WebProNews

Tag: CISPA

  • Should You Be Concerned With CISPA?

    Should You Be Concerned With CISPA?

    By now, if your awareness level concerning Internet regulation bills like CISPA and its SOPA/PIPA predecessors hasn’t increased, you’re doing yourself a disservice. It could be the fact that after SOPA was defeated, people thought the fight was over. Or it could be people are waiting on Wikipedia to blackout before they get mad.

    Unfortunately, there may not be a Internet-wide blackout this time around, which means people are going to have to inform themselves instead of relying on a service to voluntarily turn itself off before they fight back. Of course, it could be said the reason people were fighting back against SOPA was due to its trend status, something the Internet blackout directly contributed to. Without people talking about the blackout on services like Twitter and Facebook, the buzz concerning SOPA might have remained low enough for the government to sneak it through.

    Instead of waiting on an Internet blackout that may not even happen, people should apply the lessons they learned from SOPA and inform themselves about the potential issues CISPA presents. To facilitate this process, the group at Paralegal.net have created a “WTF is CISPA” infographic, and if you take the time and use it to your benefit, you’ll soon see the fight for an open Internet did not end when SOPA collapsed on itself:

    WTF Is CISPA

    Much like the graphic points out, don’t rely on web companies to tell you when it’s time to act. Don’t wait on a blackout that may never come to motivate you. Of course, the fact that people waited until certain services were blacked out to protest SOPA makes me question their motivations. Were they pissed they couldn’t find an answer for their homework or were they really mad about the damage such bills could do?

  • Amended CISPA Is A Direct Threat To Internet Privacy

    The bill we’ve grown to fear is much, much closer to being a reality in our lives with the passing of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), courtesy of the House of Representatives. The controversial bill passed with a vote of 248-168, giving us a clear indication of how much our elected leaders value your Internet privacy.

    That is, they don’t.

    Does the passage of CISPA, even though it is awaiting Senate approval, give you cause for concern, especially in regards to privacy and the respect of certain, fundamental rights? Are the elected officials in the United States capable of regulating something as vast and as complex as the Internet? Let us know what you think in the comments section.

    Aside from the fact that CISPA actually passed, there are other troubling issues surrounding the now-House approved bill. First off, as pointed out by TechDirt, the vote for CISPA’s passage wasn’t supposed to be until today (Friday, April 27). The second issue is the CISPA that just passed through the House has some amendments attached (PDF), and some feel this fact makes the bill a bigger threat to an individual’s online privacy than it was in previous manifestations. The amendments were sponsored by various representatives, but there’s one in particular that caught the eye of many CISPA critics: amendment number six.

    Sponsored by Misters Ben Quayle and Mike Thompson, and Miss Anna Eshoo, the sixth amendment has been presented as something that clarifies and limits scope of CISPA, but after reading the text attached to the proposed alteration, CISPA is actually worse than it was before the amendment was attached. A summary of the alteration that is most troubling:

    Would limit government use of shared cyber threat information to only 5 purposes:

    1) cybersecurity;
    2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes;
    3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury;
    4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and
    5) protection of the national security of the United States.

    Again, this amendment was introduces to “limit” the scope of CISPA, but as you might be able to infer, the vagueness of the alteration only makes accessing such information much easier. Essentially, if your actions are seen as a cybersecurity threat based on the five incredibly vague conditions listed, the threat information is readily available to any and all interested government parties, without the need of a search warrant or any other search and seizure protections offered by the Fourth Amendment.

    It appears that by adding such vague terms, the House of Representatives has successfully found a way to circumvent one of the key components to the Bill of Rights, or, as TechDirt puts it:

    Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite. This is very, very bad.

    Very bad indeed. You want to know what’s worse than that, however? The complete lack of outrage on various social media sites. Apparently, the sheep won’t get outraged unless Wikipedia conducts a site blackout or someone releases a 30-minute video that everyone shares on Facebook.

    An example of this apathy can be found on Twitter where such popular trends like Lady Gaga, Colt McCoy, Finally Friday and Delmon Young are active. While the #UNFailsSyria trend gives us some hope, once you click the trend, you quickly see there aren’t many Americans commenting on it. I guess they’re saving their tweets for Lady Gaga and celebrating the fact that Friday is indeed here.

    Apathy at its finest.

    Of course, there has been some reaction, but clearly, not enough to stir the masses the way the SOPA blackout did:

    CISPA worse than thought! Last minute provisions are chilling! http://t.co/ucssH1WW #RonPaul2012 1 hour ago via twitterfeed ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Pls RT. Congress deletes 4th Amendment: CISPA passed in sneak attack http://t.co/75pPfmGD 14 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Our government is run by people who are too out of touch personally, and technologically. #CISPA 1 hour ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    While CISPA passage through the house is indeed troubling, there’s still hope in the form of a President Obama veto, but then again, like a wonderfully-insightful Twitter user pointed out:

    Sure, Obama is promising to veto #CISPA, but how can I trust a man who can’t even ADMIT HE AM A MOOSLIM? 58 minutes ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Yes, that particular tweet was done in jest, but do not doubt there are people running around who hold that very thought dear, and that’s almost as bad as the apathetic attitudes the American public has towards CISPA. In case you’re wondering how this amended version of CISPA affects you, provided it survives a potential Obama veto, CNet has thrown together a handy FAQ discussing the many ways the bill could impact your Internet privacy.

    Among those that stood out:

    Q: Is CISPA worse than SOPA?
    For all its flaws, SOPA targeted primarily overseas Web sites, not domestic ones. It would have allowed the U.S. attorney general to seek a court order against the targeted offshore Web site that would, in turn, be served on Internet providers in an effort to make the target virtually disappear.

    It was kind of an Internet death penalty targeting Web sites like ThePirateBay.org, not sites like YouTube.com, which are already subject to U.S. law.

    CISPA, by contrast, would allow Americans’ personal information to be vacuumed up by government agencies for cybersecurity and law enforcement purposes, as long as Internet and telecommunications companies agreed [Emphasis added]. In that respect, at least, its impact is broader.

    CNet’s entry goes hand-in-hand with the idea that CISPA in its current state ignores the principles laid down in the Fourth Amendment. If that’s not enough to raise your level of consternation over how elected officials in the United States view Internet regulation, I’m not sure what will.

    Let us know your thoughts on this potentially-damaging bill. Are the fears legitimate or much ado about nothing?

  • Microsoft Kind Of Drops Support For CISPA

    Ever since its introduction, CISPA has had the support of the major tech companies. All of them use the same line about how it helps them protect themselves and consumers from cyberattacks. Civil rights groups and pretty much everybody on the Internet will tell you that it’s an invasion of privacy and violates their fourth amendment rights online (a right a judge recently said doesn’t exist). Now that CISPA has passed the House, however, the real offensive is now beginning as it heads to the Senate.

    The pressure being put on companies in support of the bill may be working now as Microsoft has kind of dropped support for the bill. Microsoft issued a statement to CNET stating their kind of support for the bill while citing privacy concerns as their main problem with the bill. Here’s the full statement from Microsoft:

    Microsoft has previously stated support for efforts to improve cyber security, and sharing threat information is an important component of those efforts. Improvements to the way this information is shared would help companies better protect customers, and online services in the United States and around the world from criminal attack. 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.

