CISPA Dead, Threat Remains

According to a representative of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act will be shelved by the Senate.

by Derrick Broze
Intellihub.com
April 24, 2013

This comes one week after the cyber security bill was passed by the House of Representatives.

US News reported, ”We’re not taking [CISPA] up,” the committee representative says. “Staff and senators are divvying up the issues and the key provisions everyone agrees would need to be handled if we’re going to strengthen cybersecurity. They’ll be drafting separate bills.” 

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., chairman of the committee, said the passage of CISPA was “important,” but said the bill’s “privacy protections are insufficient.”

After CISPA was discussed behind closed doors in private the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) all spoke against the bill. 

The commerce representative says that the Senate committee is “working toward separate bills” to improve cybersecurity, which are currently being drafted.”

If passed it would have allowed companies to decide which government entity they want to share cyber threat data with. Critics worry this would empower agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) to access an even larger pool of information than it currently does.  It also granted companies immunity from legal action if they share data with the government.

There will likely be no new cyber security bills worked on by the Senate for at least 3 months. Although CISPA is stopped in its tracks other less intrusive cyber security bills are set to pass. With the government continuing to warn of cyber terror attacks it seems this is only the beginning of legislation related to information sharing. There continues to be a fine line between a citizens privacy and the governments willingess to spy.

Contrary to what many believe the internet is not a place where your information is private and secure. No, more and more the government views your information as their business. Take the IRS for example. According to a report in the HiIl the agency’s own documents state:

“In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.” A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.” 
The American Civil Liberties Union discovered the documents from a Freedom of Information Act Request. They are continuing to fight for more information on the matter.

The Anti Counterfeiting Trade Act (ACTA) is an international treaty that would regulate intellectual property. A number of countries, including the US have signed the treaty but only Japan has ratified it thus far. As the United States continues to pressure Canada to align with the treaty, a new bill, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, has been introduced. The bill would begin the process of Canadian obedience to ACTA.

Wit so many different agencies and corporations pursuing your information, you must accept that currently you are being spied on. This does not have to be the standard however. I suggest starting wtih Encryption. Protecting yourself by surfing and shopping anonymously online.

Next I would start to investigate alternative DNS servers and the Open NIC project. These are both possibly ways to create alternative networks to the mainstream internet. This would allow communication in a way that is not as easily spied on or located. Even without the possible need for communication with the resistance this technology can help us advance ourselves in the now.

Imagine a network of communities that all own and operate their own autonomous networks. As a person travels through they could access the networks via wifi. Each network could list specific resources, restaurants, farmers markets, gardens, businesses, and community centers to guests passing through. These would compete with the mainstream internet.

These are just a couple of quick ideas to remedy our situation. The Obama Administration believes cyber attacks are a greater threat than traditional terrorism. Whether that is just rhetoric or reality is up to you to decide. What is clear is that the free and open internet is under attack.

If you care about privacy, or uncensored information than stand up. Organize protests, marches and outreach groups. Pursue alternatives, build localized networks and continue to educate yourself. Only action will serve us at this point. By choosing to put aside possible differences and working together we can save the interconnected free flow of ideas we all know and love. 

 

Sources:

^http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/25/aclu-cispa-is-dead-for-now

^http://intellihub.com/2013/04/23/the-return-of-acta-u-s-dictating-canadas-intellectual-property-laws

^http://intellihub.com/2013/04/23/fighting-cispa-with-encryption

*****

Derrick Broze is a founding member of The Houston Free Thinkers.

He writes for IntelliHub.com a popular independent news website.

He can be heard on Orion Talk Radio, Local Live Houston and the upcoming Unbound Radio.

Find his workatwww.theconsciousresistance.com and www.thehoustonfreethinkers.com

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Intellihub.com

CISPA Dead, Threat Remains

CISPA Dead, Threat Remains

According to a representative of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Protection Act will be shelved by the Senate.

by Derrick Broze
Intellihub.com
April 24, 2013

This comes one week after the cyber security bill was passed by the House of Representatives.

