Posted on 04/26/2012 8:08:39 PM PDT by voicereason
The U.S. House of Representatives today approved a controversial Internet surveillance bill, rejecting increasingly vocal arguments from critics that it would do more to endanger Americans' privacy than aid cybersecurity.
By a vote of 248 to 168, a bipartisan majority approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, which would permit Internet companies to hand over confidential customer records and communications to the National Security Agency and other portions of the U.S. government.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.cnet.com ...
as if my day hasn’t been stressful enough...
Good grief.
/johnny
I thought we voted in a Republican Majority in the US House so this kind of crap would not occur.
From the article it sounds like it was the Republicans who were pushing for this and the dems who were fighting it.
Reminds me of the legislation allowing US citizens to be arrested and/or detained indefinitely for being “belligerent” (with no definition for “belligerent”). How any Republican voted for that I’ll never know. It’s a signed blank check for the government to dispose of anybody they want to, no questions asked.
I’m increasingly convinced that the end has got to be near.
Where is the roll call for this abomination? I know clueless “conservative” Lamar Smith must have voted for it. I suspect Allen West did too, along with a host of other “Tea Party” candidates.
Sort of. It was about 20 years ago.
It’s getting harder and harder to cling to the delusion you have a dog in the fight isn’t it? Creeping tyranny has become cantering tyranny.
Permit today.
Require tomorrow.
Here is my congressman’s post on Facebook, supposedly explaining his vote:
Update on possible changes to CISPA to protect privacy rights [UPDATED]
by Congressman Tim Griffin on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 2:43pm ·
It is essential that we act to protect ourselves from cyber threats. This is painfully obvious to anyone paying attention to recent headlines like these:
Washington Times: U.S. seen as Iran ‘cyberarmy’ target, April 25, 2012
Wall Street Journal: U.S. Outgunned in Hacker War, March 27, 2012
Smithsonian magazine: Richard Clarke on Who Was Behind the Stuxnet Attack, April 2012
Later this week, the House will vote on H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which several folks have expressed concerns about. Some have claimed that, in the bill’s current form, individuals’ privacy rights may be threatened. With that in mind, I’m studying several amendments that have been proposed to address the concerns I’ve heard.
It’s important to note that CISPA is not in its final form. You can read the bill and the proposed amendments on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence’s website.
Heritage Foundation national security law expert Paul Rosenzweig, who strongly criticized SOPA, says that these amendments to CISPA address “most, if not all, of the privacy concerns leveled against it.”
Two major opponents of SOPA, Dan Kaminsky and Stewart Baker, also weighed in on CISPA, saying, “We knew SOPA, we fought SOPA, and CISPA is no SOPA.”
It’s important that we strike an appropriate balance between security and privacy. I understand the concerns of my constituents, and I will continue working with my colleagues to ensure that CISPA includes provisions that protect individuals’ privacy rights.
UPDATED Thursday, April 26, 6:30 PM CT:
The House passed CISPA after agreeing to six amendments that strengthen individuals’ privacy rights and directly address the concerns my constituents expressed to me. After careful consideration, I voted for it. You can see how everyone else voted here.
Here are the six amendments to CISPA that were agreed to before passage. I voted for them all.
1) Rogers (MI) Amendment: Makes clear that information already subject to FOIA by law remains subject to FOIA.
2) Quayle Amendment: Amendment to further limit government use of information shared under the bill only to: 1) cybersecurity purposes, 2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes, 3) protection of individuals from danger of death or serious bodily harm, 4) protection of minors from child pornography or risk of sexual exploitation or serious threats to physical safety, and 5) protection of the national security of the United States.
3) Amash Amendment: Prohibits the federal government from using library records, firearms sales records, and tax returns it receives from private entities under the bill.
4) Mulvaney Amendment #8: Improves anonymization and minimization provisions by providing clear authority to create procedures to protect privacy and civil liberties.
5) Goodlatte Amendment: Improves the definitions in the bill to clarify and narrow the information that can be shared with the government.
6) Mulvaney Amendment #15: Sunsets the provisions of the bill five years after enactment.
Thank you.
Just as I thought: WestAye.
feet of clay....
Oh, and for all Paulbots, here is how the GREAT LIBERTARIAN stood in the gap for your rights:
PaulNot Voting
6) is a real knee-slapper.
When the fed-gov takes power, it never relinquishes it.
Same fools that voted for the Patriot act and started calling everything the Homeland. Fake Patriots...
Looks like Congress wants to return the gavel to Pelosi.
tell me again why i should waste the fuel to drive to the polls...just another opportunity for a seatbelt ticket ???
When are people going to realize the right foot and left foot are just charades to give the rabble something to bicker about while the giant walks toward the same abyss. Right foot, left foot, right foot, left foot.
We are going the same direction no matter which one is “in power”.
What is Rand’s position on this. I like him a lot more than his dad.
You probably shouldn't be posting that you don't wear seatbelts with this new internet spy law coming out.
Wait till the Republican Tea Party revolution House passes a new Federal seat-belt law.
You have to vote Republican 'To save the country'.
Yeah, but for purposes of truth in advertising the names should be changed to "Evil" and "Witless."
actually, i didnt post that i dont wear em...just the FACT that i can get cited for it, regardless, everytime i leave the house, on the whim of the nannies...
soon, even stayin in the house will cross the line of the lords...
———Quayle Amendment: ———
We have here the work of an up and coming conservative who is destined for greater things.
I saw him on Cavuto some time ago and was very impressed with his bearing and his words
once we're all safely restrained in our basements, then the tp will have completed the mission...
I am always worried that Republicans might betray us and work with Dems on an across state line sales tax regulation that forces companies outside of states to collect their sales taxes,.
In principle I would have to oppose this thing but the reality is that this crap is already happening. The law only makes it officially permitted. Whether or not the services are “handing over” the material, the government is getting it, all of it. Making it legal, I suppose, makes the info legally available for use in prosecuting or shutting down citizens and services for whatever.
We work hard and we get our guys elected but the reality is that at the moment when their elections are secured they cease to be our guys. The money available to them in open and covert bribery and general corruption is far greater for liberals and totalitarians than it is for conservatives, enough so that the knowledge that they might be there for but a single term if they abandon those who elected them is not enough to "keep them honest." It is essentially a protection racket up there. Corporate money flows to the politicians (and bureaucrats) who are in a position and and have the proclivity to hurt you. It is protection money. Conservative officeholders already oppose regulation and taxation thus don't have to be placated. Liberal officeholders' financial status is upgraded tremendously in one term, Conservatives in office do not share in that largesse.
A seatbelt violation easily becomes a citation enhancement for a motorist who, when pulled over for whatever, says “huh?” instead of “I’m sorry, Sir, yes Sir, I deserve more, Sir” whether he is wearing one or not.
I find it interesting how much the arguments can change over time. I remember when Jerry Williams was leading the fight against seatbelt laws in MA and even got the law overturned in the late eighties. A few years later the law was put back in and now it's taken for granted that it has always been that way and we just want the points to not go on our insurance.
There's no reflection on the battle over mandatory insurance laws, seatbelt laws, the major fight over federal speed limits or even the loss of personal liberty that income tax caused.
It's the Overton Window.
There is a certain sort of stupid “conservative” who claims to be for limited government. But say the words “law and order” or “national security” and these same “conservatves” salivate, go into convulsions and emerge off the floor as unlimited government super-fascists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.