    Legislation passed by the House of Representatives yesterday is a first step in this legislative process. Since November, there has been active, constructive dialogue to identify and address concerns about the House bill, and several important changes were incorporated. 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.

    As you can see, it’s not like Microsoft has flat out dropped support for the bill. They still want to see the primary goal of the bill – the sharing of information between companies and government – to be passed. They just now realize that the bill has serious privacy concerns especially after the House refused to hear the amendments that would have made the bill better. They instead passed the bill with even worse amendments tacked on that give the government even more reason to snoop on your online activities.

    As CISPA makes it way through the rest of the legislative process, expect the resistance to grow. Even though Microsoft has kind of dropped support, I’m not sure that will be enough to keep them safe from Anonymous’ planned mass protest against the companies who support the bill. The Internet wants CISPA to die even if it does get better. Microsoft wants a better CISPA. The Internet and those that support this kind of legislation will always be at odds. Any kind of Internet regulation will always be seen as an attack on those who live and breathe the Internet.

  • Anonymous Announces Operation Defense Phase II In Response To CISPA

    I told a friend last night that it wouldn’t be long before Anonymous reacted to the news of CISPA passing the House. I was right with Anonymous uploading a new video today that announces Operation Defense Phase II.

    If you weren’t around for the first phase of Operation Defense, it was a coordinated effort to protest CISPA with various cyberattacks and other usual Anonymous tactics. The speaker in the video admits that DDoS attacks aren’t as effective anymore with many corporations upgrading their network to handle the influx of hits.

    To that end, Anonymous is proposing a joint coalition between the Occupy movement, themselves and other factions to physically protest against the corporations and politicians who support CISPA. Anonymous says to expect similar protests that were made against the church of Scientology a few years ago.

    This means that they are looking for people to protest at various locations owned by these corporations, not just at a corporate office or in a general area. In essence, they are taking the fight to places that normal people visit.

    The targets of the two month long protest will be AT&T, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Verizon, Bank of America, Chase Bank, McGraw-Hill, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Target, Wal-Mart, CVS, MasterCard, Visa, and American Express. Each protest will be set between certain dates. Consult the video for the dates of each protest. For more information, check out the official Anonymous Twitter feed for this particular movement.

    What do you think of Anonymous reinitiating its physical protests movement? Will it be effective? Let us know in the comments.

  • Facebook, Twitter Get Smacked Down In Geeky Rap

    Geeky rap artist, self proclaimed logic promoter, skeptic, and advocate for politiccal change Dan Bull is back with a couple of social media-oriented raps that ask some interesting questions about Facebook and Twitter.

    For one, what the hell is wrong with Facebook chat? Oh, they supposedly fixed it? Ok, you’re right, it does works much better than it used to. That doesn’t stop this rhyme from taking a pretty funny look at what can happen when some parts of a chat message don’t get sent:

    Attempting a Facebook chat’s neverending
    It says this forever:
    Sending…
    exactly after you’ve said something regretful it’s essential it gets corrected, like:
    I was chatting to my friend and said this:
    Let’s get together for a bevie this weekend
    But because it only sent the first section
    He gets the impressions there’s sexual tension

    Check out Bull’s takedown of some common Facebook gripes below:

    And he keeps the same beat going for a dissection of Twitter too:

    You might know Dan Bull from his various protests of internet censorship. His anti-SOPA rap went viral with the simple plea: “Do not motherf*cking censor the motherf*cking internet you motherf*cking motherf*ckers. Rather eloquent, I do believe.

    He also took on the whole Megaupload takedown, where he asked how all the links to his album all over the web being dead really helps him in any way?

    Although Bull’s latest two raps take on some of the inanities of social netoworking, he can’t help tie it into the current CISPA battle:

    (image)

    [h/t Mashable]

  • Telecomm Industry Fully Supports CISPA Passage

    In Star Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith, there’s a quote fitting the Telecommunications Industry’s reaction to the House of Representatives passing CISPA, saying “So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause. ” While a little bombastic, considering the Industry’s behavior, it’s also very apt. Who knew Senator Amidala–and George Lucas–could so profoundly predict the near future? Furthermore, who knew Natalie Portman, after all the grief she took over her prequel performances, would have such a prophetic line?

    The reason the word applause is so fitting has to do with the title–Telecommunications Industry Applauds House Passage of CISPA; Calls for Swift Senate Action on Cybersecurity–of the press release the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) put out earlier today.

    The title reveals just about all you need to know concerning the release’s content. It’s a great deal of “CISPA strikes the right balance between strong cyber protection and a flexible, innovation-friendly framework…” and “…it establishes a collaborative approach that won’t introduce heavy bureaucracy that could harm high tech innovation…”

    Some of the TIA’s more prominent members include:

    Apple
    Dell Inc.
    Dolby Laboratories Inc.
    Intel Corporation
    JPMorgan Chase & Co. — an investment firm…
    Kenwood USA Corp.
    Microsoft Corporation
    Motorola Mobility Inc.
    Nokia Inc.
    QUALCOMM
    Samsung Telecom. America

    This is only a small fraction of a clearly large and powerful contingent. I’m curious, however, about the inclusion of Motorola. Considering the Google purchase of said company, does this mean Google, a staunch opponent of SOPA, is a CISPA supporter? Furthermore, the search engine king has remained tight-lipped about their position, save for copping to lobbying efforts, does Motorola’s appearance here give Google position away?

    As for the privacy issues, your position on CISPA concerning privacy will dictate how you react to the aforementioned Star Wars quote:

    Queen Amidala herself

    Is CISPA the threat to privacy some many–including us–are making it out to be? Considering the lack of respect for the Fourth Amendment that has been heavily attached to the version that’s been approved, it’s quite possible CISPA will indeed be a threat to individual privacy. The way the amendment is worded, warrants based on probable cause do not apply. Is this something that should be applauded?

    The TIA’s statement, in its entirety:

    The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), the leading association representing the manufacturers and suppliers of high-tech global communications networks, applauded the House passage of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) and called for swift Senate action to improve the nation’s cybersecurity.

    TIA President Grant Seiffert commented, “CISPA strikes the right balance between strong cyber protection and a flexible, innovation-friendly framework. The legislation takes a significant step forward in safeguarding consumers and businesses from increasingly aggressive and sophisticated cyber attacks. At the same time, it establishes a collaborative approach that won’t introduce heavy bureaucracy that could harm high tech innovation. The relationship between government and industry that this bill supports is critical to the current and future economic success and security of America.”

    “CISPA gained bipartisan support in the House and we encourage the Senate to act quickly to consider this bill,” Seiffert continued. “The ICT industry plays an important role in detecting, preventing, and responding to cyber threats faced by U.S. institutions and businesses. Legislation that goes beyond the flexible and collaborative approach taken by CISPA could both undermine industry’s effort to fight cyber crime and generally harm American innovation.”

    Last week, TIA sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) urging them to support cybersecurity measures that protect U.S. innovation and reflect the borderless, global nature of today’s cyber threats. The letter—which can be viewed in its entirety here —encourages members of Congress to focus on the following policy goals and legislation:

    • Improving Information-sharing. Ensure that the private sector has access to information necessary to defend against cyber attacks, protect the private sector from liability for its efforts to improve cybersecurity, and support existing information-sharing and analysis organizations.
    • TIA supports the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Protection Act (H.R. 3523).

