Senate Passes CISA, The Surveillance Bill Masquerading As A Cybersecurity Bill; Here's Who Sold Out Your Privacy

from the it's-not-over-yet dept

After rejecting all the good privacy amendments to CISA, the Senate has now officially passed the legislation by a 74 to 21 vote. About the only “good” news is that the vote is lower than the 83 Senators who voted for cloture on it last week. Either way, the Senate basically just passed a bill that will almost certainly be used mainly for warrantless domestic surveillance, rather than any actual cybersecurity concern.

If you’d like to know which Senators voted for greater domestic surveillance, here’s your list:

  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Ayotte (R-NH)
  • Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Blumenthal (D-CT)
  • Blunt (R-MO)
  • Boozman (R-AR)
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Capito (R-WV)
  • Carper (D-DE)
  • Casey (D-PA)
  • Cassidy (R-LA)
  • Coats (R-IN)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Corker (R-TN)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Cotton (R-AR)
  • Donnelly (D-IN)
  • Durbin (D-IL)
  • Enzi (R-WY)
  • Ernst (R-IA)
  • Feinstein (D-CA)
  • Fischer (R-NE)
  • Flake (R-AZ)
  • Gardner (R-CO)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • Hatch (R-UT)
  • Heinrich (D-NM)
  • Heitkamp (D-ND)
  • Hirono (D-HI)
  • Hoeven (R-ND)
  • Inhofe (R-OK)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • Johnson (R-WI)
  • Kaine (D-VA)
  • King (I-ME)
  • Kirk (R-IL)
  • Klobuchar (D-MN)
  • Lankford (R-OK)
  • Manchin (D-WV)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • McCaskill (D-MO)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Moran (R-KS)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Murphy (D-CT)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Nelson (D-FL)
  • Perdue (R-GA)
  • Peters (D-MI)
  • Portman (R-OH)
  • Reed (D-RI)
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • Roberts (R-KS)
  • Rounds (R-SD)
  • Sasse (R-NE)
  • Schatz (D-HI)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Scott (R-SC)
  • Sessions (R-AL)
  • Shaheen (D-NH)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Stabenow (D-MI)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Tillis (R-NC)
  • Toomey (R-PA)
  • Warner (D-VA)
  • Whitehouse (D-RI)
  • Wicker (R-MS)

And here’s the tragically short list of the 21 who voted against this.

  • Baldwin (D-WI)
  • Booker (D-NJ)
  • Brown (D-OH)
  • Cardin (D-MD)
  • Coons (D-DE)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • Daines (R-MT)
  • Franken (D-MN)
  • Heller (R-NV)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Lee (R-UT)
  • Markey (D-MA)
  • Menendez (D-NJ)
  • Merkley (D-OR)
  • Risch (R-ID)
  • Sanders (I-VT)
  • Sullivan (R-AK)
  • Tester (D-MT)
  • Udall (D-NM)
  • Warren (D-MA)
  • Wyden (D-OR)

If you’re wondering what happens now: the Senate version and the House version are different, so the differences need to be resolved in conference. There’s a chance that could lead to the bill being made better, but it’s more likely that the bill will actually be made worse. And then, of course, assuming no substantial changes, it would go to the President’s desk for signature. So the bill is pretty far along, but it can still be stopped. Senator Ron Wyden, who has led the fight against it says he’s not giving up yet.

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 “Senate Passes CISA, The Surveillance Bill Masquerading As A Cybersecurity Bill; Here's Who Sold Out Your Privacy”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Rapnel (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“tough” is an understatement. Even with the likes of Snowden, or another, standing will continue to elude. When one trillion inquiries is considered .. I don’t know, barely relevant, the bar has been proven prohibitively high. National security will prevail, almost(crosses fingers) every, single time. And, I believe, only the mob can reign that in once it has tasted its own version of freedom. The Internet gave them a HUGE taste.. Like the entire pork chop, and shit.

.. The “protective perimeter” has developed itself a genuine god complex.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Boy, Masnick censored that one fast!

Here it is again:

“I guess the internet whiners couldn’t stop this one. Oh well. I anxiously await your proof of all the harm this will cause. I assume you’ll hold yourself to the same level of rigor you expect others, like copyright owners, to demonstrate. LOL! Of course you won’t. You never do.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I second that. Your inflammatory comments only serve your purpose instead of bringing a comment in disagreement to Mike’s article. Here’s a hint and intelligent conversation: dont use terms such as whiners or teenager lingo as with “LOL” to make a point. Stay in school lest your bad grammar rub off on others

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So what you’re really saying is that we have to increase the value of our privacy to the elected representatives, such that it is worth more in $$ to them than the lobbying $$ (and the fact that they’ve replaced their staffers with lobbyists due to staffer budget cuts).

