm, had to look that one up.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), would give businesses and the federal government legal protection to share information about cyber-threats with each other. The government does not currently share that data because the information is classified and companies fear violating anti-trust law. The bill would remove legal barriers so they can do so.

Whats so bad about it? Just askin...

Read my original post above.

[awar_ecaptain of 100]

Hmm, had to look that one up.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), would give businesses and the federal government legal protection to share information about cyber-threats with each other. The government does not currently share that data because the information is classified and companies fear violating anti-trust law. The bill would remove legal barriers so they can do so.

Whats so bad about it? Just askin...

I too, "looked it up".
Moonwhims studious approach covers far more material than a simple cut and paste from one hit on a simple web search can adequately address.
Your query hardly is an adequate response to Moonwhim, if that was meant to even be one.
The level of disinfo which is plastering the web, to cause uninformed to see this as something good, should be enough to cause some clarity of focus on our rights being tossed in the trash .

[LikeMember]

So Ron Paul did not vote against the NDAA and now CISPA, but hey at least he spoke against those bills. I guess not showing up when it counts the most is ok in some people books. I know it was a dirty trick changing the time of the vote. Ron Paul, career politician, did not expect that. Besides he has to campaign for a job he has little chance of winning rather than do the job he took an oath to do. I know, I know.... Ron Paul regrets missing the vote. I get it.

I am wondering if the creepy priesthood holder, Mitt Romney is considering special plans for Ron Paul. Ron Paul sounds like controlled opposition to me.

[awar_ecaptain of 100]

So Ron Paul did not vote against the NDAA and now CISPA, but hey at least he spoke against those bills. I guess not showing up when it counts the most is ok in some people books. I know it was a dirty trick changing the time of the vote. Ron Paul, career politician, did not expect that. Besides he has to campaign for a job he has little chance of winning rather than do the job he took an oath to do. I know, I know.... Ron Paul regrets missing the vote. I get it.

I am wondering if the creepy priesthood holder, Mitt Romney is considering special plans for Ron Paul. Ron Paul sounds like controlled opposition to me.

Your point is well made. As we recall the words of Joseph Smith, All politicians are to be viewed with great suspicion, I have reached a point where nothing surprises me anymore.
I do recall the story we were given by Ross Perot, as he folded his campaign over a "threat".

The idea of changing times of a crucial vote dates back to at least 1913. Possibly even before.
It has resulted in much of the damage done to our nation.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Hmm, had to look that one up.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), would give businesses and the federal government legal protection to share information about cyber-threats with each other. The government does not currently share that data because the information is classified and companies fear violating anti-trust law. The bill would remove legal barriers so they can do so.

Whats so bad about it? Just askin...

I too, "looked it up".
Moonwhims studious approach covers far more material than a simple cut and paste from one hit on a simple web search can adequately address.
Your query hardly is an adequate response to Moonwhim, if that was meant to even be one.
The level of disinfo which is plastering the web, to cause uninformed to see this as something good, should be enough to cause some clarity of focus on our rights being tossed in the trash .

It got the discussion going, eh?

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

So Ron Paul did not vote against the NDAA and now CISPA, but hey at least he spoke against those bills. I guess not showing up when it counts the most is ok in some people books. I know it was a dirty trick changing the time of the vote. Ron Paul, career politician, did not expect that. Besides he has to campaign for a job he has little chance of winning rather than do the job he took an oath to do. I know, I know.... Ron Paul regrets missing the vote. I get it.

I am wondering if the creepy priesthood holder, Mitt Romney is considering special plans for Ron Paul. Ron Paul sounds like controlled opposition to me.

Your point is well made, and mine hardly measures up. Who put Aware in charge?

[awar_ecaptain of 100]

Who decided that chatter is needed during an exchange of factual investigative discussion?

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Who decided that chatter is needed during an exchange of factual investigative discussion?

Wait, are you upset with me because i don't respond to you're PM's?

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

Who decided that chatter is needed during an exchange of factual investigative discussion?

Wait, are you upset with me because i don't respond to you're PM's?

Sweet Juliette, our Queen of Chatter.

[Juliettecaptain of 1,000]

Who decided that chatter is needed during an exchange of factual investigative discussion?

Wait, are you upset with me because i don't respond to you're PM's?

Sweet Juliette, our Queen of Chatter.

I kind of like that title. Where's my crown?

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

National Security = whatever keeps the globalists in power

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

CISPA passes the House; epic privacy battle moves to the Senate
by J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) If you're not familiar with "Washingtonspeak" - that odd, unique variance of the English language in which words don't really mean what they are supposed to mean - you might not know that the lawmakers who wrote the new Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) aren't really too concerned about the protection aspect of the legislation, at least as it applies to the general public's concern about privacy.

Yes, the word "protection" is in the title, but a closer examination of the language of the bill, as well as its intent, by those who know how things works on Capitol Hill, find that the only "protection" the bill offers is that afforded the federal government.

According to a summary of the bill by the Congressional Research Service, the legislation amends "the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing." In particular, cyber threat intelligence is defined "as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity [...]"

What that means, essentially, is that it will be easier for the government and the private sector to share information about cyber threats, which, truthfully, is a major emerging national security problem.

Making conditions ripe for privacy violations - again

Trouble is, according to groups opposed to CISPA, once again citizens' privacy concerns are taking a back seat in this Information Age. And that could be one reason why the White House has threatened to veto it, should CISPA pass the Senate.