    • Supporting Cybersecurity Research and Development. Increase federal cybersecurity R&D activities to complement the significant efforts already being made by the ICT industry in this area.
    • TIA supports the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act (H.R. 2096), and also supports the Advancing America’s Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act (H.R. 3834).
    • FISMA Reform. TIA supports efforts to improve and harmonize cybersecurity programs across government agencies. In doing so, Congress should focus on the security practices of agencies and their personnel while avoiding ICT security standard requirements that could prove disruptive to the ICT supply chain.
    • Improving Public Awareness through Education. TIA strongly supports federal efforts to increase awareness of cybersecurity issues among both institutional users and the general public.

    At no point does the statement acknowledge the potential privacy–and liberty–risks CISPA represents, yet one of the more lucrative industries of the modern era fully supports the bill to the fullest.

    So again, is the potential threat to civil liberty and privacy worth applauding?

  • CISPA Pro-Privacy Amendments No Longer Being Considered

    Remember when I wrote about CISPA not being so bad just a few days ago? While I still believe that people are somewhat hypocritical when defending privacy while spilling their life story on Facebook, there were some reasons to be concerned in regards to the legislation. I was operating under the good faith that the bill was going to see some amendments before it went up to vote to make it better. Yeah, just scratch that.

    Techdirt has obtained the rules set for the CISPA debate by the House Intelligence Committee. While most of it is your standard legal jargon, there’s one bit that really just sucks. From rule three to various rules at the end, it states that all the proposed pro-privacy amendments to the bill have now been thrown out the window. It’s a rotten turn for a bill that was starting to sound pretty good.

    There was no reason given for the sudden reversal of goodwill. One Techdirt commenter points out that it could have something to do with the White House threatening to veto the bill yesterday. We don’t rightly know, but if CISPA is now being rammed through Congress to counter what they may see as a bluff, that’s a low blow to concerned citizens. You would think cybersecurity and privacy would be important enough to not use them as political tools. Unfortunately, everybody in Washington, regardless of party, has proven that nothing is sacred in this election year.

    We’ll keep you updated on any changes that may come. The house is expected to debate the bill today so there may be some new developments that arise from that. Likewise, expect big developments from the Internet party. This news is sure to strike a chord with those protesting the bill and this will only make their dissent louder.

  • White House Openly Opposes CISPA, Threatens To Veto

    Last week, we reported on a White House representative publicly denouncing CISPA. It seemed odd then that CISPA was never officially called out in the denouncement. Well, the White House has finally come out with an official letter detailing their beef with the legislation.

    The two-page letter begins by saying that the “Administration is committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats as an essential part of comprehensive legislation to provide that Nation’s vital information systems and critical infrastructure.” Well that’s all and good, but what don’t you like about it, White House?

    The sharing of information must be conducted ina manner that preserves Americans’ privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace. Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, information sharing, while an essential component of comprehensive legislation, is not alone enough to protect the Nation’s core critical infrastructure from cyber threats. Accordingly, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3523, the Cyber IntelligenceSharing and Protection Act, in its current form

    From there, the letter tears CISPA a new one paragraph by paragraph detailing each failing the bill currently has. These failings include not enough protection of privacy to the inclusion of the NSA in the bill. The last one is most important as the White House says that a cybersecurity initiative must be backed by a civilian agency like the Department of Homeland Security.

    The final sentence is the real kicker: “However, for the reasons stated herein,if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

    I think these are the very words that the Internet wanted to hear. Of course, we’re not out of the woods yet since a veto is not a definite death wish, but it’s a pretty good indicator that CISPA is not likely to pass. While I don’t think CISPA isn’t the terrible bill that many people make it out to be, it should get a good rewrite before they try it again.

    Here’s the letter for your reading pleasure:

    White House issues statement against CISPA

    [h/t: @YourAnonNews]

  • Why CISPA Could Do More Harm Than Good

    Are you familiar with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act? The bill, which is more commonly known as CISPA, is getting a considerable amount of criticism from both Internet and consumer advocates. Many of these groups are equating it with SOPA and are hoping that it will receive the same outcome.

    CISPA, and other cybersecurity bills, has recently become front and center as cyber threats have grown more prevalent. Numerous lawmakers are pushing for legislation in hopes of lessening the concerns.

    But, what would CISPA actually do? And, would it have the same impact that SOPA would have had? According to the bill itself, the goal is:

    “To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.”

    How do you feel about CISPA? Are you for or against it? Why or Why not? Please share.

    Aside from the Internet-related legislation, CISPA is not very similar to SOPA. CISPA is geared toward cybersecurity concerns and, primarily, the sharing of cyber threat information between the private sector and the government. SOPA, on the other hand, was focused on intellectual property and was pushed by the entertainment industry to address piracy issues.

    Ryan Radia, Associate Director of Technology Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute “The bills don’t have many similarities beyond the basic idea that they are both forms of government overreach,” Ryan Radia, the Associate Director of Technology Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told WebProNews.

    The reason, however, that so many have associated the bills with each other is due to the implications they would have. According to Radia, the basis of CISPA is well intentioned, but the wording of it is dangerous.

    As he explained to us, even though the bill has had multiple amendments, it is still too vague. The main controversy is in how “cyber threat information” would be interpreted and, also, what the government would do with it.

    “The information that you hand over to, say, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc., may have some nexus to a so-called cyber threat – that information could end up in the government’s hands not only for use in fighting off cyber attacks, but for use in, say, run of the mill criminal prosecutions,” said Radia.

    For instance, he told us that language such as “unauthorized access” could not only apply to hackers, but that it could also apply to users’ stretching the truth online. In other words, it could give the government access to Facebook users that lie about their age or to people that use their employer’s computers to watch YouTube videos.

    “Should lying about your age and weight on an online dating site be a federal crime?” asked Radia. “I don’t think so… this bill doesn’t make it a crime but gives government access to information that could relate to such crimes.”

    With this broad language, CISPA could drastically change all existing laws pertaining to criminal, civil, statutory, contractual, and various other cases. Although the government would not be able to use the information it receives for regulation purposes, Radia told us that CISPA would be a “prosecutor’s dream” since they could avoid obtaining court orders and other forms of red tape.

    As a result of these implications, privacy activists believe CISPA is a violation of consumer privacy rights. Radia agrees saying it poses “a very real risk to privacy.”

    “Under CISPA, we could see a whole host of information being shared with the government in ways that do represent a very real threat to privacy and that offend the basic 4th Amendment principle that we should be free from unreasonable searches,” said Radia.

    There are numerous petitions to stop CISPA, including one from Demand Progress and one from Avaaz. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has also been particularly outspoken about the harm CISPA would bring and even launched a campaign last week in protest of the bill. The EFF is hoping to give the government too much information in the form of its CongressTMI hashtag in order to “showcase the types of unnecessary private data that could be swept up under CISPA.”

