Worse than SOPA, CISPA will allow monitoring, censorship, alteration of ANY online communication

[woo me with science]

The assaults keep coming like the Terminator, don't they? This one is bipartisan, too. Comes to you from Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD). Strongly recommend reading the entire article.
____________________________________________

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/watch-out-washington-cispa-replaces-sopa-as-internets-enemy-no-1/

Watch out, Washington: CISPA replaces SOPA as Internet’s Enemy No. 1
By Andrew Couts
Digital Trends

....Unveiled to the House by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD) late last year, CISPA is described as a “cybersecurity” bill. It proposes to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to allow for greater sharing of “cyber threat intelligence” between the U.S. government and the private sector, or between private companies. The bill defines “cyber threat intelligence” as any information pertaining to vulnerabilities of, or threats to, networks or systems owned and operated by the U.S. government, or U.S. companies; or efforts to “degrade, disrupt, or destroy” such systems or networks; or the theft or “misappropriation” of any private or government information, including intellectual property.
....
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) adds that CISPA’s definition of “cybersecurity” is so broad that “it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would ‘degrade the network.’” Moreover, the inclusion of “intellectual property” means that companies and the government would have “new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement.”

Furthermore, critics warn that CISPA gives private companies the ability to collect and share information about their customers or users with immunity — meaning we cannot sue them for doing so, and they cannot be charged with any crimes. According to the EFF, CISPA “effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.”

“There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes,’” the EFF continues. “That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.”

....at the moment, its passage looks likely. CISPA breezed through the House Intelligence Committee on December 1, 2011, with a bipartisan vote of 17-1. Also, as mentioned, the bill has broad support in the House, with 106 co-sponsors, 10 of whom are committee chairmen. (The article also mentions that, "unlike SOPA, CISPA has explicit support from some of the technology industry’s biggest players, including Internet service providers like AT&T and Verizon, Web companies like Facebook, and hardware companies like IBM and Intel.&quot

________________________

.....The Center for Democracy and Technology sums up the problems with CISPA this way:

• The bill has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies notwithstanding privacy and other laws;
• The bill is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications as a result of this sharing;
• It is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military;
• Once the information is shared with the government, it wouldn’t have to be used for cybesecurity, but could instead be used for any purpose that is not specifically prohibited.


Full text of CISPA here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3523:

[lonestarnot]

1. They are scared. Fear is breeding their desire to exercise

their dominion over our free speech at their beck and call.

[AverageJoe90]

10. And it all goes back to the Bush Administration.

Yes sirree. Many of today's 'initiatives' on 'security' can go straight back to the post-9/11 policy of Shrubby, Jr.

Hopefully, at least some of the honest, non-DINO Democrats will see this legislation for what it really is; crap, crap, and total crap.

[bvar22]

12. How many "non-DINO" Democrats...

...are in a position of power inside the "New Democrat" Centrist Party today?





[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[denem]

14. This is a House Bill,

you know, Cantor's House. Democratic support is a cover, but only a cover.

[woo me with science]

2. Many other excellent articles about this online now.

It was hard to choose the best one.

[varelse]

3. We'll have to crush this one too :(

[Dawson Leery]

4. This explains the $2 billion dollar data retention center in Utah.

[woo me with science]

5. You are absolutely on target. This is all about the spy center.

They needed to make it legal.

Constitution, schmonstitution.

[lonestarnot]

11. What are the ties to the private industrial prison complex?

[PoliticAverse]

6. They will just keep trying again and again until some version sneaks in. n/t

[Lionessa]

8. Exactly that. It makes one feel tired and cynical.

[Lawlbringer]

7. How could this one

have support from companies who were disgusted by SOPA/PIPA?

[aquart]

9. Sigh. Eat them.

[denem]

13. EFF: “(CISPA) effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity'’ exemption to all existing law”

“There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes'."

[TheKentuckian]

15. Ever notice that the well for shit never runs dry

There is no lacking of political will to do dirt no matter public opinion or failures on repeated efforts.

As such my tolerance for excuses is minimal. They tend to prove themselves off on bullshit on a regular basis.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. /)_~ --> face

So Obama apparently opposes this enough to veto it... because it actually goes beyond the FISA provisions.

[woo me with science]

17. That's what he says. Keep the pressure on.

He says a lot of things, and he knows this is unpopular. Remember how he signed ACTA? He signed it and then claimed national security to hide it from the US press. It took the European press to break the news.

Keep the pressure on.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. I thought ACTA was a European Union bill.

And if ACTA has already been signed, and contains all the SOPA provisions, what's the point of complaining?

Agent Mike is already dragnetting all US communications. You can't spy on 20% more of 100%. I suppose this bill allows them to do even more devious things that I'm sure they already have the ability to do and have already therefore done (hence the need for a law to make it legal), as the banks did to make their illegal mergers legal in 1998. As for making it "legal", both the present and prior Administration have jailed anybody who blew the whistle on the program's supposed illegality, and indemnified corporations for participating.