Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) - H.R. 3523

Discussion in 'The Real World' started by Apv301, Apr 29, 2012.


CISP: Your opinion

  1. Vote out those that support it!

    1 vote(s)
  2. I like the bill.

    0 vote(s)
  3. I support Net Neutrality!

    0 vote(s)
  4. Someone call Anonymous!

    1 vote(s)
  1. Apv301

    Apv301 Active Member

    Nov 9, 2010
    Likes Received:
    SOPA is back and ready for round two folks. The bill proposed last November has now picked up what SOPA has dropped.

    The bill would allow for voluntary sharing of attack and threat information between the US Government, and companies they've deemed secure. However the most recent version of the bill may remove any reference to intellectual property.

    They bill is currently being attacked by various groups, claiming it has too few limits oh how and when the Government may monitor private information, as well as too few safeguards on how the data may be used. They state that such new powers could be used to punish file sharers and copyright infringers, rather than for spies and hackers.


    CISPA is an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, which does not currently contain provisions pertaining to cybercrime. It adds provisions to the Act describing cyber threat intelligence as a "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, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from either 'efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network'; or 'theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.'"

    In addition, CISPA requires the Director of National Intelligence to establish procedures to allow intelligence community elements to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and encourage the sharing of such intelligence.

    In a 16 April press release, the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announced the approval of several amendments to CISPA, including the addition of a new provision "to permit federal lawsuits against the government for any violation of restrictions placed on the government’s use of voluntarily shared information, including the important privacy and civil liberties protections contained in the bill," the inclusion of an anti-tasking provision to "explicitly prohibit the government from conditioning its sharing of cyber threat intelligence on the sharing of private sector information with the government," and the prevention of the government from using the information for "any other lawful purpose unless the government already has a significant cybersecurity or national security purpose in using the information." Relevant provisions were also clarified to "focus on the fact that the bill is designed to protect against unauthorized access to networks or systems, including unauthorized access aimed at stealing private or government information."

    Recent developments

    Bill sponsors Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, the chairman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, said on April 25, 2012 that the basis for the Obama administration's opposition is mostly based on the lack of critical infrastructure regulation, something outside of the jurisdiction of the Intelligence committee; they have also since introduced a package of amendments to the legislation that, "address nearly every single one of the criticisms leveled by the Administration, particularly those regarding privacy and civil liberties of Americans."

    Due to the opposition the bill has experienced, the co-sponsors are planning to amend the bill to address many of the concerns of its opponents — including limiting its scope to a narrower definition of cyber-threats, and stating that the "theft of intellectual property" refers to the theft of research and development. In addition, there will now be penalties if private companies or the government uses data from CISPA for purposes "unrelated to cyberthreats."

    However, Sharan Bradford Franklin, of the Constitution Project states, "Although we appreciate the Intelligence Committee's efforts to improve the bill and willingness to engage in a dialogue with privacy advocates, the changes in its most current draft do not come close to addressing the civil liberties threats posed by the bill, and some of the proposals would actually make CISPA worse. Therefore, Congress should not pass CISPA."

    Rainey Reitman, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation states, "To date, the authors of the bill have been unresponsive to these criticisms, offering amendments that are largely cosmetic. Dismissing the grave concerns about how this bill could undermine the core privacy rights of everyday Internet users, Rep. Mike Rogers characterized the growing protests against CISPA as 'turbulence' and vowed to push for a floor vote without radical changes."

    Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology states, "The authors of CISPA have made some positive changes recently. Unfortunately, none of the changes gets to the heart of the privacy concerns that Internet users and advocacy groups have expressed."

    In April 2012, the Office of Management and Budget of the Executive Office of the President of the United States released a statement strongly opposing the current bill and recommending to veto it.

    On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA.