    Wherever You Go, Whatever you do, Whoever you are, You are under surveillance! #StopCISPA #CongressTMI #CISPA http://t.co/OPpwXJm3 3 days ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Mad about #CISPA ending your privacy? Show Congress how annoying your data is – like a DDoS of boring! #CongressTMI http://t.co/PMI0SgH4 2 hours ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@EricCantor #EndingOurPrivacy with #CISPA? OK: Just took my dogs out. #CongressTMI. http://t.co/s3isYWDd 42 minutes ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@frankguinta Does the NSA really need to know I write posts related to political topics? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/P88YCbf2 2 hours ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    While these campaigns to stop CISPA are reminiscent of the Internet blackout in January in protest of SOPA, the Internet community has been less than active in regards to this latest piece of legislation. If you recall, almost every corner of the Internet had some form of protest from Reddit going dark to the Internet community creating memes in protest of SOPA.

    It’s not entirely clear if it’s due to apathy or just ignorance of the bill, but CISPA doesn’t face as much criticism from the Internet as a whole as SOPA did. The Avaaz petition, which is also referenced on Reddit’s front page, has over 700,000 signatures, but it pales in comparison to the anti-SOPA petition that received over 3 million signatures. It’s clear that many people just don’t see the same threat in CISPA that they did in SOPA.

    Incidentally, Tim Berners-Lee, who is one of the “fathers of the World Wide Web,” recently spoke to the Guardian and expressed his concern for CISPA.

    “[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.”

    Unlike SOPA, Internet giants such as Google and Facebook support CISPA, which has produced a divided perspective from the Internet community. Radia, however, told us that many of these companies are backing the bill for its core purpose – to make sharing information easier.

    “Companies aren’t supporting this generally because they really want to screw consumers or take away their privacy, but rather, they want more freedom to share information,” he said.

    “How much is less clear,” Radia continued. “This bill would give them, perhaps, too much freedom and give government too much freedom.”

    In addition to CISPA, there are several other cybersecurity bills in Congress. One is the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, which puts a regulatory approach on cybersecurity, and is backed by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins. Senator John McCain has also introduced a bill called the Secure IT Act that focuses on information sharing and gives more power to the private sector instead of the government.

    Other bills including the Security Amendments Act of 2012, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, and the Precise Act, are also being discussed but have not received as much media attention as the others.

    “Every one of these bills has a broad immunity grant for private sector information sharing with government,” said Radia. “None of them, in their current versions, have careful limits on the use and on… the conditions the government can place on private entities.”

    He believes that the Precise Act is the best one introduced up to this point but that, even it, borrows from the broad language of CISPA.

    In spite of all this focus on cybersecurity, Jerry Brito, the Director of the Technology Policy Program at George Mason University, recently told us that, the rhetoric in Washington about it is being overblown.

    “There really is little evidence for us to believe that we are on the brink of real calamity,” said Brito.

    Radia agrees with Brito and even suggested that cybersecurity legislation may not provide a real solution to the concerns. He, like Brito, is not convinced that a law, especially one of the bills already introduced, would actually reduce cyber threats.

    “What we need is a rifle shot – a narrow, careful target approach to ensure that the very specific types of cyber threat information are being shared with private entities and with government,” he pointed out.

    In terms of CISPA, specifically, Radia thinks it has a 50/50 chance of becoming a law. He said that it could pass the House but, beyond that, it could go either way.

    Last week, the White House issued a statement to The Hill that indicated its opposition to the bill. Although she avoided calling out CISPA directly, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said:

    “The nation’s critical infrastructure cyber vulnerabilities will not be addressed by information sharing alone. Also, while information sharing legislation is an essential component of comprehensive legislation to address critical infrastructure risks, information sharing provisions must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. Legislation without new authorities to address our nation’s critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, or legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security, will not meet our nation’s urgent needs.”

    The White House putting their weight behind the anti-CISPA efforts will help, but it seems that the bill is already undergoing some changes to improve the legislation. A recent OP-ED on Mashable reveals that the authors of the bill are currently in talks with Internet companies to reach a compromise that would satisfy all parties, including privacy-minded citizens. It’s this willingness to work with Internet companies to reach a compromise that may set CISPA apart from SOPA the most.

    The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on CISPA this week. On Digital Trends, Andrew Couts points out that, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s schedule, the House will begin debating CISPA on Thursday, April 26, and that a vote will happen no later than Friday afternoon.

    Could CISPA help reduce cyber threats, or is it a threat itself? Please share your thoughts.

  • CISPA Might Not Be So Bad After All

    What I’m about to say may shock you. So if you’re a sensitive user of the Internet, you may want to go back to Reddit and look at funny pictures to soothe your soul. Here it goes: I don’t think CISPA is as bad as everybody is making it out to be. Right now, most readers are probably thinking, “This guy has hit the loony jackpot and spewing insanity coins everywhere.” I assure you that I have not lost it and all will be explained.

    To understand the current fight against CISPA, let’s look at what came before it: SOPA and PIPA. Both bills were absolutely destructive forces of calamitous intent that sought to destroy the very thing we hold near and dear to our hearts – the Internet. In their current form, these twin pieces of legislation would wreck havoc on the world and the Internet as we know it. It’s a good thing the Internet stepped in and stopped all of it before it could do any harm.

    Now let’s take a look at CISPA. A lot of people, including our own writers, will tell you that CISPA is just SOPA wrapped in a pretty bow of cybersecurity. Full disclosure: I myself have written about the dangers of CISPA and the reasons as to why it’s rotten. The more I look at it though, the more I realize that it’s not the same apocalyptic monstrosity that was SOPA.

    First, let’s look at the main ideal behind CISPA – cybersecurity. It’s all about setting up a network where ISPs, Internet companies like Facebook and the government can freely share information that may pose a threat to the nation’s cyber welfare. I think we call agree that the basis behind the legislation is at the very least noble.

    The main cause for concern, and I’ll admit it’s a pretty big concern, is just how much information Facebook and ISPs can share with the government. I really don’t want Facebook sharing my personal details with the government and I sure as hell don’t want my ISP handing over my IP address to the authorities either.

    The problem with this line of thinking though is a presumption of privacy. We all think that we have privacy on the Internet when that is clearly not the case. As much as Facebook touts privacy as one of its biggest concerns, they’re all too willing to hand over your entire life if its subpoenaed. Of course, Facebook doesn’t have your life story unless you’re willing to share it. You think CISPA threatens your online privacy, might want to take a look at your own Facebook profile before you start pointing fingers.

    I realize that we choose to share this information with our peers and have faith that Facebook, Google+ or any other social network won’t hand this information out to anybody but the people we want seeing it. That’s a viable request and one that these services should implement. Browsers are implementing a “Do Not Track” button later this year in response to these concerns, but it’s unlikely the option will actually do much to protect privacy.

    All of this is to say that CISPA isn’t so bad when you look at it objectively. All it does is make it easier for the Internet and government to exchange information. What information? Information that you have already made publicly available online. While there may be some abuse in terms of sharing the real private stuff like email and text messages, those concerns should be addressed in the final bill.

    A recent OP-ED on Mashable confirmed that CISPA is being changed due to the complaints of Internet users. It might not be the holy grail of privacy protection that you want it to be, but it probably won’t be the Big Brother Orwellian society you think it’s going to create either.

