WebProNews

Tag: Veto

  • White House Threatens To Veto CISPA, Recommends Fixes To Bill’s Language

    White House Threatens To Veto CISPA, Recommends Fixes To Bill’s Language

    Last week, the White House said that CISPA still had some problems that weren’t addressed by the amendments added during its markup period. Unfortunately, the administration didn’t issue a veto threat at that time, but now it has.

    In a statement released by the White House today, the Obama administration laid out its beef with CISPA. The first issue it has with the legislation is that it still doesn’t do enough to protect private information:

    The Administration, however, remains concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable – and not granted immunity – for failing to safeguard personal information adequately. The Administration is committed to working with all stakeholders to find a workable solution to this challenge. Moreover, the Administration is confident that such measures can be crafted in a way that is not overly onerous or cost prohibitive on the businesses sending the information.

    Now this is huge. The administration is saying that companies should not be granted immunity if it uses your private information in an inappropriate fashion. Corporate immunity is one of the cornerstones of CISPA and one of the main reasons the tech industry is so in love with it. If the immunity provision is removed, the backing of the tech industry will vanish along with it.

    The other issue is that it doesn’t like how CISPA allows companies to share private information with any agency of its choosing, including the NSA. The White Houses says that all private information should enter government through a civilian agency:

    The Administration supports the longstanding tradition to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres, while recognizing that the Nation’s cybersecurity requires shared responsibility from individual users, private sector network owners and operators, and the appropriate collaboration of civilian, law enforcement, and national security entities in government. H.R. 624 appropriately seeks to make clear that existing public-private relationships – whether 2 voluntary, contractual, or regulatory – should be preserved and uninterrupted by this newly authorized information sharing. However, newly authorized information sharing for cybersecurity purposes from the private sector to the government should enter the government through a civilian agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

    So, what does the White House want to see out of CISPA or any other cybersecurity bill? Pretty much what CISPA is now, but with better privacy protections:

    The Administration believes that carefully updating laws to facilitate cybersecurity information sharing is one of several legislative changes essential to protect individuals’ privacy and improve the Nation’s cybersecurity. While there is bipartisan consensus on the need for such legislation, it should adhere to the following priorities: (1) carefully safeguard privacy and civil liberties; (2) preserve the long-standing, respective roles and missions of civilian and intelligence agencies; and (3) provide for appropriate sharing with targeted liability protections.

    If Congress can’t agree on a cybersecurity bill that meets the above criteria, the White House says that “senior advisors would recommend that [the president] veto the bill” if it were presented as it is now.

    The threat of a veto might help certain amendments to be added onto CISPA before it goes to the floor for a vote this week, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. The bill’s authors seem pretty adamant on passing CISPA as is, and it will most likely die another ignoble death in the Senate as its members push for their own cybersecurity bill.

    [h/t: TechDirt]

  • CISPA Sponsor Doesn’t Think Obama Will Veto CISPA

    We haven’t heard much from the CISPA/SOPA front, but every now and then, an eager-to-please-the-entertainment-industry representative pops up to remind us that legislation like the widely rejected SOPA and CISPA is still on the minds of some folks in Washington. One such representative, Mike Rogers (R-Michigan), is going as far to say that he doubts President Obama would veto CISPA, even though the White House has been pretty resolute about where it stands concerning current efforts to regulate the Internet.

    It even went as far to directly oppose CISPA in a Statement of Administration Policy.

    That, however, hasn’t stopped Representative Rogers from hoping for an alternative outcome. As pointed out by GeekOSystem (via The Daily Dot), Rogers says as much:

    “[I]f we can get a bill on information-sharing to the president’s desk, he’ll sign it. I do believe that…”

    As far as the motivation for Rogers’ belief, that remains an unknown, although, it’s clear he firmly believes Obama will be on CISPA’s side when everything falls into place, something the Daily Dot’s post indicates as well:

    Once the “dust settles,” Rogers predicted, Obama’s only option to enforce U.S. cybersecurity will be to sign CISPA.

    While trying to gauge Rogers’ motivation for his CISPA confidence, both posts point to the retirement of Howard Schmidt, the White House’s adviser on cybersecurity, as a potential reason for the White House’s apparent change of heart concerning Internet regulation, provided that is truly the case. The uncertainty surrounding the White House’s current position on CISPA has to do with the fact that Schmidt’s successor, Michael Daniel, has not made his postion concerning CISPA public.

    If the White House’s position concerning CISPA and other forms of Internet regulation depends solely on their cybersecurity advisor’s recommendation, then perhaps the cries that the United States government isn’t fit to regulate the Internet are a lot closer to the truth than one might think. One thing’s pretty apparent: if President Obama does allow some haphazard form of Internet regulation pass without a veto, his stock with the free thinkers of the country would diminish even more than it already has.

  • 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]

  • Obama Threatens To Veto Any Net Neutrality Repeals

    Obama Threatens To Veto Any Net Neutrality Repeals

    Net neutrality, because of extreme corporate influence, has been a contentious issue ever since it was introduced. In fact, the subject has been completely muddied by a lack of understanding from various outspoken anti-Obama groups to the point where a large majority of people who oppose it have no idea what it is they are opposing.

    For further insight into this dilemma, check out the comments from a Breitbart TV piece. Statements like:

    Here’s a thought…maybe since obummer and the socialist have used the internet to over through governments, they want to use net neutrality to make sure they control the internet so nobody over throughs their nwo.

    And:

    Steve sure helped clarify Net Neuter for me. The traffic jam analogy was very good, and how EVIL corporations like Google that are *Okay for the libtarded to operate, potentially unhindered is now made crystal clear for me.

    Help prove the abject ignorance that surrounds the topic. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms of how the FCC modeled their approach to net neutrality, but the concept is a vital one, especially for those of us who do not want to see Internet service provision become an offshoot of cable television packages.

    Or those of us who don’t want corporate influence to determine when, where, how, and why we use the Internet.

    With that in mind, the news that President Obama will veto any repeal of net neutrality should be welcomed with open arms from those of us who truly want a free and open Internet. Currently, a group of Republican senators are working hard to remove the bill from the books, following the lead of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The Hill explains:

    The House approved a resolution to repeal the rules in April. The Senate version is sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and has an additional 42 Republican co-sponsors. It has no Democratic co-sponsors.

    For an extended look at Hutchinson’s misguided approach to Internet legislation, take a look at this gem:


    Once again, the utterly incorrect stance of “net neutrality stifles innovation” is used by Hutchinson, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. Hutchinson says she’s against the government controlling the Internet, but she apparently has no issue with companies like AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, and Comcast assuming that role. Of course, if you take a quick look at the corporations that contributed to Hutchinson’s coffers, you’ll find AT&T, one of the companies that would lose control if the FCC’s version of net neutrality survives the legislative process.

    And that’s where Obama’s veto hammer comes into play. The Hill has a quote from the White House, explaining their position quite clearly:

    “The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy — an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open,” the White House said.

    It should be noted that Obama’s list of donors include Time-Warner and he has rubbed shoulders both AT&T and Verizon. Nevertheless, at least in the case of net neutrality, Obama hasn’t let these companies influence his stance.

    Now, in regards to PROTECT-IP and other related legislative pieces, perhaps, but not with net neutrality, something his veto talk should indicate quite clearly.