CISPA Sponsor Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger Promises The Return Of CISPA

from the it'll-be-baaaaaack dept

This isn’t a huge surprise. After the Senate failed to pass its Cybersecurity Act last year, and the White House threatening to push out an executive order to get its “cybersecurity” agenda moving, one of the two sponsors of the House’s cybersecurity bill, CISPA (which did pass), Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, is promising that the bill will be back soon enough. Ruppersberger says that he’s working with the White House to take care of any concerns it had with the bill. All of this was more or less expected. The concern, still, is what do the privacy protections look like in the bill and (more importantly) what the Senate will come up with on this front.

However, there’s one big issue that no one has answered. There’s plenty of talk about how cybersecurity is a big problem and we’re “under siege” and all of that nonsense. But no one seems willing to explain what about current regulations are getting in the way of an effective response to any such “threats”? And that’s a problem, because the proposed bills don’t seem to do anything in terms of tweaking a specific issue to solve a problem. Instead, they more or less wipe out large, important rules across the board, all because someone screams “it’s for cybersecurity!!!!”

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “CISPA Sponsor Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger Promises The Return Of CISPA”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
23 Comments
anonymouse says:

Really

Simple solution to all of this palava, send a letter to all the people involved in crafting this and in legal speak using the law they think is going to pass request all their private and confidential information, advising them that this is what they are going to be authorising with this bill and if they believe that is what is best for the country, then they should be leading by example, also if they do not want to provide all their personal and private emails and any other correspondence including records of all their phone calls and their banking details and mortgage details and all financial transactions made over the last 2 years that you request they provide you with the information once the law is passed as then it is legal to have access to it.

Yes they will probably ignore it but to do that they would have to check how the law they are going to pass would affect their privacy, and that would mean actually reading the document.

Joseph M. Durnal (user link) says:

That Ruppersberger thinks he's so smart

Cyber Security is about paying off big government contractors to pack federal agency Security Operations Centers and an attempt to circumvent all sorts of constitutional protection. Hey, the founding fathers didn’t have hard drives, how could they have intended for them to have first, forth, or fifth amendment protections?

Anonymous Coward says:

‘because someone screams “it’s for cybersecurity!!!!”‘

should be ‘because we have to remove as many freedoms as possible, as quickly as possible from the ordinary people!’

what a shame it is that those that want to carry out this sort of thing dont have anything concrete to use as evidence the bill is needed, never has any issues of this nature themselves, so dont know what it’s like and have totally forgotten why America became America in the first place!

slinkySlim (profile) says:

Prevention is the Best Medicine

If I may:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Your phones, computers, private communications therein, data therein etc. and so forth are your personal effects.

Any entity implying otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Computer security is neat. The proverbial “The best offense is a good defense.” seems to apply and is most effective.

Defensive “security” measures that provide access to any of these aforementioned effects without a warrant are in direct contradiction of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Your government is, in effect, protecting itself and attempting to position itself as a feared entity. Given the recent past and current rate of successful incursions you probably should be afraid.

Anonymous Coward says:

I wonder if a law like what was mentioned in the “Future History” section of an alternate history site is coming down the line.

Sometime back, altenatehistory.com had a scenario in is “Future History” section, a bill called The Protecting Internet Communication And Commerce Act (PICCA), which combined elements of SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, ACTA, TPP, Secure-IT, CDA, and just about every other dracconian internet law that was ever made, into one bill.

With some wanted to resurrect SOPA, and the new CISPA bill coming down the line, I would not surprised if PICCA is being drafted right now.

Joe says:

Look at the bills authors

As a member of the committee, he viewed photographs of Osama bin Laden’s body after he was killed in May 2011. In an interview with The Associated Press after he saw the photos, he described them as “graphic.” But he noted that he has seen graphic photos of people who have been killed before, dating back to when he worked as a prosecutor involved in homicide cases.

“It wasn’t anything really interesting,” Ruppersberger said at the time. “It was just photos of bin Laden alive and photos dead and comparison of his facial features.”

Why didnt the public see these photo? We saw those of gadafi. Man who lies for the establishment will of course seek to take your 4th amendment rights. This man once made the idiotic statement that people didnt need guns because the police can protect everyone at all times. So of course he is against the 2nd amendment too.

Basically he is a typical government tyrant who is opposed to the bill of rights and a typical payed liar known as a lawyer.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...