    With that being said, I still encourage protesting CISPA and I have added my name to the petition against it. There’s still problems in CISPA that are worth addressing, but the fact of the matter is that CISPA isn’t the end all be all when it comes to the erasure of our own privacy. We’re doing that just fine by ourselves.

    By the way, if you’re so concerned about privacy, maybe you should direct your attention towards the current destroyers of actual privacy. The TSA has been effectively violating privacy in ways worse than CISPA could ever imagine and they’re even stealing your money. The NSA is also rumored to be building a giant spy surveillance center that will collection information on U.S. citizens. CISPA doesn’t even begin to scratch the absolute absurdity of these other organizations when it comes to violations of privacy.

    The whole point here is to say that yes, CISPA is a cause for concern, but don’t treat it like it’s the next incarnation of SOPA. Save all your rage and ange for the likes of ACTA and TPP. In the meantime, enter into dialogs with your elected congresspeople over your concerns. It’s apparently working and they are listening. I’m pretty sure they don’t want their privacy violated either.

  • Privacy Matters Not When It Comes To Getting A Good Deal [Infographic]

    With all the CISPA debate going on with a vote expected to go down this week, privacy is becoming the hot ticket item again. In a piece I penned earlier today, I argued that people who complain about CISPA’s lack of privacy protections are already giving away all of their personal data via social networking anyway. It’s obviously not true for everybody, but a lot of people are pretty enthusiastic about handing our their personal details especially when there’s some shopping to be done.

    A lovely infographic from our friends at Lemon.com details a recent IBM study that found people were all too willing to give up their privacy for a better shopping experience. Now they aren’t giving up all of their personal details, but it’s still the kind of stuff that people generally don’t like giving away.

    Among the statistics in the study, it was found that an overwhelming 75 percent of respondents were willing to share data about their media usage. Well, that’s not that bad. There are already plenty of tracking applications that marketers use to track this everyday. It’s the fact that the person is willingly handing it over that’s important.

    Another 73 percent are willing to hand over their demographic info. Once again, not that bad considering that marketers already use this data all the time to market to their customers. It’s when 61 percent of the respondents are willing to identify themselves by name and address that the sirens begin to go off. That’s the kind of information that nobody wants to share, but they will if there’s a personalized shopping experience to be had.

    In what may be the most damning to privacy proponents, it’s found that 56 percent are willing to share their physical location for these amazing deals. I don’t like the idea of people knowing where I am at the moment, but what if you get a localized deal for the place you’re at right that very moment. Would you agree to it then? A contemporary example is the Nintendo Zone application for the Nintendo 3DS. Depending on the location, it unlocks deals and information about shopping for that current store.

    If shoppers are to give away this information, they want something in return. What would that be? They want “communication tailored to their unique interests, locations, and lifestyles; reaching out via channels each consumer prefers (not mass media); compelling reasons to shop now; and personalized sales and offerings.” That all sounds pretty sweet and it only comes at the cost of your personal privacy.

    Privacy Matters Not When It Comes To Getting A Good Deal

    Would you give up your personal details for a better deal at, say, Best Buy or Victoria’s Secret? Or are you one of the true privacy defenders who don’t give marketers any leeway? Let us know in the comments.

  • Anonymous Plans “24 Hour Tweet Bomb” To Fight CISPA

    While it’s not the hot-button issue SOPA and PIPA became, there is something of an outcry concerning CISPA, and with the Congress preparing to vote on the bill next week (Monday, 4/23), there’s been a push from those opposing the bill to increase the opposition chatter. At the front and center of this latest rallying cry is the Anonymous hacker group, and to spread the word, the group has jumped on their Twitter account to announce the 24-hour tweet bomb that protests the bill, while raising awareness for those who may not know about CISPA.

    Over at @YourAnonNews, the group made their anti-CISPA stance known:

    REMINDER – TODAY IS A 24 HOUR #CISPATweetBomb ▬▬▬ RAISE AWARENESS OF #CISPA ▬▬▬ http://t.co/PhCNxip6 3 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    #StopCISPA SAVE THE INTERNET #StopCISPA SAVE THE INTERNET #StopCISPA SAVE THE INTERNET #StopCISPA SAVE THE INTERNET #StopCISPA 3 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    What is #CISPA? Full text of the bill is here: http://t.co/LHg5B0Y5 #SaveOurInternet #StopCISPA #CISPAtweetbomb 3 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    And then there’s this revealing tweet, which should tell you all you need to know about the people trying to regulate the Internet, all in the name of cybersecurity:

    #LULZ – Politicians Pushing #CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Don’t Even Know How To Secure Their Own Websites | http://t.co/i0EvzSw3 #StopCISPA 1 hour ago via TweetDeck ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    As indicated, CISPA is expected to be voted on next week, and while the 4/23 date has been mentioned on a number of places like Reddit, for instance, according to CNet’s report:

    The House Rules Committee has set a deadline of next Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. PT for amendments to be proposed to CISPA before a floor vote expected later next week.

    With a Tuesday deadline, and considering the bill isn’t being voted on today (4/20), the 23rd of April makes the most sense. That also means you only have one more weekend to inform yourself and figure out your position on this potentially privacy-threatening piece of Internet legislation.

  • EFF Offers Embeddable Congressional Twitter Detector to Combat CISPA

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been campaigning furiously over the past few days against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, better known on the internet as CISPA. The EFF argues that CISPA, which would allow companies to share personal information relevant to any vaguely-defined “cyber threat” with the government and private security agencies, is simply a power grab by the U.S. government and corporations who want to censor the internet. I’m inclined to agree, and I’ll point out that CISPA’s language is filled with subtler allusions to censorship than the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was, which makes it all the more vaguely threatening.

    This week the EFF began a Twitter campaign that encouraged Twitter users to tweet their representative in congress to oppose CISPA. The point of the campaign was to tweet representatives, using the hashtag #CongressTMI, with boring details of online life that would be available to them under CISPA legislation.

    Now, the EFF has provided an embed-able “Twitter Handle Detection Tool” that identifies your congressperson’s Twitter handle based on your zip code. The embed uses the Sunlight Foundation’s Sunlight Congress API which allows searches of basic information about members of congress. The Sunlight Foundation is nonpartisan non-profit that promotes transparency and openness in government.

    I would be remiss if I didn’t actually provide the embed in the article about it, so, here it is. I know it looks cut-off, but there are actually hidden scroll bars across the bottom and right sides of the embed. Go ahead, find your member of congress and tweet against CISPA. Even if you don’t oppose CISPA you probably want know your representative’s Twitter handle anyway, don’t you?

    You can get the code for the embed for the embed at the EFF deeplinks blog.

  • White House Openly Criticizes CISPA After Cybersecurity Briefing

    While the Internet has been increasing its opposition to CISPA over the past few weeks, the White House has been relatively quiet on the issue. The administration broke its silence last night when it announced its opposition to the controversial legislation.

    The Hill reports that the administration held a briefing with all members of the House, where CISPA is currently doing the rounds, to discuss the legislation and other cybersecurity concerns. The briefing was led by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller, NSA Director Keith Alexander and Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Stephanie O’Sullivan.

    After this briefing, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden issued a statement to The Hill saying that “any cybersecurity legislation should include strong privacy protections and should set mandatory security standards for critical infrastructure systems.”

