SOPA/"Protect IP" Act

[Progmetty]

Got an email from the same people we helped take down SoPa. I don't understand this new problem:

On Thursday, Congress is scheduled to begin consideration of H.R. 3523, the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011" (CISPA).

This bill is the next great threat to our privacy over the Internet, but unlike the fight against SOPA and PIPA, Internet giants like Facebook and Twitter are openly supporting CISPA.

And as I write this, House Leadership is quietly working hard to gain your representative's support, including holding classified, "members only" meetings to make their case.

I'm counting on your immediate action to halt this bill's progress and protect our privacy from the government's ever-expanding reach.

CISPA is promoted as a harmless bill to facilitate the voluntary exchange of information between the private sector and government intelligence agencies.

In reality, it would allow the transfer of vast amounts of data, including personally identifiable information, to any agency in the federal government - including the National Security Agency.

The overly broad legislation has the potential to override all existing privacy laws due to a "notwithstanding any other provision in law" clause that grants companies immunity for sharing your information with the government.

So I need you to call Rep. Quico Canseco at (202) 225-4511 and demand a "NO" vote on H.R. 3523.

Tell Congress to also reject any other legislation regarding our online privacy that does not adequately defend the rights of Americans by including strong civil liberties protections.

With a vote coming up this week, you and I don't have a moment to lose.

So please call Congress right away.

In Liberty,



Tim Shoemaker
Director of Legislation


P.S. CISPA, the latest plan from Congress to further infringe on our privacy, has the support of Internet giants like Facebook and Twitter.

So it's up to C4L grassroots members to fight back and stop H.R. 3523, the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011."

Please call Rep. Quico Canseco at (202) 225-4511 and demand a "NO" vote on H.R. 3523 and any similar legislation!

Me no get the new problem.

[El Barto]

I'm not familiar with it, other than the author's remarkably biased summary, but it sounds to me like they're wanting to further codify (and I suppose expand) the immunity from prosecution that the tel-coms were granted a couple of years ago.  In a nutshell, Uncle Sammy tells the folks at Comcast "I want every bit of information related to John Q. Citizen, and no I don't have a warrant."  Comcast hands over the info, but in doing so violates a half dozen other laws protecting JQC's privacy.  This bill would prevent Comcast from being sued or prosecuted. 

More of the silly war on terror bullshit, and there's nothing anybody's going to do to stop it.  People will fight against laws that are intended only to deter piracy, but mention terror or Muslims and suddenly everybody's a patriot.  Until Americans actually grow some balls for a change, we'll keep seeing more and more of this. 

[Scheavo]

Tell Congress to also reject any other legislation regarding our online privacy that does not adequately defend the rights of Americans by including strong civil liberties protections.

  What online privacy? Private companies, corporations and personal decisions threw that out years ago.

[kirksnosehair]

The term "online privacy" is pretty much an oxymoron.

[PraXis]

CISPA = SOPA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=btUTCzoSNAY

[Scheavo]

Again, not defending CISPA, but what can the government do to be able to provide cyber defense? This is a rather serious issue, and could be vastly important for national security, so the government does have a role, but any role suggested is automatically demonized and reduced to the same overreaction.

[kirksnosehair]

But Free Speech!

[Rathma]

So the government would be able to read all my mails? Veto pls.

[Rathma]

Not that I would expect a veto if it passed the Senate, since Obama has pretty much supported all recent pushes for America to be a more authoritarian state :/

[PraXis]

[El Barto]

Again, not defending CISPA, but what can the government do to be able to provide cyber defense? This is a rather serious issue, and could be vastly important for national security, so the government does have a role, but any role suggested is automatically demonized and reduced to the same overreaction.

Which is of course where it started.  And then they slapped on any other provision that they thought they might like, effectively expanding it to all activities online.

Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.

And now we have that dickhead Obama threatening to veto the thing,  thereby taking some of the pressure off of the Senate opposition, and in the end he won't veto it anyway since they'll slip some executive powers in there for him to wield. 

[antigoon]

This really seems so much worse than SOPA.

[PraXis]

This really seems so much worse than SOPA.

That's how it works... big bill gets voted down (lots of media coverage), then bigger bill gets passed quickly (much less media coverage). All by design.

[antigoon]

...Also we don't have all of Silicon Valley on our side this time.

[Scheavo]

Again, not defending CISPA, but what can the government do to be able to provide cyber defense? This is a rather serious issue, and could be vastly important for national security, so the government does have a role, but any role suggested is automatically demonized and reduced to the same overreaction.

Which is of course where it started.  And then they slapped on any other provision that they thought they might like, effectively expanding it to all activities online.

Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.

And now we have that dickhead Obama threatening to veto the thing,  thereby taking some of the pressure off of the Senate opposition, and in the end he won't veto it anyway since they'll slip some executive powers in there for him to wield.

Again, are those not valid areas for police powers? Hacking is one of the major problems I was talking about, and can turn into a security threat when we're talking research and development. Protection of Individuals? Sounds maybe more like witness protection? Again, seems like a legitimate area for government activity. Protection of children? I don't think it's some "epidemic," but there are obviously area's where child sex trafficking is happening, and I have no problems with trying to put a stop to it (though, I would also say legalize prostitution, which is probably much more effective than anything like CISPA).

I won't defend CISPA, because seeing as how it's passing through this Congress, it's almost assuredly corrupt, and therefor contains loopholes and provisions that go too far. However, people don't attack those, they attack even the general idea of the Bill, and that seems very wrong to me.

[Rathma]

This really seems so much worse than SOPA.

That's how it works... big bill gets voted down (lots of media coverage), then bigger bill gets passed quickly (much less media coverage). All by design.

Are the same people pushing CISPA?