US News reported, ”We’re not taking [CISPA] up,” the committee representative says. “Staff and senators are divvying up the issues and the key provisions everyone agrees would need to be handled if we’re going to strengthen cybersecurity. They’ll be drafting separate bills.” 

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., chairman of the committee, said the passage of CISPA was “important,” but said the bill’s “privacy protections are insufficient.”

After CISPA was discussed behind closed doors in private the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) all spoke against the bill. 

The commerce representative says that the Senate committee is “working toward separate bills” to improve cybersecurity, which are currently being drafted.”

If passed it would have allowed companies to decide which government entity they want to share cyber threat data with. Critics worry this would empower agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA) to access an even larger pool of information than it currently does.  It also granted companies immunity from legal action if they share data with the government.

There will likely be no new cyber security bills worked on by the Senate for at least 3 months. Although CISPA is stopped in its tracks other less intrusive cyber security bills are set to pass. With the government continuing to warn of cyber terror attacks it seems this is only the beginning of legislation related to information sharing. There continues to be a fine line between a citizens privacy and the governments willingess to spy.

Contrary to what many believe the internet is not a place where your information is private and secure. No, more and more the government views your information as their business. Take the IRS for example. According to a report in the HiIl the agency’s own documents state:

“In a 2009 handbook, the IRS said the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails because Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.” A 2010 presentation by the IRS Office of General Counsel reiterated the policy.” 
The American Civil Liberties Union discovered the documents from a Freedom of Information Act Request. They are continuing to fight for more information on the matter.

The Anti Counterfeiting Trade Act (ACTA) is an international treaty that would regulate intellectual property. A number of countries, including the US have signed the treaty but only Japan has ratified it thus far. As the United States continues to pressure Canada to align with the treaty, a new bill, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, has been introduced. The bill would begin the process of Canadian obedience to ACTA.

Wit so many different agencies and corporations pursuing your information, you must accept that currently you are being spied on. This does not have to be the standard however. I suggest starting wtih Encryption. Protecting yourself by surfing and shopping anonymously online.

Next I would start to investigate alternative DNS servers and the Open NIC project. These are both possibly ways to create alternative networks to the mainstream internet. This would allow communication in a way that is not as easily spied on or located. Even without the possible need for communication with the resistance this technology can help us advance ourselves in the now.

Imagine a network of communities that all own and operate their own autonomous networks. As a person travels through they could access the networks via wifi. Each network could list specific resources, restaurants, farmers markets, gardens, businesses, and community centers to guests passing through. These would compete with the mainstream internet.

These are just a couple of quick ideas to remedy our situation. The Obama Administration believes cyber attacks are a greater threat than traditional terrorism. Whether that is just rhetoric or reality is up to you to decide. What is clear is that the free and open internet is under attack.

If you care about privacy, or uncensored information than stand up. Organize protests, marches and outreach groups. Pursue alternatives, build localized networks and continue to educate yourself. Only action will serve us at this point. By choosing to put aside possible differences and working together we can save the interconnected free flow of ideas we all know and love. 

 

Sources:

^http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/25/aclu-cispa-is-dead-for-now

^http://intellihub.com/2013/04/23/the-return-of-acta-u-s-dictating-canadas-intellectual-property-laws

^http://intellihub.com/2013/04/23/fighting-cispa-with-encryption

*****

Derrick Broze is a founding member of The Houston Free Thinkers.

He writes for IntelliHub.com a popular independent news website.

He can be heard on Orion Talk Radio, Local Live Houston and the upcoming Unbound Radio.

Find his workatwww.theconsciousresistance.com and www.thehoustonfreethinkers.com

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Intellihub.com

CISPA Dead, Threat Remains

US House of Representatives passes CISPA cybersecurity bill

 

The US House of Representatives has passed the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protect Act (CISPA).

