Obama Administration Threatens To Veto CISPA

from the in-no-uncertain-terms dept

Yesterday, the Guardian reported that the Obama administration officially opposed CISPA—but they also noted that there was no mention of the V-word. Now that's changed. The executive office just released a statement which says in no uncertain terms that they will be pushing for a veto of the bill:

Legislation should address core critical infrastructure vulnerabilities without sacrificing the fundamental values of privacy and civil liberties for our citizens, especially at a time our Nation is facing challenges to our economic well-being and national security. The Administration looks forward to continuing to engage with the Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to enact cybersecurity legislation to address these critical issues. 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.

The administration's concerns mirror those of civil liberties groups, and could be (partially) addressed by some of the amendments we looked at earlier. But hopefully this clear statement from the White House provides the necessary final push to stop CISPA in its tracks and start working on a better security bill with the help of people who actually know what they're doing.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    OMG! Is all of Canada cheering?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:58pm

    Here's a better amendment!

    Let's amend the US Constitution with the following:

    Proposed and passed legislation must meet these 3 criteria:
    1) May not be more than 2000 words.
    2) Must be understandable by any literate citizen of average education level.
    3) If titled, the title must clearly and accurately reflect the purpose of the bill.

    Failing any of these criteria will mean the bill could not be passed into law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:03pm

      Re: Here's a better amendment!

      I'm not so sure about the 2000 word limit. CISPA suffered from being too short. In some areas it's good to have long bills that carefully itemize and describe what they cover, instead of using broad ill-defined terms like "cybersecurity"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:14pm

        Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!

        2000 words is just a starting figure, I'm sure a little scientific analysis would yield a better figure.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!

          Amount of pages doesn't matter. It's how they write the legislation.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!

            Better a short legible bill than some several thousand page monstrosity (see: Patriot Act) to which the Senators/Congresspersons go "TL;DR" and vote effing "YES" anyway--without knowing what is even says!!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:12pm

      Re: Here's a better amendment!

      This is unnecessary. Not everyone is as stupid as you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:36pm

      Re: Here's a better amendment!

      I have a better idea. Let's not. 2000-word limits just mean you can't pass anything that third-graders can't understand, which is stupid. Some legislation has to be more complex than that. I know that's hard for some to accept, but deal with it and move on.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Pontifex (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:33pm

      Re: Here's a better amendment!

      I'd rather have an anti-omnibus amendment instead.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TheBigH (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:49pm

      Re: Here's a better amendment!

      ...and 4) No riders!

      No more bills like "Fight pedophilia (and extend copyright terms until the heat death of the universe)"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:58pm

    Glad to see Obama taking a strong stand for our rights of privacy here.

    Too many politicians think they HAVE to vote CISPA through no matter how bad the bill is. Why? Since it's just 6 months till the election, and you wouldn't want to be blamed for a cyber security attack on the US so close to an election now would you? Just voting against a bill with 'cyber information' and 'protection' in the name would cause your opponent to run attack ads saying you don't take cyber security seriously.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:59pm

    I don't get it, he says he will veto CISPA but he didn't veto NDAA? LoL. Also, how long do you think this threat will last? Do you think it'll end once these "fixes" to the legislation are rectified?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:11pm

    Must be an election year.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      No to mention the stunning success of SOPA/PIPA and how ACTA and TPP are flying under the radar...
      Maybe giving a large vocal group of people a reason to work together against them would be a bad idea.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jay (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:04pm

        Re: Re:

        Obama's trying to minimize the damage to his campaigning before his reelection. Given that mostly Republicans are endorsing CISPA, you can see why he would threaten a veto.

        Also, this doesn't mean one of the other legislations won't go through and pass giving more power to another branch. This is really all a wrangling for position.

        TL;DR the AC is right...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:18pm

    So let's add up the score

    So let's see:

    +1 for this veto threat on CISPA
    +1 for his stance on SOPA
    -1 For signing the NDAA
    -1 for signing the Partiot Act renewal
    -1 for prosecuting whistle blowers

    That count alone leave Obama in the red for me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:18pm

      Re: So let's add up the score

      Ooh. Forgot:

      -1 for signing ACTA

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        TaCktiX (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:49pm

        Re: Re: So let's add up the score

        -1 for saying the Senate doesn't need to ratify.

        Forgot that one too.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        gorehound (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:14pm

        Re: Re: So let's add up the score

        +1
        Just like our Corporations are People Government would do.Take a step forward then two backwards.
        Probably be the same thing if it was a GOP President.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score

          Things would be no different under a GOP president, unless that president is Ron Paul. Mitt Romney is just more of the same crap we have had for 30 years . I don't want it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Watchit (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:53pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score

            while getting a president in office who actually knows what he's doing would be nice, it would be pointless if congress is still the same old pork barrel legislators.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score

            "Things would be no different under a GOP president"

            Yea it would - they'd call it anti-pornography, or anti-terrorism (even more than what we've heard so far). It would be part of a huge marketing and talking point campaign that even 1/3 (or more) of the democrats would join in on "for the good of the nation". They'd pick some color of ribbon to tie around trees and order car magnets from China. It would be "unpatriotic" to oppose - treasonist even. They would call "anti-circumvention" technology the growth industry of the future, put Blackwater (AXE now), Haliburton, or whatever corporate chummies they had handy in charge of no bid, multi-million dollar contracts that never expire. You know the drill.

            Ron Paul is a social conservative and just as likely to do the same only call it "anti-porn" and for "the good of society". It's impossible to debate faulty logic and "faith". At least this way there is a chance to argue over actual merits.

            Politics always seems to be a lessor of the evils.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              abc gum, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 5:29pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score

              "Things would be no different under a GOP president"
              "Yea it would ... You know the drill."

              You left out the vagina patrol.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    i think the frightening thing is that almost on a daily basis there is some fucking idiot in Congress, that hasn't got the intelligence of a moron on the subject that he is trying to introduce a Bill on, trying to introduce a Bill! why do they do it? if it's to try to achieve something, they are doing that, but it's only achieving how stupid it makes them out to be! if it's to please which ever industry that has made 'campaign contributions' to them, it's about time the contributors saw the writing on the wall and moved on. before the next ridiculous attempt is made, you would think that someone suitable would be chosen. atm, even the White House can see how ridiculous things are getting, and that's saying something!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

    Saddest thing about congress is that Americans are going to put the same exact idiots back in office. *sigh*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:33pm

    "The administration's concerns mirror" his attempts to get re-elected. Otherwise, it's doubtful he would sign this anti-public interest bill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nathan F (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 1:49pm

    Honestly I see this as a very safe move for the White House. They already know that changes are going to be made to it, so they can say "Yes, if the bill shows up on his desk we will recommend he veto it." Then after they make the changes the White House can say "We feel that the changes that have been made are acceptable and we will sign it if and when it makes it to his desk."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Justin, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:24pm

    read it carefully

    The underlined sentence in the quoted text reveals the problem: "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."

    This isn't OBAMA saying he will veto it. It says his senior advisers will RECOMMEND he veto it. He can just as easily ignore them and sign it anyway. He's not making any promises, so don't get pulled in by a superficial show of support.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 4:26pm

      Re: read it carefully

      This isn't OBAMA saying he will veto it. It says his senior advisers will RECOMMEND he veto it.


      True, but the OP doesn't say Obama is threatening a veto. It's saying the Obama administration is, which is true (although weaker than we would hope).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    terry (profile), Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:28pm

    Deja Vu, Obama will use the same pen he used to veto the NDAA as promised.

    Oh, wait change was the promise he kept: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hope-and-change-gas-prices-have-gone-67-percent-obama-became-pre sident_553930.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 2:31pm

    The people to ask (slight recap of post from another thread)

    Off the top of my head (and I apologize to anybody that I should have remembered but didn't) these are the people that Congress should have in the room before they even dream of writing legislation that touches the Internet: Jacob Appelbaum, Steve Bellovin, Danah Boyd, Bill Cheswick, Ben Edelman, Dave Farber, Ed Felten, Richard Forno, Dan Gillmor, Alex Halderman, Dan Kaminsky, Valdis Kletnieks, Susan Landau, Chris Lewis, Peter Neumann, Marcus Ranum, Bruce Schneier, Chris Soghoian, Gene Spafford, Lauren Weinstein.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 3:07pm

    Another bill

    Someone needs to introduce a bill stating that no changes to the internet should be passed into law without consulting specific sectors that are familiar with the internet - sort of a cyber consumer protection agency.

    Yea - I know. That's sounds like a punch line for a joke.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 7:34pm

    1. Where are those people who call the interwebz netcitizens keyboard warriors, chubby nerds living in their parents basement?

    2. Are those same people the ones now saying keyboard warriors can bring about the end of the world as we know it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 25th, 2012 @ 7:39pm

    Whether or not he vetoes the legislation will depend on whether both houses have a veto-proof majority. If Congress passes the law with a veto proof majority in both houses, a veto would be a lesson in futility.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Apr 26th, 2012 @ 9:52am

    Yeah, just like he promised to veto the NDAA. Just more political posturing to score points with his base. When it comes to his desk, he'll quietly sign it over a holiday weekend with his pre-cooked excuse of why it's yet another "necessary evil" committed against the American people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This