US House of Representatives passes CISPA

Bad news, folks: MSNBC reports that the controversial cyber-surveillance bill CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) passed through Congress on a 248-168 vote, despite threats by the Government of a Presidential veto of the bill.

We've covered CISPA before, but here's a quick refresher: it encourages private corporations to spy on internet users and to share whatever they find with the government, in order to protect us from nebulously defined 'threats.' Pretty scary, huh? The White House prefers a Senate bill that many believe is not much better, which would put the Department of Homeland Security in charge of cybersecurity, rather than the private spying encouraged by CISPA.

Michigan representative Mike Rogers defended the bill, arguing that, “There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill.” Others, like fellow Michigan representative Justin Amash, disagreed and fought to push through amendments to protect a citizen's privacy. Amash proposed an amendment that would keep the surveillance from applying to library, medical, tax, and education documents, along with records of gun sales. The amendment passed unanimously.

Another amendment limited the government's ability to act on information obtained through CISPA for “cybersecurity, investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of individuals from death or serious bodily harm; protection of minors from child pornography; and the protection of national security.” It passed on a vote of 410-3.

Privacy advocates argue that these amendments don't do much to fix the inherent problems with CISPA, since none of them prevent the government (and, more troublingly, private companies) from snooping through your data – they only limit what they can do with it once they have it. Mississippi Representative Bennie Thompson said that the bill would create a “'Wild West' of information sharing.”

No one, even the staunchest of privacy advocates, has any problem with countering cyber attacks from terrorists or foreign nations, and almost everyone agrees that the current systems are in dire need of revision. But without adequate protections of an individual's privacy, passing the legislation needed to counter those threats is like opening a can of worms.

Much like a recent Neowin editorial, Texas Representative Joe Barton summed things up pretty well: “Until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem.”

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

HTC One X / iPhone 4S / Lumia 800 shootout: Cameras

Next Story

Samsung recognises need to speed up product launches

48 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think everyone should have privacy. And no one but him, should know this. CISPA for the crime is a cool idea. But suddenly, in CISPA will work employee who wants to sell the information to the same cyber thieves about good people, such as musicians or actors. What us I do then? If this law would work, we will have to be used for surfing in the Internet Anonymous VPN services such as Hideman software, or other. Let's wait what will happen in the future.

By a vote of 248 to 168, a bipartisan majority approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, which would permit Internet companies to hand over confidential customer records and communications to the National Security Agency and other portions of the U.S. government. CISPA would "waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity," said Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat, during today's marathon floor debate. "Allowing the military and NSA to spy on Americans on American soil goes against every principle this country was founded on."

heh, NDAA, CISPA, poor America.... Oh well this will be all passed here as well in the "DEMOCRATIC" EU where people in Brussels decide what's going to happen in other countries, awesome

I would like to go into cryostatis for 30 years so all the old people in power are dead or otherwise out of office.

These twits are continuing to ruin our country, not only in rights but in health as well.

Welcome to the new world where your all guilty until proven innocent

still beats the heck out of me why they need a bill that allows ISP's to do what the NSA has been doing since it's inception

At least the President can veto the bill, and assuming similar voting numbers, it's somewhat short of a 66% veto override.

Would be a good time now for Americans to make sure that 248 number doesn't climb.

Denis W said,
At least the President can veto the bill, and assuming similar voting numbers, it's somewhat short of a 66% veto override.

Would be a good time now for Americans to make sure that 248 number doesn't climb.

The problem is that while the President vowed to veto this (good) te reasoning is that he doesn't think the bill goes far enough (bad.)

Troll said,

The problem is that while the President vowed to veto this (good) te reasoning is that he doesn't think the bill goes far enough (bad.)

Disappointing if true - though I haven't read much into the workings of this bill yet.

Michigan representative Mike Rogers defended the bill, arguing that, “There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill.”

The ISPs are the ones doing the surveillance. Sure, we passed this bill that forces them to spy on you and provide this information directly to us so we see everything you do anyways. But because they're the ones doing the spying and not us, it's not "government surveillance".