Lawmakers in the House voted 288-to-127 Thursday afternoon to pass the bill. Next it will move to the Senate and could then end up on the desk of US President Barack Obama for him to potentially sign the bill into law. Earlier this week, though, senior White House advisers said they would recommend the president veto the bill.

Note: be sure to read our article outlining the problems that remain in CISPA even after the amendments, including the fact that data will still be sent to the National Security Agency

Should CISPA earn the president’s autograph, private businesses will be encouraged to voluntarily share cyberthreat information with the US government. The authors of the bill say this is an effort to better combat the reportedly increasing attempts to harm America’s criticalcomputer networks and pilfer the systems of private companies for intellectual property and other sensitive trade secrets.

One of the bill’s creators, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), said during a round of debate on Wednesday that $ 400 billion worth of American trade secrets are being stolen by US companies every year. Passing CISPA, he said, would be a common sense solution to a threat that’s growing at an alarming rate.

“If your house is being robbed, you call 911 and the police department comes. That’s the same scenario we are looking at here,” he said.

Also testifying Wednesday, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) said CISPA could be used to combat the 25 million cybercrime victims she claims are targeted every day.

That same day, CISPA co-author Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) stressed that his bill doesn’t extend any extra surveillance powers to the federal government, despite condemnation from critics that say exactly that. “It does something very simple: it allows the government to share zeroes and ones with the private sector,” he said. Rather, he called it “a critical bipartisan first step for enabling American’s private sector to defend itself” and “improves cybersecurity without compromising our civil liberties.”

“We have yet to find a single United States company that opposes this bill,” said Rep. Rogers.

But companies do in fact oppose CISPA, including a number of entities that carry a good deal of clout around both Silicon Valley and inside the beltway. Just last month Facebook rescinded their support of the act, according to Cnet’s Declan McCullagh, because a spokesperson for thesocial media site says they prefer a legislative “balance” that ensures “the privacy of our users.”

After CISPA was unsuccessfully introduced to Congress last year — only to stall in the Senate — Microsoft endorsed the act only to eventually do an about-face.

“Microsoft believes that any proposed legislation should facilitate the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information in a manner that allows us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers,” the company’s Scott Charney told McCullagh at the time.

But just last week, TechNet President Rey Ramsey sent a letter to Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger saying his group thinks CISPA “recognizes the need for effective cybersecurity legislation that encourages voluntary, bi-directional, real time sharing of actionable cyberthreat information to protect networks,” but that further work may be needed. TechNet’s Executive Council includes Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer, Google’s Eric Schmidt and Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith.

Web browser makers Mozilla oppose the bill, as does the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union, and last year’s attempt to pass CISPA after it was unveiled for a first time prompted the White House to issue a veto warning then. In the months since the bill stalled in the Senate, though, the president has on his own part urged Congress to adopt a new cybersecurity bill.

CISPA 101: Originally introduced in late-2011, CISPA passed the House but never advanced to a full Senate vote after massive public campaigns waged against the bill. It’s authors say CISPA will “provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities” by encouraging private companies such as Google, Facebook and others to hand over to the government any data that could be used to combat cyberattacks. Critics of the bill say its language is too broad, though, and allows federal agencies to access too much personal information.

In February, Pres. Obama signed an executive order that urges his administration to begin working towards improving cybersecurity protections until Congress can craft a bill. Hours later, he said during his annual State of the Union address how imperative legislation action is.

“Earlier today, I signed a new executive order that will strengthen our cyber defenses by increasing information sharing, and developing standards to protect our national security, our jobs and our privacy. Now, Congress must act as well, by passing legislation to give our government a greater capacity to secure our networks and deter attacks,” the president said.

But in the veto threat extended by his office earlier this week, the White House writes, “the Administration still seeks additional improvements and if the bill, as currently crafted, were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) corroborated on that statement during Thursday’s pre-vote discussion, vowing to cast her ballot against CISPA because it did not, in her opinion, protect the privacy of Americans to the degree it should.

