CISPA Passes The House, As 288 Representatives Don't Want To Protect Your Privacy

from the all-the-others-are-just-14-year-olds-in-their-basement dept

This is not wholly surprising, but after some debate and some half-hearted attempts at pretending they care about the public’s privacy rights, the House has passed CISPA, 288 votes against 127. The vote breakdown did not go fully along party lines, though it was clearly Republican driven. 196 Republicans voted for it, while just 29 voted against it (despite numerous conservative groups coming out against the bill). The Democrats split down the middle. 92 Dems voted for it and 98 against. If you compare this to last year, it looks like a lot more Democrats went from opposing to being in favor of trampling your privacy rights. Last year, 140 Dems voted against CISPA and only 42 for it. Either way, this seems like a pretty bi-partisan decision to shaft the American public on their privacy rights. That said, there is still the threat of a Presidential veto (though, with the vote today, the House is close to being able to override a veto). The bigger question is now the Senate, which couldn’t agree on a cybersecurity bill last year, and has shown no signs of improvement this year. If you want to protect your privacy, it’s time to focus on the Senate, and make sure they know not to pass a privacy-destroying bill like CISPA.

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 Passes The House, As 288 Representatives Don't Want To Protect Your Privacy”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
60 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

What’s with this “our privacy”?

They don’t give a rat’s ass about you. You are already brainwashed. Now move along and make the corporations richer.

And remember: Shut the fuck up. I’m a senator and you are just a citizen:

http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/18/governments-opinion-of-you-in-thirteen-words/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Popehat+%28Popehat%29

jackn says:

Re: Re:

well thanks to this, we can go after you. You are liable to be libel by calling us douchebags. You should put, In My Opinion in the future. Luckily, it will be a piece of cake to track you down and get damages for you calling me a ‘dishonest douchebag.’

Man, i just hope the pres doesn’t veto, i am looking forward to nailing you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No not all 288 of them hate privacy. Some have been bought and paid for. Others do not understand what they are doing, a good number are probably old, a few years from death, and just don’t care. Finally, at least a couple probably do hate privacy.

None of them have any business running a country.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

so, i wonder how many of that 288 will get voted back into office next election? knowing the way we forgive and ignore everything that is used to shaft us, probably 289!!

This has never been a big issue to most voters so I don’t think it will have much to do with who gets re-elected. Most voters are much more concerned about other issues and if they vote on the issues, the ones more important to them will sway their votes.

Anonymous Coward says:

So if this goes on past the Senate and Prez, and doesn’t get shot down by the SC, where is the actual profit in this bill?

We know that supporters are willing to spend hundreds of millions “lobbying” for the bill, and noone with money spends money without seeing more money or even greater loss on the horizon.

Is the biggest profit in the ability for ‘participating companies’ to sell or wrongfully divulge information with complete immunity from prosecution?

Is it in thousands of pork-barrel no-show “cyber-defense” contracts on the horizon? (I’m guessing this… nothing says profit like a huge contract with no defined goals or milestones)

Or is it in the governments ability to better support the profit-by-litigation business model being used to prop up old-guard dying industries?

We know we’ve been sold out by the HoR, but for what exactly?

Anonymous Coward says:

I can’t believe Mike let us all down like this. If only he’d launched that cat signal. All 288 members would have seen the light–literally. But as it is, all 288 hate our privacy. Anyone who disagrees is just wrong. Only Mike Masnick speaks the truth. He’d never lie or spread FUD or do anything bad. He is my idol.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Privacy is a thing of the past, sadly.

There’s money to be made invading people’s privacy. It isn’t just a government issue.

Google Glass and the emerging Glasshole culture | ZDNet: “With Glass, because the device is being worn and there’s no indication of when it is being used, one has to assume that the wearer is recording everyone all of the time.”

barryvm says:

Does this bill also apply to data from foreign customers of us companies (or even foreign companies with data centers in the us) ? This is obviously a disaster for businesses as I can see them losing a lot of clients this way. Not to mention the outrageous impact on privacy and judicial safeguards. I don’t know if I would trust any us based company or institution with any personal info now. It’s overly broad spy bills like these which diminish respect for the law and destroy any confidence in government institutions and democratic decision making.
A victory for fear mongering and corrupt politics over rational thought and the rule of law. Sad.

barryvm says:

Does this bill also apply to data from foreign customers of us companies (or even foreign companies with data centers in the us) ? This is obviously a disaster for businesses as I can see them losing a lot of clients this way. Not to mention the outrageous impact on privacy and judicial safeguards. I don’t know if I would trust any us based company or institution with any personal info now. It’s overly broad spy bills like these which diminish respect for the law and destroy any confidence in government institutions and democratic decision making.
A victory for fear mongering and corrupt politics over rational thought and the rule of law. Sad.

alanbleiweiss (profile) says:

Senator Feinstein Supports Full Immunity

Even if the White House threatens veto, it’s possible Congress is going to shove this crap down our throats.

I just got an email from California Senator Diane Feinstein:

“As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I will shortly be introducing a bill on information sharing which allows sharing of cyber intrusion data with the government with full immunity. In this way we hope to encourage a major effort between the public and private sector to share data so that cyber intrusion can be prevented.”

(emphasis added by me)

Holy crap. I swear these wealthy, corporate shill people need to be thrown out on their asses. FULL IMMUNITY.

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

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...