What a bull**** argument.

Amash proposed an amendment that would keep the surveillance from applying to library, medical, tax, and education documents, along with records of gun sales. The amendment passed unanimously.

Gee, how convenient!

Ron Paul on SOPA - “This bill is not going to pass, but watch out for the next one!”

Xinok said,

The ISPs are the ones doing the surveillance. Sure, we passed this bill that forces them to spy on you and provide this information directly to us so we see everything you do anyways. But because they're the ones doing the spying and not us, it's not "government surveillance".

What a bull**** argument.

Gee, how convenient!

Ron Paul on SOPA - “This bill is not going to pass, but watch out for the next one!”

You realize Amash is one of the staunchest men opposing the bill right? You make it sound as if his amendment to try an weaken it was bad when he voted against it.

BumbleBritches57 said,
When does Mike Rogers come up for reelection? If I have my say, he won't get reelected. damn republicans.

All congressmen come up for election every 2 years Bumble, Rogers faces the voters in November as does my congressmen Rob Woodall who will not be getting my vote over his yes vote on this, not that it really matters since atm he's running unopposed but I put him on notice anyway.

BumbleBritches57 said,
When does Mike Rogers come up for reelection? If I have my say, he won't get reelected. damn republicans.

Don't forgot about Lamar Smith.

We've covered CISPA before, but here's a quick refresher: it encourages private corporations to spy on internet users and to share whatever they find with the government

i would imagine they probably do stuff like that anyways on the down low?

besides i can't really see what people do online being any real issue unless your a true criminal etc being all that big of a deal.

either way, i just figure when your online your privacy is going to be limited to some degree anyways. hell, Facebook i think is more of a invasion of privacy than most other stuff online. lol

so basically if it's just them spying on us with what we do on our PC i don't think it's THAT much of a issue (even though i would be pretty much against anything that gives gov more power in general as they already screwing us enough as is) as like i was saying when your online i think privacy is going to be more limited vs real life which privacy is definitely a big issue that every person has a right to.

Privacy advocates argue that these amendments don't do much to fix the inherent problems with CISPA, since none of them prevent the government (and, more troublingly, private companies) from snooping through your data - they only limit what they can do with it once they have it.

what are they basically doing here? ... just intercepting what you do online and keeping a record of it or something. either way, i am sure the gov is already 'spying' on us anyways they are probably just keeping it quiet.

but if figure if you keep a SSL connection that should keep at least some of what you do basically private.

ThaCrip said,

i would imagine they probably do stuff like that anyways on the down low?

besides i can't really see what people do online being any real issue unless your a true criminal etc being all that big of a deal.

either way, i just figure when your online your privacy is going to be limited to some degree anyways. hell, Facebook i think is more of a invasion of privacy than most other stuff online. lol

so basically if it's just them spying on us with what we do on our PC i don't think it's THAT much of a issue (even though i would be pretty much against anything that gives gov more power in general as they already screwing us enough as is) as like i was saying when your online i think privacy is going to be more limited vs real life which privacy is definitely a big issue that every person has a right to.

what are they basically doing here? ... just intercepting what you do online and keeping a record of it or something. either way, i am sure the gov is already 'spying' on us anyways they are probably just keeping it quiet.

but if figure if you keep a SSL connection that should keep at least some of what you do basically private.

they def do stuff like this all of the time on the dl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...ss_surveillance_controversy

and now laws like this are being passed for places like this .. maybe ..

http://www.wired.com/threatlev...2/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 (and if you don't believe that link i can show you tons of other sites. it's real and i don't see anyone denying it.)

ssl is awesome for sure (but against supercomputers it's a total joke(man i sound like a nut)) and you should't have to use it.

it seems the majority doesn't really give a **** anymore.

last thing .. http://www.techdirt.com/articl...en-passed-rushed-vote.shtml ... yay using children because we can all agree they need to be protected more than us. it's def true but it's another bs reason to monitor everyone and everything. doesn't make any of us any safer.

tomasarson said,

ssl is awesome for sure (but against supercomputers it's a total joke(man i sound like a nut)) and you should't have to use it.

it seems the majority doesn't really give a **** anymore.

last thing .. http://www.techdirt.com/articl...en-passed-rushed-vote.shtml ... yay using children because we can all agree they need to be protected more than us. it's def true but it's another bs reason to monitor everyone and everything. doesn't make any of us any safer.

pretty much but it's online people just assume they are reasonably anonymous and probably don't care as it's not like it's invasive in their everyday REAL LIFE privacy.

but i agree with you as they make the 'for the children' stuff just to mask them screwing us basically.

it's like that damn seatbelt thing they where enforcing a while back in Michigan saying it 'saves lives' when it's obvious they DON'T CARE as it's just a way for them to screw the people and grab more money from them.

so while i think it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt while driving i don't think they should have any right giving you a ticket for not wearing it as it should be your own choice.

basically that whole seatbelt thing was similar masking BS to make it look legit on the surface when at the end of the day it's about the gov getting more money (in a BS way) from the average joe. they seem to do that once in a while when they need money it seems. lol

but a quote from Ben Franklin...

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

which seems to be going out the window in favor of this terrorist BS. i say screw that as you can get safety to a certain level but after a certain point it's not worth sacrificing your basic rights for that crap but they just don't care and do it for more power basically.

i might be drifting off the topic a bit now, but close enough

Edited by ThaCrip, Apr 27 2012, 4:11am :

ThaCrip said,

pretty much but it's online people just assume they are reasonably anonymous and probably don't care as it's not like it's invasive in their everyday REAL LIFE privacy.

but i agree with you as they make the 'for the children' stuff just to mask them screwing us basically.

it's like that damn seatbelt thing they where enforcing a while back in Michigan saying it 'saves lives' when it's obvious they DON'T CARE as it's just a way for them to screw the people and grab more money from them.

so while i think it's a good idea to wear a seatbelt while driving i don't think they should have any right giving you a ticket for not wearing it as it should be your own choice.

basically that whole seatbelt thing was similar masking BS to make it look legit on the surface when at the end of the day it's about the gov getting more money (in a BS way) from the average joe. they seem to do that once in a while when they need money it seems. lol

but a quote from Ben Franklin...

which seems to be going out the window in favor of this terrorist BS. i say screw that as you can get safety to a certain level but after a certain point it's not worth sacrificing your basic rights for that crap but they just don't care and do it for more power basically.

i might be drifting off the topic a bit now, but close enough

it's not like the seatbelt thing at all....

that does help.

maybe deep down they're trying to make money but still..

I called and left a very powerful message... one that might chill them to the core.

I am so sick of these *******s god why cant they die of food poisoning from golden corral allready?

remixedcat said,
I called and left a very powerful message... one that might chill them to the core.

I am so sick of these *******s god why cant they die of food poisoning from golden corral allready?

lol you better becareful what you say here because the bill just passed

Don't republicans control the house? Oh that's right they do:

206 Republicans voted in favor of CISPA, as did 42 Democrats, while 28 Republicans and 140 Democrats voted against it. Fifteen members did not vote. The full vote tally is available on House.gov.

Good job Republicans (and Democrats who voted yes for it), glad to see that once again you don't give a **** about your citizens privacy.

-Razorfold said,
Don't republicans control the house? Oh that's right they do:

Good job Republicans (and Democrats who voted yes for it), glad to see that once again you don't give a **** about your citizens privacy.

they're both the same thing with slightly different views.

get over it.

-Razorfold said,
....

New to politics are we? The democrats didn't vote against it because they opposed the bill. They voted against it because the Republicans voted for it.

Do you guys get why I said and democrats? Would that thought that was pretty obvious that both parties are retarded.

Republicans made the patriot act. Democrats tried to pass SOPA. Republicans passed CISPA.

-Razorfold said,
Do you guys get why I said and democrats? Would that thought that was pretty obvious that both parties are retarded.