“I’m disappointed,” said the congresswoman, “that we did not address some of the concerns mentioned by the White House about personal information. Unfortunately, it offers no policies and did not allow any amendments or real solution that upholds Americans’ right to privacy.”

CISPA, added Pelosi, provides “overly broad liability protections and immunity to the businesses that violate our liberties,” and fails to strike a “crucial balance between security and liberty.”

But elsewhere during Thursday’s debate, another elected lawmaker cited national security concerns as paramount to these privacy woes. Speaking before his congressional colleagues, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said this week’s deadly terrorist attack in Boston are reason enough to pass a cybersecurity bill, despite lacing evidence that the pair of bombs detonated Monday at the Boston Marathon were acts of cyberterror.

“Recent events in Boston demonstrate that we have to come together as Republicans and Democrats” in order to pass a bill that will strengthen national security, McCaul (R-Texas) said Thursday morning.

“In the case of Boston,” said McCaul, “there were real bombs.”

“In this case, they are digital bombs — and these digital bombs are on their way.”

Another lawmaker, Rep. Dan Maffei (D-New York), said CISPA was necessary to protect the US against “independent groups like WikiLeaks,” adding unfounded claims that the whistleblower website is “taking very aggressive measures to hack into” US computer networks.

Other noteworthy statements that came out of this week’s CISPA debate include one quip from Rep. Candice Miller (R-Michigan), who said Wednesday that the bill “helps us fulfill every one of the responsibilities mandated on us by the US Constitution.”

“I believe strongly that you should have constitutional concerns about not passing this bill,”said Rep. Miller.“By supporting CISPA, we move to fulfill our oath” to protect the American people, added Rep. William Enyart (D-Illinois).

As news broke Thursday afternoon that CISPA cleared the House, opponents took to social media to sound out. The EFF responded by saying the House

“shamefully” passed,“undermining the privacy of millions of Internet users.”

When Rep. Ruppersberger reintroduced CISPA at the start of this congressional season, he evoked the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to suggest that Congress can and will do whatever is necessary in the wake of another tragedy.

“We don’t do anything well after a significant emotional event,” said Ruppersberger. Should there be a cyberattack on America on par with 9/11, Congress “will get all the bills passed we want,” he said.

 

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

---

Contributed by Madison Ruppert of End the Lie.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCY.TV from 7 pm — 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE.  If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

Twitter: http://twitter.com/endtheliedotcom
Facebook: http://facebook.com/endthelie
Youtube: http://youtube.com/endthelie

The Daily Sheeple

US House of Representatives passes CISPA cybersecurity bill

Supporters Say All The Wrong Things to Try and Pass CISPA

Tweet

Ever since reintroducing CISPA, the so-called “cybersecurity bill,” its supporters promote the bill with craftily worded or just plain misleading claims.

By Mark M. Jaycox
EFF
April 9, 2013

Such claims have been lobbed over and over again in op-eds, at hearings, and in press materials.  One “fact sheet” by Rep. Rogers and Ruppersberger titled “Myth v. Fact” is so dubious that we felt we had to comment. To stop this type of misinformation—and to stop CISPA—we urge you to tell your members of Congress to stand up for privacy.

Here are some of the statements supporters of CISPA are pushing and why they’re false:

Supporters of CISPA say, “There are no broad definitions”

Supporters are keen to note that the bill doesn’t have broad definitions. In the “Myth v. Fact” sheet, the authors of CISPA specifically point to the definition of “cyber threat information.” Cyber threat information is information about an online threat that companies can share with each other and with any government agency—including the NSA. In hearings, experts have said that they don’t need to share personally identifiable information to combat threats. But the definition in the bill allows for any information related to a perceived threat or vulnerability—including sensitive personal information—to be shared. Cyber threat information should be a narrowly defined term.

