The voting was broadly along party lines, although 42 Democrats voted in support of the legislation and 28 Republicans voted against it. Mike Rogers R-Mich. Support this bill!
CISPA is meant to encourage private companies to share information related to cybersecurity with the government and with each other. Such sharing is currently limited by numerous laws, including privacy legislation, as well as the threat of lawsuits by affected parties. CISPA creates blanket exemptions from such laws and from liability. Only a very few top executives in each corporation are aware of such relationships. Though to be clear: if you trust your Internet provider, e-mail provider, and so on, to protect your privacy, CISPA should not be a worrisome bill.
The U. But as the warrantless wiretapping debate shows, the private sector may acquiesce. One reason CISPA would be useful for government eavesdroppers is that, under existing federal law , any person or company who helps someone "intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication"--unless specifically authorized by law--could face criminal charges. CISPA would trump all other laws.
Q: What's the argument for enacting it? Rogers and Ruppersberger says their bill is necessary to deal with threats from China and Russia and that it "protects privacy by prohibiting the government from requiring private sector entities to provide information. During the April 26 floor debate, Rogers said :.
You know, without our ideas, without our innovation that countries like China are stealing every single day; we will cease to be a great nation. They are slowly and silently and quickly stealing the value and prosperity of America. One credit card company said that they get attacked for your personal information , times a day, one company. One of the biggest differences between CISPA and its Stop Online Piracy Act predecessor is that the Web blocking bill was defeated by a broad alliance of Internet companies and millions of peeved users.
By mid-April, however, Facebook had been forced on the defensive , with Kaplan now assuring users that his employer has "no intention" of sharing users' personal data with the Feds and that section is "unrelated to the things we liked" about CISPA in the first place. Now it's time to make sure Facebook knows we're furious.
Not really. At one point, Mike McCaul, a Republican from Texas, attempted to draw a comparison between the terror attack in Boston on Monday and cyberterrorism, to draw support for the bill's aim to improve security. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority leader, expressed the same concerns shared by the White House and civil liberty groups that the bill had failed to strike a "crucial balance between security and liberty". Last year, global protests by a coalition of internet activists and web companies, including Google and Wikipedia and Twitter, scuppered a similar bill, the Hollywood-backed Stop Online Piracy Act.
At the time they warned that future attempts to push through legislation that threatened digital freedoms would be met with a similar response.
Holmes Wilson, co-founder of online advocacy group Fight For the Future, said he and other critics would continue to lobby against Cispa. He said amendments had been made in closed sessions and it was "not out of the question" that privacy protections had been left out intentionally at the behest of the intelligence agencies.
The bill would override existing privacy laws to allow companies to share 'cyber threat information' with the federal government without making any reasonable effort to strip out any personal information from the file," the group said in a statement. If the drafters intend to give new powers to the government's already extensive capacity to examine your private information, they should propose clear and specific language so we can have a real debate," the EFF said on its website.
Skip to content Share Icon. Facebook Logo. Link Icon. The amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
0コメント