    House Voting Counts

    Full list can be seen at the site. [21]
    Ayes Votes

    Republican: 206 Democrat: 42
    Noes Votes

    Republican: 28 Democrat: 140
    NV Votes

    Republican: 7 Democrat: 8

    CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.
  2. Apv301

    Apv301 Active Member

    Nov 9, 2010
    Likes Received:

    • Russia Today, a Russian state owned broadcast medium, was one of the first organizations to oppose CISPA, and was the first known source to use the phrase "Worse than SOPA".
    • Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, expressed opposition to the bill stating, “[It] is threatening the rights of people in America, and effectively rights everywhere, because what happens in America tends to affect people all over the world. Even though the SOPA and PIPA acts were stopped by huge public outcry, it’s staggering how quickly the US government has come back with a new, different, threat to the rights of its citizens.”
    • U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has publicly opposed the bill calling it "Big Brother writ large." Cenk Uygur, from Current TV, backed the Representative's opinion and did a piece where he highlights one of Mike Rogers' speech about the bill to the business community. He also summarized the bill to his audience.[30]
    • 36 groups currently oppose CISPA with an addition of 6 groups as of April 21st. The Electronic Frontier Foundation lists a growing list of opposition as well as a list of security experts, academics, and engineers in opposition of the bill. They also published the statement Don’t Let Congress Use "Cybersecurity" Fears to Erode Digital Rights.
    • Opposition to CISPA includes more than 762,000 online petitioners who have signed global civic organization's petition to members of the US Congress entitled "Save the Internet from the US". Avaaz also has a petition to Facebook, Microsoft, and IBM entitled "The end of Internet privacy", signed by more than 730,000 people.
    • The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) published a statement titled "Cybersecurity's 7-Step Plan for Internet Freedom." The CDT openly opposes the Mike Rogers bill based on these 7-step criteria.The CDT has also openly supported a competing bill in the house sponsored by U.S. Representative Dan Lungren (R-CA) that has yet to be reported by the committee.
    • The Constitution Project (TCP) "believes cybersecurity legislation currently pending before Congress poses major risks to civil liberties that must be addressed before any bill is enacted into law."
    • The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also issued a statement opposing the bill stating, "The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act would create a cybersecurity exception to all privacy laws and allow companies to share the private and personal data they hold on their American customers with the government for cybersecurity purposes." As the statement continues, "Beyond the potential for massive data collection authorization, the bill would provide no meaningful oversight of, or accountability for, the use of these new information-sharing authorities."
    • The Sunlight Foundation states, "The new cybersecurity bill, CISPA, or HR 3523, is terrible on transparency. The bill proposes broad new information collection and sharing powers (which many other organizations are covering at length). Even as the bill proposes those powers, it proposes to limit public oversight of this work."
    • Demand Progress opposes CISPA, stating "The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, would obliterate any semblance of online privacy in the United States."
    • Competitive Enterprise Institute joins with TechFreedom, FreedomWorks, Americans For Limited Government, Liberty Coalition, Al Cardenas, and American Conservative Union to write a letter to Congress. Competitive Enterprise Institute states, "Despite the bill's noble intentions, however, it risks unduly expanding federal power, undermining freedom of contract, and harming U.S. competitiveness in the technology sector." The Competitive Enterprise Institute lists 6 problems within the bill itself and how to fix those problems.
    • Reporters Without Borders states, "Reporters Without Borders is deeply concerned with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA), the cyber security bill now before the US Congress. In the name of the war on cyber crime, it would allow the government and private companies to deploy draconian measures to monitor, even censor, the Web. It might even be used to close down sites that publish classified files or information."
    • testPAC opposes CISPA stating "CISPA would effectively take the door off the hinge of every household in America, but lacks the tools necessary to distinguish whether there is a criminal hiding in the attic. Why surrender the core of our privacy for the sake of corporate and governmental convenience?"
    • As of April 27, 2012, Microsoft no longer supports CISPA citing any law must allow "us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers." And, as the statement continues, "We look forward to continuing to work with members of Congress, consumer groups, the civil liberties community and industry colleagues as the debate moves to the Senate to ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy."

    --Taken from Wikipedia--
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest


Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice