Benton RSS Feed

The House approved two, non-controversial cybersecurity bills under a suspension of House rules.

The first was the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act (HR 2096). The bill would coordinate federal research and development on cybersecurity, and establish a program for training federal cybersecurity experts. The bill also authorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology to set security standards for federal computer systems. The second was the Advancing America's Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act (HR 3834). This bill would update and modernize the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, which established what is now a $4 billion federal research program on computing and networking systems.

[Commentary] Just a few months ago, internet companies and the technology community came together to protest two anti-piracy bills (SOPA and PIPA) because they would have breached free-speech protections and other social safeguards in the name of stopping copyright infringement. Now, a new bill called CISPA that just passed in the House of Representatives is getting a lot of negative attention, with some saying it is just as evil as SOPA, and others — including Facebook and Microsoft — supporting the legislation and arguing that it is much more nuanced than either of its predecessors. So which is it?

A group of over 50 university professors, entrepreneurs and information scientists have published an open letter to Congress calling on lawmakers to oppose CISPA because they say the bill (and its Senate counterpart) would allow companies to hand over the private date of their users to entities like the Department of Homeland Security, and the only requirement is that the information involved must somehow be associated with the vague concept of “cyber-security.” So is CISPA as bad as SOPA? Probably not, in the sense that SOPA required ISPs and other companies to engage in all kinds of activity that infringed on free speech and subjected even innocent users to potential seizure of their websites, etc. But the risk when designing a bill that hinges on a concept as vague as “cyber-security” is that it allows companies and government agencies fairly wide latitude to accumulate whatever information they wish — and allows them to do so without even a warrant or a judge’s order. Companies like Facebook may promise that they would never do this unless it is really important, but how can we know that for sure?

With the House’s passage of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, the bill’s proponents and opponents on both sides of the aisle are gearing up for a fight over the legislation as it heads to the Senate. Here’s a quick look at who’s for CISPA, who’s against it and why.

• Facebook, Microsoft, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Technology companies have lent their support to the bill because they say it provides a simple and effective way to share important cyber threat information with the government. The technology industry is fully behind the bill, with associations such as Tech America, the Software & Information Industry Association, the Business Software Alliance and the Telecommunications Industry Association all applauding the House’s passage. The common thread through all of the statements issued by industry groups point to the fact that the bill allows companies to share vital information with the government without giving additional power to any part of it.
• Bipartisan support, bipartisan dissent: The law was proposed by Reps. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) and Mike Rogers (R.-MI), and has had bipartisan support. While most of the bill’s most vocal supporters are Republicans, 28 Democrats joined with the majority to pass the bill. There is also, however, bipartisan dissent on the bill.
• Privacy advocates: The Center for Democracy and Technology said it was “disappointed that CISPA passed the House in such flawed form and under such a flawed process.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation will continue to fight the bill in the Senate. In a statement, Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel, said that “CISPA goes too far for little reason. Cybersecurity does not have to mean abdication of Americans’ online privacy. As we’ve seen repeatedly, once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there’s no going back. We encourage the Senate to let this horrible bill fade into obscurity.”
• The White House: The White House said that it would veto the bill because it would put American’s privacy at risk.

[Commentary] Here’s a step-by-step guide Congress can follow in order to quell any concerns about how CISPA will be used.

Step 1: Figure out what you actually want
Step 2: Let’s see some conditions
Step 3: Lose the black box
Step 4: If all else fails, make it longer
Step 5 (for citizens): Contact your senators