Another example of a broad (or missing) definition is the term “cybersecurity system.”  Companies can use a “cybersecurity system” to “identify or obtain” information about a potential threat (“cyber threat information”). The definition is critical to understanding the bill, but is circular.  CISPA defines a “cybersecurity system” as “a system designed or employed” for a cybersecurity purpose (i.e. to protect against vulnerabilities or threats). The language is not limited to network security software or intrusion detection systems, and is so broadly written that one wonders if a “system” involving a tangible item—e.g., locks on doors—could be considered a “cybersecurity system.”  In practical terms, it’s unclear what is exactly covered by such a “system,” because the word “system” is never defined.

The best example of a dangerous undefined term in the bill is found within the overly broad legal immunity for companies. The clause grants a company who acts in “good faith” immunity for “any decisions made” based off of the information it learns from the government or other companies. Does this cover decisions to violate other laws, like computer crime laws? Or privacy laws intended to protect users? Companies should not be given carte blanche immunity to violate long-standing computer crime and privacy law. And it is notoriously hard to prove that a company acted in bad faith, in the few circumstances where you would actually find out your privacy had been violated. 

Supporters of CISPA say, “The bill is not a government surveillance program”

Supporters are adamant CISPA doesn’t create a wide-ranging “government surveillance program.” It’s true the bill doesn’t create such a surveillance program like the one described in the ongoing warrantless wiretapping lawsuits.

But the trick here is what is meant by “government surveillance.”  We think that if the bill aims at having our information flow to the government, it’s tantamount to government surveillance, whether or not the government initially collected the information.   

The bill creates a loophole in the privacy laws that prevented companies from disclosing your information to the government and gives companies broad legal immunity for sharing information with the government. As a result, CISPA makes it more likely that companies will surveil their own users and then disclose that information.  The sly wording dodges the key issue: that CISPA encourages companies to conduct surveillance on their networks and hand “cyber threat information” to the government. In short, the bill encourages a de facto private spying regime, with the same end result.

Supporters of CISPA say, “The government can’t read your private email”

Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger are adamant CISPA doesn’t grant the government access to read private emails. The claim was recently repeated by James Lewis, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the broad definitions do allow for personal information to be gathered by companies and then sent to the government without any mandatory minimization of personal information. And under the vague definitions an aggressive company could claim that private messages are related to the threat, obtain them, and share then with the government.  If Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger did want content of emails disclosed under CISPA, it would be easy enough to exclude them explicitly.

Supporters say, “CISPA follows advice from privacy and civil liberty advocates”

In his introduction of the bill, Rep. Rogers assured the audience that he has listened to the privacy and civil liberties community.

This year’s CISPA does contain some language added after privacy and civil liberties advocates complained in 2012.  But those changes didn’t address some big issues that were raised last year, and this year’s privacy and civil liberties complaints about CISPA remain unaddressed.

Let’s Stop CISPA

Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger are on a strong publicity offensive to make sure the bill passes. The American public deserves full explanations and clear meanings about what CISPA can do and the extent to which it can do it. The public doesn’t need carefully worded messaging materials that obfuscate and mislead a discussion on CISPA. The issues at stake—like the broad legal immunity and new spying powers that allow for companies to collect private, and sensitive, user information—are too serious.

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Intellihub.com

Supporters Say All The Wrong Things to Try and Pass CISPA

Supporters Say All The Wrong Things to Try and Pass CISPA

Tweet

Ever since reintroducing CISPA, the so-called “cybersecurity bill,” its supporters promote the bill with craftily worded or just plain misleading claims.

By Mark M. Jaycox
EFF
April 9, 2013

Such claims have been lobbed over and over again in op-eds, at hearings, and in press materials.  One “fact sheet” by Rep. Rogers and Ruppersberger titled “Myth v. Fact” is so dubious that we felt we had to comment. To stop this type of misinformation—and to stop CISPA—we urge you to tell your members of Congress to stand up for privacy.

Here are some of the statements supporters of CISPA are pushing and why they’re false:

Supporters of CISPA say, “There are no broad definitions”

Supporters are keen to note that the bill doesn’t have broad definitions. In the “Myth v. Fact” sheet, the authors of CISPA specifically point to the definition of “cyber threat information.” Cyber threat information is information about an online threat that companies can share with each other and with any government agency—including the NSA. In hearings, experts have said that they don’t need to share personally identifiable information to combat threats. But the definition in the bill allows for any information related to a perceived threat or vulnerability—including sensitive personal information—to be shared. Cyber threat information should be a narrowly defined term.