    The full statement provided to The Hill details the administration’s thoughts on the matter:

    “The nation’s critical infrastructure cyber vulnerabilities will not be addressed by information sharing alone. Also, while information sharing legislation is an essential component of comprehensive legislation to address critical infrastructure risks, information sharing provisions must include robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. Legislation without new authorities to address our nation’s critical infrastructure vulnerabilities, or legislation that would sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security, will not meet our nation’s urgent needs.”

    The troubling part about this is that Hayden never explicitly mentioned CISPA when providing this statement. While it’s pretty obvious she means CISPA since the statement is directed at privacy concerns, it’s still not an outright declaration of opposition.

    In other worrying news, it was also revealed that the White House is in favor of granted the government “new regulatory powers” to protect the U.S. from “devastating cyber attacks.” The Hill points out that the White House currently backs Senator Joe Lieberman’s cybersecurity bill that would put the power of enforcing cybersecurity into the hands of the Homeland Security department. Senator John McCain introduced a similar bill that would put that power into the hands of the NSA.

    CISPA is wholly unique in that it goes above and beyond the powers listed in the previous two bills by allowing corporations to share a user’s private information with the government and spy agencies without a warrant.

    While it wasn’t the outright opposition we wanted, it’s good to know that the White House is at least aware of CISPA and the concerns that groups like the EFF have brought against it. CISPA goes up for a vote next week. We’ll keep you updated if the White House voices opposition or if anything else happens.

  • EFF Reaffirms Why CISPA Is So Bad

    EFF Reaffirms Why CISPA Is So Bad

    I think we can all agree that CISPA is pretty rotten. It’s just another attempt at ramming Internet regulation ala SOPA through the gates to give a limited few an advantage while the online civil liberties of everybody else suffers. While I don’t need to tell you why it’s so bad, the people in Congress need to know.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently attached their names to two coalition letters that explain in great detail why CISPA is just so bad. The two letters address two different parts of the proposed legislation that are both equally miserable.

    The first letter details the privacy concerns that many people have in regards to CISPA. I don’t think you need to be reminded, but it bears repeating why CISPA is such an affront to our privacy online. The letter reads:

    CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity. Although a carefully-crafted information sharing program that strictly limits the information to be shared and includes robust privacy safeguards could be an effective approach to cybersecurity, CISPA lacks such protections for individual rights. CISPA’s ‘information sharing’ regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet use history or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for any nonregulatory purpose so long as one significant purpose is for cybersecurity or to protect national security. These are not meaningful use restrictions: “national security” use is one of the problems, and the White House recognized this immense problem by precluding such use in its own cybersecurity proposal. While the bill requires the Director of National Intelligence Inspector General to issue annual reports on the government’s use of information shared with it under the bill, such reports would only be provided to congressional intelligence committees, and IG reports are no substitute for meaningful use restrictions and they will do nothing to dissuade companies from misusing personal information shared under this broad new program.

    The letter is signed by the usual suspects fighting for online freedoms including the American Library Association, Consumer Watchdog and the National Whistleblower Center among others.

    The other letter covers the less talked about portion of the bill. The fact that CISPA reduces government and corporate accountability by allowing both groups to share private information without alerting citizens that it’s being shared. The letter reads:

    In the interest of encouraging private companies to share cybersecurity threat information, the bill unwisely and unnecessarily cuts off all public access to cyber threat information before the public and Congress have the chance to understand the types of information that are withheld under the bill. Much of the sensitive information private companies are likely to share with the government is already protected from disclosure under the FOIA. Other information that may be shared could be critical for the public to ensure its safety. The public needs access to some information to be able to assess whether the government is adequately combating cybersecurity threats and, when necessary, hold officials accountable.

    Any effort to expand of the authority of the federal government to withhold information from the public should begin with careful consideration, including public hearings, by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over FOIA. That Committee has the expertise needed to ensure that FOIA-related provisions promote transparency and public accountability while allowing the government to withhold only that information which truly requires protection.

    There is a lot of overlap between these two letters as many of the same organizations joined the undersigned. Some of the new ones though include the American Society of News Editors, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the Entertainment Consumers Association.

    While a lot of this is old news by now to the Internet minded folks among us, it hasn’t gotten as much coverage as SOPA and PIPA. I almost fear that unless another blackout happens that people just aren’t going to care. That’s why letters like this are so important. They may be addressed to representatives, but they should be read by all so they can make an informed decision.

    If these letters have awoken the Internet crusader inside of you, check out the EFF’s #CongressTMI hashtag campaign. It’s a fun way to express your concerns to your representatives with a bit of humor and satire.

  • EFF Starts #CongressTMI Campaign To Raise CISPA Awareness

    Twitter trends are sometimes the most intellectually bankrupt form of communication on the Web. It’s truly disheartening at the worst of times, but sometimes there comes along such a fantastic trend that it just restores my faith in humanity just a little bit.

    The EFF has started a hashtag campaign to raise CISPA awareness called #CongressTMI. The point is to send your members of Congress Tweets telling them about your boring online lives that would be made available to them under CISPA.

    It’s a short, sweet campaign that uses humor to bring attention to a serious issue. It’s already known that CISPA would allow ISPs and Internet companies like Facebook to hand over your information, but what kind of information? The proponents say it’s only for cyber crimes, but Twitter users think they may collect a little bit more. Here’s some of our favorite #CongressTMI tweets:

    .@jasoninthehouse #EndingOurPrivacy with #CISPA? OK: Why are my hands always so dry… #CongressTMI. http://t.co/lSBKlZWv 6 minutes ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    My rule is: anyone who reads my email has to answer the hard ones. I’ll star them for you. #CongressTMI 9 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@RepBuerkle EndingOurPrivacy with CISPA? OK: EATING SOME TACOS BRO http://t.co/1rFg0MqA #EndingOurPrivacy #CISPA #CongressTMI 16 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@RepLynnWoolsey #EndingOurPrivacy with #CISPA? OK: Hard at work or hardly working? amirite?! #CongressTMI. http://t.co/16X5zTvA 21 minutes ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@RepMikeQuigley Does the CIA really need to know I check the weather channel website daily? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/FLSoX2Hm 1 hour ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    BTW, I’m not actually a sociopath. Thanks for checking, FBI. #CongressTMI stop #CISPA 31 minutes ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@replouiegohmert Does the NSA really need to know I edit Wikipedia articled on burritos? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/QOvQ49ns 43 minutes ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@GerryConnolly Does the FBI really need to know my mother stalks my Facebook page? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/ZFpuX9kQ 53 minutes ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@RepKayGranger My ISP & gov don’t need to know just how I flirt w/ more than 1 gal at a time #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/zj1oe1TW 1 hour ago via Twitter for iPhone ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Gov’t, wanna know what I get from Pizza Hut every time I order? #CongressTMI 1 hour ago via Twitter for Android ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@RepAdamSchiff Does the NSA really need to know I always have HackerNews open? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/pWnvuWxS 1 hour ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@JudgeTedPoe Does the NSA really need to know I am following Mirceas Boobs on Twitter?? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/sb9sp1f9 1 hour ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@HouseIntelComm Does the NSA really need to know I prefer Zerg over Terran or Protoss? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/57GWg72D 2 hours ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@StevenPalazzo Why waste tax dollars having the NSA read what you won’t read yourself? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/p9Dz0OpF 5 hours ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    If Congress passes #CISPA maybe we can go low tech and save the US postal system! Or do the Feds read our paper mail now too? #CongressTMI 5 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    @HouseIntelComm – Congress already knows it has a lower approval rating than herpes. How do you think spying on us will help? #CongressTMI 7 hours ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    .@NancyPelosi Does the FBI need to know I share an HBOGO account with 8 other people? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA https://t.co/pcM8Mnx6 1 day ago via Tweet Button ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

