CISPA bill could be vetoed by President Obama

The US House of Representatives is currently scheduled to vote on the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) later this week. Now the Obama Administration is already warning that President Barack Obama could veto the bill if it is presented for his signature.

Talking Points Memo has posted up an email sent out today by the White House's Office of Management and Budget, saying that it "strongly opposes" CISPA in its current incarnation. The bill, also known as H.R. 3523, is supposed to fight cyber terrorism by allowing businesses to share any kind of cyber threat they may have heard about with other businesses as well as the US Government.

The key difference between CISPA and the defunct SOPA/PIPA bills is that CISPA has support from a number of tech companies, including Microsoft, Intel, Facebook and others. However, there's no such support from the Obama Administration. The email states:

H.R. 3523 fails to provide authorities to ensure that the Nation’s core critical infrastructure is protected while repealing important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards.

While the Obama Administration says it wants to work with the US Congress to help create legislation that would help the US fight cyber terrorism activities, it adds, " ... for the reasons stated herein, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Good-bye S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2; Hello Survarium

Next Story

Galaxy S III specs outed in benchmarking app [Update]

15 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The signer of NDAA,comes out against CISPA bill,what a joke.What about the NSA building the biggest spy center in Utah,to spy on US citizens,you can't trust these government pawns.

Wellll.... guess being an election year is worth something after all.

Kick the can down the road, keep the media companies happy [& donating] with the promise of better to come, appeal to the youth vote & so on... Makes sense.

Anyone praising Obama for this should understand that the veto is because they don't feel the bill goes far enough. Both parties want to infringe on our liberties, make no mistake.

Troll said,
Anyone praising Obama for this should understand that the veto is because they don't feel the bill goes far enough. Both parties want to infringe on our liberties, make no mistake.

+1

Obama is a lot more for censorship than anyone in the past.

America is being destroyed by Corporations. I do laugh at Obama's veto threat though, he's such a wimp and liar. Mark my words he will sign it.

There is a lot to the proposed bill, and it is not all flowers and puppies.

It is the dirt in the details that the White House is having an issues with it. As it technically expands 'corporate' power, without consumer, employee, or government having a say.

If anyone is a student of history go back to the 1800s and early 1900s and the shift in corporate powers that eventually resulted in market regulations to halt the power grab they were attempting to take from the people and the government.

This stuff is another 'we love shiny puppies' law that is actually designed to help kill and eat shiny puppies.

thenetavenger said,
There is a lot to the proposed bill, and it is not all flowers and puppies.

It is the dirt in the details that the White House is having an issues with it. As it technically expands 'corporate' power, without consumer, employee, or government having a say.

If anyone is a student of history go back to the 1800s and early 1900s and the shift in corporate powers that eventually resulted in market regulations to halt the power grab they were attempting to take from the people and the government.

This stuff is another 'we love shiny puppies' law that is actually designed to help kill and eat shiny puppies.


Part of that dirt is really because they have their own preferred version coming from the senate (see the bill from Lieberman and Collins). Course that version while having arguably more privacy protections also gives the government powers over "critical" though private infrastructure.
The veto threat isn't a surprise they hinted it last week.

ref: http://thehill.com/blogs/hilli...es-cybersecurity-bill-cispa


Daniel_Pooh said,
This doesnt sound so bad, how would it effect anything? I dont care if buisness share ****.

You don't care that any information that you have with any third party could be accessed for any reason by the US government?

Sraf said,

You don't care that any information that you have with any third party could be accessed for any reason by the US government?

one of the scariest things is that as I am a user of Facebook and Twitter and Google etc then my information could be accessed by the US government even though I am not a US citizen and do not live in the USA. This law, like the two before it affect everyone who uses the WWW especially anything in the US, although we have no say in it. The laws also seem to be going after copyright infringement which in a normal real, rational world has absolutely nothing to do with cyber terrorism.