Sheldon Whitehouse Freaks Out, Blames 'Pro-Botnet Lobby' For Rejecting His Terrible CFAA Amendment

from the the-pro-botnet-lobby-is-here dept

As we mentioned yesterday, one of the (many) bad things involved in the new Senate attempt to push the CISA “cybersecurity” bill forward was that they were including a bad amendment added by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that would expand the terrible Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a law that should actually be significantly cut back. Senator Ron Wyden protested this amendment specifically in his speech against CISA. And, for whatever reason, Whitehouse’s amendment has been pulled from consideration and Whitehouse is seriously pissed off about it.

He went on the Senate floor to directly whine about it, even sarcastically calling out the “hidden pro-botnet, pro-foreign cyber criminal caucus” that somehow fought against the bill. Except it wasn’t a “pro-botnet” anyone who killed the amendment. It was a lot of people who were quite reasonably concerned about what the amendment would do to the CFAA. And while it’s true that Whitehouse improved the amendment from its originally really terrible state, it still was a bad amendment. Whitehouse goes on and on in has rant about who could possibly be “against” shutting down botnets or raising penalties for hacking into critical infrastructure, citing that “law enforcement” supports the bill. But, of course, that leaves out the other side entirely. And that’s not the “pro-botnet, pro-foreign cyber criminal” caucus, but rather people who are well aware of how the CFAA has regularly been abused by law enforcement to bring charges against non-criminals, or to pile on charges on those committing minor offenses. Expanding all of that without stopping the potential for abuse only means the bill will be abused further.

Whitehouse continues to make a name for himself as one of the most technologically illiterate members of the Senate. Late last year he went on a rant about a totally made up Google search (the results did not show what he claimed they showed) and an equally made up Pirate Bay whose actual site did not show what Whitehouse pretended it showed. He also was strongly in favor of backdooring encryption, arguing that if Apple doesn’t backdoor encryption, perhaps it will be opening itself up to a lawsuit when the FBI can’t track down a kidnapper (ignoring all the times that such encryption would actually protect people). This push to expand the CFAA and then whining about pushback on the Senate floor is only adding to his reputation as one of the most anti-tech industry Senators out there.

And, of course, for all the show on the floor, it’s not like the Amendment is dead anyway. As Marcey Wheeler notes in her post (linked above), there’s still a good chance that his CFAA amendment will be brought back into the bill when the House and Senate conference to resolve differences in the bills across houses.

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 “Sheldon Whitehouse Freaks Out, Blames 'Pro-Botnet Lobby' For Rejecting His Terrible CFAA Amendment”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Old man stands in a room screaming at a cloud.

Would we let someone who looked at WebMD once, do surgery?
Why do we allow those who obviously don’t (and willfully refuse to) have any clue about technology make decisions about it?

We can not expect them to know the details of all technologies, but we sure as hell are paying them enough to have staff who can keep them correctly informed. Demanding amendments that make things worse for those they allegedly represent, while screaming it is some secret plot… if he didn’t have all of that money we’d be discussing why the mental health system let him roam around unsupervised. (This shows the sad state of healthcare in the country when those with the best plans are allowed to have severe mental defects without treatment.)

When those who are supposed to represent our best interests can’t be bothered, perhaps it is time we find new people to represent us.

Anonymous Coward says:

“When those who are supposed to represent our best interests can’t be bothered, perhaps it is time we find new people to represent us.”

The last person to do that was JFK and look what happened to him? For shit sake, 90% of the policies passed in the last 30 years have been to no benefit to public. I mean could it be that representative democracy is not an actual democracy but an oligarchy in sheeps clothing?

Anonymous Coward says:

“citing that “law enforcement” supports the bill.”

Of course law enforcement supports the bill. They support anything that adds penalties or paperwork for people that aren’t law enforcement. You could propose a bill outlawing consensual, unprotected sex in the missionary position, between a man and a woman married in the Catholic Church, both of whom remained virgins until they were married, and want to have kids; and law enforcement would support it as long as there was a clause saying “except if one of them is a member of law enforcement.”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...