    Would the NSA like a real time feed of my World of Warcraft achievements? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA 1 day ago via web ·  Reply ·  Retweet ·  Favorite · powered by @socialditto

  • The EFF’s Handy Cybersecurity FAQ Answers Many Questions

    Considering the tumultuous atmosphere surrounding the concepts of cybersecurity and Internet regulation, all in the name of CISPA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has released a FAQ discussing the privacy threat such pieces of legislation contain. After a quick glance at the document, it’s clear that if the government gets its way and CISPA passes as is, Internet privacy will be something we look back on, wondering how it got away from us so easily.

    Aside from the intellectual property portions of CISPA, which now has an amendment attached to it, there are other privacy issues to be aware of, something the EFF’s FAQ discusses at length. It should be noted the EFF is at odds with much of what CISPA stands for, including the bill’s premise:

    The bill purports to allow companies and the federal government to share information to prevent or defend from cyberattacks. However, the bill expressly authorizes monitoring of our private communications, and is written so broadly that it allows companies to hand over large swaths of personal information to the government with no judicial oversight—effectively creating a “cybersecurity” loophole in all existing privacy laws.

    As you can see, the EFF’s initial position has nothing to do with overreaching methods of piracy prevention. They’re just as concerned with the privacy implications CISPA poses. One area of focus has to do with privacy surrounding emails, a right CISPA threatens:

    Under CISPA, can a private company read my emails?

    Yes. Under CISPA, any company can “use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property” of the company. This phrase is being interpreted to mean monitoring your communications—including the contents of email or private messages on Facebook… Right now, well-established laws, like the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, prevent companies from routinely monitoring your private communications… CISPA destroys these protections by declaring that any provision in CISPA is effective “notwithstanding any other law” and by creating a broad immunity for companies against both civil and criminal liability. This means companies can bypass all existing laws, as long as they claim a vague “cybersecurity” purpose.

    How does that strike you? Hopefully, the fact that, by invoking CISPA, your private email and your social media accounts can be monitored by non-law enforcement officials is a scary one.

    Furthermore, that, alone should be enough to oppose the bill, but the EFF continues with these personal communication warnings:

    Under CISPA, can a company hand my communications over to the government without a warrant?

    Yes. After collecting your communications, companies can then voluntarily hand them over to the government with no warrant or judicial oversight whatsoever as long is the communications have what the companies interpret to be “cyber threat information” in them. Once the government has your communications, they can read them too.

    With that in mind, how does Facebook’s (among others) support for this bill strike you? Are you ready to boycott Zuckerberg’s omnipresent creation? Under the stipulations of CISPA, Facebook can hand over your messages and other account information without a warrant. If that doesn’t strike a little fear, or at least, give you pause about Facebook’s support of CISPA, I’m not sure anything will.

    As for the intellectual property protections CISPA provided, a recent amendment implies some progress has been made on that particular front, but it’s not completely dead, either:

    In response to the overwhelming protest from the Internet community that this bill would become a backdoor for SOPA 2, the bill authors have proposed an amendment that rids the bill of any reference to “intellectual property…” But it is important to remember that this proposed amendment is just that: proposed. The House has not voted it into the bill yet, so they still must follow through and remove it completely.

    With intellectual property protections being potentially removed from CISPA, now the focus is on the potential invasions of privacy the bill represents. With that in mind, the EFF suggests you take the following steps, provided you’re a CISPA opponent:

    What can I do to stop this bill?

    It’s vital that concerned Internet users tell Congress to stop this bill. Use EFF’s action center to send an email to your Congress member urging them to oppose this bill.

    Does the potential removal of “intellectual property” literature change your postion on the bill or is the threat to privacy CISPA potentially represents enough for you to maintain your opposition?

  • Facebook Responds To CISPA Criticism

    After Demand Progress took Facebook to task over the service’s support of CISPA, through the use of of an online petition, the social media king offered a response to quell the masses. According to their email updates, Demand Progress’ petition has reached almost 200,000 signatures, enough to get the attention of Mark Zuckerberg and the rest of his inner circle.

    To address any concerns or misconceptions, Facebook posted a response that tries to salve any potential wounds, although, based on some of the statements, perhaps Joel Kaplan, Vice President of Facebook’s U.S. Public Policy, missed the point of the backlash, or at least ignored the part that could be twisted to fit anti-piracy measures:

    That said, we recognize that a number of privacy and civil liberties groups have raised concerns about the bill – in particular about provisions that enable private companies to voluntarily share cyber threat data with the government. The concern is that companies will share sensitive personal information with the government in the name of protecting cybersecurity. Facebook has no intention of doing this and it is unrelated to the things we liked about HR 3523 in the first place — the additional information it would provide us about specific cyber threats to our systems and users. [Emphasis added]

    Actually, that’s not what the outcry was about, at least not predominantly. Over at Digital Trends, Andrew Couts summed up the danger CISPA represents quite clearly:

    CISPA is a terrible piece of legislation, one that very well could result in the government blocking access to websites on the basis of copyright infringement, or sites like Wikileaks under the guise of national security.

    The reason why CISPA is a threat has to do with, among other things, the bill’s prominent mention of the phrase “intellectual property,” throughout the bill, like so: “theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.”

    As far as CISPA is concerned, intellectual property theft–otherwise known as piracy–represents a threat to cybersecurity. With that in mind, the sharing of personal information is not the issue. Giving the United States government carte blanche to takedown potentially infringing sites without due process or a thorough investigation is.

    Scumbag Zuckerberg

    Facebook’s response continues on, detailing why the company supports CISPA:

    The overriding goal of any cybersecurity bill should be to protect the security of networks and private data, and we take any concerns about how legislation might negatively impact Internet users’ privacy seriously. As a result, we’ve been engaging directly with key lawmakers as well as industry and consumer groups about potential changes to the bill to help address privacy concerns.

    The bill’s sponsors, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger, have stated publicly that they are working with privacy and civil liberties groups to address legitimate questions and concerns about how information might be shared with the government under the bill. They’ve made clear that the door is still open to change the bill before it comes to the House floor for consideration.

    We hope that as Congress moves forward in considering this and any other cyber legislation, the result will be legislation that helps give companies like ours the tools we need to protect our systems and the security of our users’ information, while also providing those users confidence that adequate privacy safeguards are in place.

    Again, it’s not solely about personal privacy. As Demand Progress puts it, it’s about:

    …the new bill that would obliterate online privacy, give the military crazy new abilities to spy on the Internet, and potentially let ISPs block sites and cut off users accused of piracy.

    Personal privacy, something Facebook as been problematic in protecting in the past as it is, is not the main thrust of the anti-CISPA push back.