On the one hand, business groups say the bill is necessary to make it easier for companies in the private sector to share potential cyber threat information with government security elements such as the National Security Agency.

On the other, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) think the law will be used as yet another tool to violate privacy rights.

The CDT, which initially backed the legislation, pulled its support after becoming "disappointed that CISPA passed the House in such flawed form and under such a flawed process." The group said its biggest concern was that the law, as it is now written, would allow information to move "from the private sector directly to the NSA." The bill also inappropriately allows information to be applied to national security issues other than just cyber security - and therein lies the problem.

"CISPA goes too far for little reason," says ACLU legislative counsel Michelle Richardson, according to the Washington Post. "Cybersecurity does not have to mean abdication of Americans' online privacy. As we've seen repeatedly, once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there's no going back. We encourage the Senate to let this horrible bill fade into obscurity."

CISPA: Bypassing privacy on weakest of excuses

The impetus of the legislation - to protect U.S. infrastructure, which is run by computer - from attack is as noble as it is necessary in these digital times. Cyber attacks on the U.S. have been mounting quickly, especially against U.S. military, industrial and corporate targets. But as usual, critics point out that the legislation isn't what it appears to be.

"I do think there is a need for companies to get more information from the government in a timely fashion. The problem that arises with CISPA is that it does so much more than that," says Rainey Reitman, activism director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"It also opens the floodgates for companies to intercept communications of everyday Internet users and pass unredacted personal information to the governments," she added.

CISPA would let companies essentially bypass current privacy laws "and pass citizens' personal data to the government even if there's a weak excuse that the information is related to cyber security purposes," says a report by PC World.

"The government in return has said that if they get information that's unrelated to cyber security they 'may' - don't have to, but may choose to - remove some of the implications toward civil liberties. But they don't have to and there's no real guidelines on what they would have to do about it," Reitman said.

Protecting the country from cyber attacks is imperative. Some say the cyber-equivalent of a Pearl Harbor-style attack is on the horizon.

Fine - let's protect our electronic and digital infrastructure. But for once, let's not trample the constitutional rights of our citizens in the process.

Sources for this article include:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03523:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.pcworld.com

[karen2cruisecaptain of 100]

Just FYI - Ron Paul did not cast a vote on this. Dont know if he choose to abstain or was out on the campaign trail. But anyhow, he did not vote for it. See official record:

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

[moonwhimcaptain of 1,000]

Borg Tea Party Voted to Kill Fourth
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 30, 2012
Last week’s passage of CISPA in the House was helped along by the so-called House Tea Party Caucus.


Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Tea Party Caucus voted overwhelmingly to sell the Constitution down the river.

In reality, this caucus is nothing more than a gaggle of state-worshiping and war-mongering Republicans who hate the Constitution as much as their colleagues in crime on the other side of the aisle hate it, but for different reasons.

In fact, Dems were generally trepidatious when it came to CISPA, while Republicans were nearly orgasmic in their support, mostly due to their post September 11 brainwashing and Fox News indoctrination.

According to math completed by Patrick Cahalan, “88% of the overall GOP members (casting a vote) voted yea, 23% of the Dems (casting a vote) voted yea, and 71% of the Tea Party (casting a vote) voted yea (Paul and Pence didn’t cast a vote).”

This works out to be 44 of the 66 members of the House Tea Party Caucus who voted to trash the Bill of Rights. Before Sarah Palin and the Koch brothers, the Tea Party was about the Constiituion. Now it is about reliqiushing our right to be left alone to the NSA, CIA, FBI and the national security state.

“The Tea Party may be the small government wing of the Republican Party, but when it comes to national security suddenly limiting the state becomes far less critical,” writes Erik Kain of Forbes.

Kain’s comment assumes that the Borgified Tea Party actually stands for small government. Instead it stands for whatever the establishment Republican Party tells it to stand for, including destroying what remains of the Constitution.

The original Tea Party was transformed from the inside out. In retrospect, it is amazing how easy the process was.

Establishment Republicans inserted a few operatives in key places and spread around filthy lucre. Front organizations were established that claimed exclusivity and these dummy organizations were pushed by the corporate media as the heart and soul of the Tea Party movement. The founding constitutionalists were exiled and replaced with mindless cheerleaders who support endless wars against phantom enemies and the implementation of a police state in the name of national security.

It’s odd that this reality is not understood by writers at Forbes or practically anywhere else in the corporate media for that matter.

CISPA is possible because we have sold our founding principles down the river for a mess of fetid pottage. If we ultimately end up with the bone-crushing fascism found in places like Nazi Germany or Pinochet’s Chile, it will be due to our inability to comprehend the truth and look beyond the illusion presented by the establishment.




URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/borg-tea-party- ... ll-fourth/

[Rensaicaptain of 100]

This is a perfect example of why America is in so much trouble. Democrats or republicans--there is no difference when it comes to trampling the constitution and expanding government power. Both sides are all too eager to sell us out. Meanwhile, the average American is blissfully ignoring everything that doesn't directly affect them because they are too busy with their TVs, toys, etc. The only real question is, will we become a fascist state or a communist, or maybe some strange new hybrid creature? As the dems and repubs battle to see who can destroy the republic the fastest, the only thing that seems sure is that the republic is dead or will be soon. Will it be emperor Obama, or will the man behind the curtains step forward?