Another example of a broad (or missing) definition is the term “cybersecurity system.”  Companies can use a “cybersecurity system” to “identify or obtain” information about a potential threat (“cyber threat information”). The definition is critical to understanding the bill, but is circular.  CISPA defines a “cybersecurity system” as “a system designed or employed” for a cybersecurity purpose (i.e. to protect against vulnerabilities or threats). The language is not limited to network security software or intrusion detection systems, and is so broadly written that one wonders if a “system” involving a tangible item—e.g., locks on doors—could be considered a “cybersecurity system.”  In practical terms, it’s unclear what is exactly covered by such a “system,” because the word “system” is never defined.

The best example of a dangerous undefined term in the bill is found within the overly broad legal immunity for companies. The clause grants a company who acts in “good faith” immunity for “any decisions made” based off of the information it learns from the government or other companies. Does this cover decisions to violate other laws, like computer crime laws? Or privacy laws intended to protect users? Companies should not be given carte blanche immunity to violate long-standing computer crime and privacy law. And it is notoriously hard to prove that a company acted in bad faith, in the few circumstances where you would actually find out your privacy had been violated. 

Supporters of CISPA say, “The bill is not a government surveillance program”

Supporters are adamant CISPA doesn’t create a wide-ranging “government surveillance program.” It’s true the bill doesn’t create such a surveillance program like the one described in the ongoing warrantless wiretapping lawsuits.

But the trick here is what is meant by “government surveillance.”  We think that if the bill aims at having our information flow to the government, it’s tantamount to government surveillance, whether or not the government initially collected the information.   

The bill creates a loophole in the privacy laws that prevented companies from disclosing your information to the government and gives companies broad legal immunity for sharing information with the government. As a result, CISPA makes it more likely that companies will surveil their own users and then disclose that information.  The sly wording dodges the key issue: that CISPA encourages companies to conduct surveillance on their networks and hand “cyber threat information” to the government. In short, the bill encourages a de facto private spying regime, with the same end result.

Supporters of CISPA say, “The government can’t read your private email”

Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger are adamant CISPA doesn’t grant the government access to read private emails. The claim was recently repeated by James Lewis, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the broad definitions do allow for personal information to be gathered by companies and then sent to the government without any mandatory minimization of personal information. And under the vague definitions an aggressive company could claim that private messages are related to the threat, obtain them, and share then with the government.  If Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger did want content of emails disclosed under CISPA, it would be easy enough to exclude them explicitly.

Supporters say, “CISPA follows advice from privacy and civil liberty advocates”

In his introduction of the bill, Rep. Rogers assured the audience that he has listened to the privacy and civil liberties community.

This year’s CISPA does contain some language added after privacy and civil liberties advocates complained in 2012.  But those changes didn’t address some big issues that were raised last year, and this year’s privacy and civil liberties complaints about CISPA remain unaddressed.

Let’s Stop CISPA

Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger are on a strong publicity offensive to make sure the bill passes. The American public deserves full explanations and clear meanings about what CISPA can do and the extent to which it can do it. The public doesn’t need carefully worded messaging materials that obfuscate and mislead a discussion on CISPA. The issues at stake—like the broad legal immunity and new spying powers that allow for companies to collect private, and sensitive, user information—are too serious.

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Intellihub.com

Supporters Say All The Wrong Things to Try and Pass CISPA

[102] State of the Union Disinfo, Stop CISPA, Manufactured Terror

Tweet

[102] State of the Union Disinfo, Stop CISPA, Manufactured Terror

CISPA is Back | Think Tank

Tweet

CISPA is Back | Think Tank

CISPA is Back | Think Tank

Tweet

CISPA is Back | Think Tank