  • Demand Progress Clowns Mark Zuckerberg

    Demand Progress Clowns Mark Zuckerberg

    The backlash against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook over the company’s support for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, otherwise known as CISPA, has been fairly quiet. Yes, the new media got ahold of it, but the public reaction has been muted.

    Perhaps the only way people will give up their Facebook is when you pry it from their cold, dead hands.

    Considering Facebook is supporting a bill, that, on the surface promises better cybersecurity, that’s probably a good enough for them to continue using Facebook while blindly support of Zynga and their “we like that game, so let’s make one exactly like it without giving credit to the original developers” ways. Hopefully, however, there are some that take a closer look at CISPA and realize the threat it poses in relation to intellectual property protection. Furthermore, if/when they do make that realization, their attitude towards Facebook and the company’s support of CISPA will change.

    Does that mean a Facebook boycott/blackout is coming? If Demand Progress has their way, then a Facebook boycott may indeed come to fruition. With the new petition page, the activism organization is trying to inform the public about Facebook’s agreement, while discussing why it’s a bad idea. To do so, they feature the following incredible meme image of Zuckerberg, one that takes its cue from Scumbag Steve.

    Scumbag Zuckerberg

    Nifty meme images are the not the only weapon in Demand Progress’ armory, either. To illustrate their point, they offer the following:

    What is Facebook thinking? They’ve signed on in support of CISPA — the new bill that would obliterate online privacy, give the military crazy new abilities to spy on the Internet, and potentially let ISPs block sites and cut off users accused of piracy… Internet users were able to push GoDaddy to withdraw its support of SOPA. Now it’s time to make sure Facebook knows we’re furious.

    The reason for Demand Progress’ anger is summed up perfectly by a featured quote from the Electronic Fronteir Foundation:

    An ISP could even interpret this bill as allowing them to block accounts believed to be infringing, block access to websites like The Pirate Bay believed to carry infringing content, or take other measures provided they claimed it was motivated by cybersecurity concerns.

    With that in mind, if Facebook’s support of CISPA continues, will your relationship with that service? Or will you terminate your Facebook account and move on to a life without Facebook smack coursing through your veins?

    Conversely, if you’re one of the ones who simply can’t protest and/or leave Facebook, regardless of their CISPA support, what will it take for you stand up against those who support such dangerous measures? Or are you of the mind that, as long as your friends are on Facebook, you see no reason to be anything other than apathetic towards things like CISPA and SOPA?

    Let us know what you think. If you’d like to sign the Demand Progress petition, you can do so here.

  • A Handy CISPA Infographic Clarifies The Issues

    Does the fact that companies like Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, and Intel mean that CISPA is the friendly, less intrusive version of SOPA or are these companies supporting the bill for reasons not related to intellectual property? Actually, in regards to many of the companies supporting CISPA, are doing so not for the IP protection; instead, a company like Facebook is praising the bill for the improvements it offers to the world of cybersecurity.

    A quote from Facebook’s letter of support indicates as much:

    Effective security requires private and public sector cooperation, and successful cooperation necessitates information sharing. Your legislation removes burdensome rules that currently can inhibit protection of the cyber ecosystem, and helps provide a more established structure for sharing within the cyber community while still respecting the privacy rights and expectations of our users.

    While an admirable position, should better cybersecurity bills come with loopholes to shutdown intellectual property infringers, all in the name of national security? Because that’s what’s happening. The following infographic, courtesy of LuminConsulting.com, highlights some important issues about CISPA we, the people, should be informed about.

    This includes the threat to piracy it constitutes, the fact that CISPA may be in direct violation with the 4th Amendment, and how it gives companies the right to disregard your privacy at will. But hey, as long as CISPA improves cybersecurity, it’s all good, right? At least according the aforementioned companies.

    With that in mind, here are some reasons to oppose CISPA:

    CISPA Infographic
    Click for full size

    While there are other well-known companies on the list of CISPA supporters, the one that stands out the most, at least to Internet users, is Facebook. Does their support of such a bill cause you to consider bailing on Zuckerberg’s prolific creation, or does the fact that all of your Farmville-playing friends still use Facebook allow you to turn a blind eye to such things?

    Let us know what you think.

    [Lead image courtesy]

  • Corporations Supporting CISPA Include Facebook, Microsoft

    Is this how unwanted Internet regulation passes? When enough popular web-based/tech corporations support a bill that’s potentially as damaging as SOPA, causing their legion of followers to accept the inevitable? If so, there’s a really good chance the backlash SOPA experienced could be a thing of past, at least in regards to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

    The question is, which corporations are supporting the bill, making is such a viable option to its SOPA/PIPA predecessors? Thanks to the openness of the U.S. Government, we have a list of CISPA supporters, and after the SOPA backlash, some of names might surprise you:

    AT&T
    Boeing
    BSA
    Business Roundtable
    CSC
    COMPTEL
    CTIA – The Wireless Association
    Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association
    Edison Electric
    EMC
    Exelon
    Facebook
    The Financial Services Roundtable
    IBM
    Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
    Information Technology Industry Council
    Intel
    Internet Security Alliance
    Lockheed Martin
    Microsoft
    National Cable & Telecommunications Association
    NDIA
    Oracle
    Symantec
    TechAmerica
    US Chamber of Commerce
    US Telecom – The Broadband Association
    Verizon

    The links go to the individual letters of support, and as you might’ve noticed, Facebook, a company that was outspoken against SOPA, is on the CISPA supporters list. Their letter of support includes the following:

    Effective security requires private and public sector cooperation, and successful cooperation necessitates information sharing. Your legislation removes burdensome rules that currently can inhibit protection of the cyber ecosystem, and helps provide a more established structure for sharing within the cyber community while still respecting the privacy rights and expectations of our users. Through timely sharing of threat information, both public and private entities will be able to more effectively combat malicious activity in cyberspace and protect consumers.

    As you can see, Facebook’s rationale for supporting CISPA is protecting consumers and combating malicious Internet activity. Furthermore, there letter of support does not mention intellectual property protection or protecting the entertainment industry from piracy. With that in mind, does this mean CISPA is nothing like SOPA and the reaction against it is misguided?

    Not exactly.

    On surface, CISPA focuses on the sharing of important cybersecurity information between government officials and companies the information could effect. But, the bill goes further, including portions about protecting intellectual property that remind some of SOPA and PIPA. An example from the actual bill (H.R. 3523):

    (2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence’ means 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–

    `(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

    `(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

    And this is far from the only mention of IP in the bill. If an IP thief is considered a threat to cyber security and intelligence, can anyone foresee a scenario where a website like The Pirate Bay would be viewed as a threat and blocked from U.S. web users, if not altogether taken down by a multinational task force?

    Or, as Andrew Couts described it in his “CISPA is not the new SOPA: Here’s why” article:

    CISPA is a terrible piece of legislation, one that very well could result in the government blocking access to websites on the basis of copyright infringement, or sites like Wikileaks under the guise of national security.

    With that in mind, perhaps CISPA is more like SOPA than we first thought. The big difference is, companies like Facebook and Microsoft are not opposed to CISPA like they were PIPA/SOPA. Does that kind of support change your view about these kinds of bills or are you against any kind of “cyberspace” regulation that gives more control to the U.S. government?

    I know what Julia O’Dwyer’s answer would be