Republicans made the patriot act. Democrats tried to pass SOPA. Republicans passed CISPA.

i see through most bs and i did not get that at all.

it's hard sometimes trying to show emotion through text.

-Razorfold said,
Do you guys get why I said and democrats? Would that thought that was pretty obvious that both parties are retarded.

Republicans made the patriot act. Democrats tried to pass SOPA. Republicans passed CISPA.


That's what happens when the "left" is the center-right

flexkeyboard said,
I was too lazy to call my congressmen. Oh well, I hope this doesn't effect me much.

i don't like people like you.

i'm not worried about it effecting me. i follow the laws of this country. not because i'm afraid of going to jail but because i know what's right and wrong.

keep giving up your rights my man.

tomasarson said,

i don't like people like you.

i'm not worried about it effecting me. i follow the laws of this country. not because i'm afraid of going to jail but because i know what's right and wrong.

keep giving up your rights my man.

It's not really the idea that I could be arrested - like you, I think I'm pretty much a law abiding guy - it's just that I don't like the concept of being spied on by anyone, whether it's private corporations or the government. But giving ISPs protection to spy on me? That's just scary. I've definitely tried to do my part against it.

THolman said,

It's not really the idea that I could be arrested - like you, I think I'm pretty much a law abiding guy - it's just that I don't like the concept of being spied on by anyone, whether it's private corporations or the government. But giving ISPs protection to spy on me? That's just scary. I've definitely tried to do my part against it.

my point was never about me getting arrested.

my point was my rights living in america which are being destroyed.

tomasarson said,

my point was never about me getting arrested.

my point was my rights living in america which are being destroyed.

Yeah, I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just rambling a bit There's a Franklin quote that comes to mind... something about giving up liberty for safety, and not deserving either. No offense intended towards Flexkey! I didn't have time to make a call myself, although I did try to raise attention, and participated in e-mail campaigns.

THolman said,

Yeah, I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just rambling a bit There's a Franklin quote that comes to mind... something about giving up liberty for safety, and not deserving either.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

tomasarson said,

i don't like people like you.

i'm not worried about it effecting me. i follow the laws of this country. not because i'm afraid of going to jail but because i know what's right and wrong.

keep giving up your rights my man.

It's a shame you don't follow your country's language.

We are living in a world where the Internet is going to be censored. It's only a matter of time. We all might as well start to get used to it now.

tomasarson said,

i don't like people like you.

i'm not worried about it effecting me. i follow the laws of this country. not because i'm afraid of going to jail but because i know what's right and wrong.

keep giving up your rights my man.


All of these bills affect law-biding people, which is why there's been such a public outcry.

Nashy said,

We are living in a world where the Internet is going to be censored. It's only a matter of time. We all might as well start to get used to it now.

I strongly disagree. Just because there are people out there (powerful people) who want to censor it, doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it. Democracy is supposed to be participatory, and by our own laws stuff like this should be illegal.

flexkeyboard said,
I was too lazy to call my congressmen. Oh well, I hope this doesn't effect me much.

I called my congressmen, but apparently they ignored me. Go Schweikert

THolman said,

I strongly disagree. Just because there are people out there (powerful people) who want to censor it, doesn't mean we should just roll over and accept it. Democracy is supposed to be participatory, and by our own laws stuff like this should be illegal.

I agree 100%. But in a democracy we vote for who we believe will give us the best way of life, for those few years anyway. Who we think can make positive changes.

Unfortunately, most of the time it doesn't come to voting for the best, it's voting to keep the worst out.

They are all old idiots who don't know what the hell this big scary Internet thing is. So really, democracy has nothing to do with it.

We vote them in enough numbers because the people are confident they can do the job correctly when it comes to voting for our rights. They are all politicians, so none of them really give a ****.

tomasarson said,

i don't like people like you.

i'm not worried about it effecting me.

I don't like people like you who don't know the difference between AFFECT and EFFECT. It takes away credibility from anything else you say. In any case, I suppose you just break the laws you don't agree with, then?