Anyone have any ideas?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Seems you are the stooge.
In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a difference between business and government. When a business treats customers poorly, said customers usually have an option. When government treats citizens poorly, what ya goin to do, move?

… and FUD? really? FUD is used to influence public opinion, which the “law makerz” clearly do not care about.

Moonkey says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The reality is we are being screwed by business and government alike.

Inhouse corruption is not a secret. If you even bothered to take a look into U.S. history, Government abuse and corporate sabotage are not myth. Our own government has confessed time and time again of wrongdoing.

Nobody is innocent unless proven otherwise.

If you don’t believe this, buckle-up. You’re in for a ride.
Or better yet, go read more about industry.

Rapnel (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Remember kids: It’s always, ALWAYS about the almighty dollar. Nothing else.”

No fucking shit, my anonymous big brained friend. I’d call you cap’n obvious but that’s a far too generous rank.. even for that observation. And here I thought it was all about coke and hookers.. . wait.

.. encrypt and decentralize. At this juncture, it seems like that is the only way to even begin to resist. That and buy local as much as possible.. or use bitcoin .. or cash. Hm. Yeah, it’s not looking good. .. But on the bright side you do look good in that volunteer seaman garb. “Me decks are ripe from the dung of yer like! arrr. And I’ve a brush for yee, mate. Tip to stern or I’ll see yee churn, beneath my rudders deep.”

Tally your hoes!

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This bill is about collecting the data directly from the service. Time to use foreign alternatives for all Internet services such as Google, Facebook, etc.

Um, actually that will (somewhat ridiculously) make you less safe. At least with this there are some limitations on what can be collected. Under EO 12333, the NSA has a free hand to collect data outside the US…

Anonymous Coward says:

As an Idahoan I’d like to note that while senator Risch is among those who voted against the bill, he is also among those who are responsible for it having been brought to the full senate in the first place, as with his support on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence the bill was able to get through committee.

Hopefully his down vote represents a change of heart, but the cynic in me tends to think otherwise.

Whatever (profile) says:


I can’t say that I entirely agree with the conclusions reached here, or those reached by Wyden (oh wait, they are the same). I do think there is some truth in it, but not quite to the paranoid levels it seems to be reaching.

This for me falls into the category of “Obama is coming for your guns!”. 7 years after being elected, he hasn’t come for the guns, but it doesn’t stop pundits and some politicians from claiming it will happen any day now, so you better donate to the cause. The number of stories on this on Techdirt in the last 48 hours really shows that sort of twist on this one.

There are days when I think Techdirt is just hauling water for Wyden, or vice-versa. I can’t help but think that 74 to 21 is a pretty clear indication of democracy in action, a large majority vote across party lines. If you don’t agree with them, work to replace them. But publicly trying to shame them for their votes is a pretty low way to go. It sort of comes out of the Karl Rove playbook, don’t discussion the issue, instead make it personal and make it nasty.

The great thing about democracy is that you can vote the bums out if you don’t like them. If you want a fight to fight, then take that one up.

Rapnel (profile) says:

Re: Hmm

fuck, sorry, but, I’m sick of tripe like this – “Just vote them out”. How does one go about that when it’s the same “them” manipulating the entire selection & election process?

“coming for your guns”.. whatever, Whatever.

The simple matter is if there exists a liberty then someone, somewhere wants it corralled and if there exists a bit of identifiable information then, apparently, your governments need every last bit. To say nothing of the fact that sufficient information existed to prevent or drastically alter the events of 9/11 already only “not my fault” turns into fucktastik incursions into the very premise of freedom and liberty.

It’s shameful that we seem to now be led by those that would prefer the use fear over facts to govern. Public shaming of representatives offends you? Consider your vote counted.. and all of the good that it will do. Shame on. My senators suck, absolutely.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hmm

It’s a moot point because Senators extremely rarely ever get kicked out of office. Most of the populace aren’t even aware of what they do for a living.

Also, are you really saying it’s okay for the huge spying to be legalized even after Snowden revealed that they were abusing it all along?

This bill is like a governor enacting a law which states that police cannot investigate how much money he stole from a bank. Even though there are bankers claiming that they saw the governor walking out of the bank with huge sacks of cash.

Would you believe that governor? Would you seriously say “Well that old chap is just trying to protect himself. Those terrorist bankers are just trying to hurt muh freedumbs.”?

Because that’s what you’re doing in not suspecting the big three letter agencies in this scenario. Especially after numerous reports citing them doing this exact thing, and especially after they work to make the thing they were caught doing ‘legal’ for the purpose of not being investigated for doing it.

Furthermore, Representatives ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MUST be shamed for the things they vote for. If they vote for something backwards-ass completely braindead stupid, they DESERVE to be shamed for voting like a collection of corrupt bootlickers/boneheaded stone polishers. Where did you even imagine this idea that it’s not okay to shame the people whose job is making informed decisions when they make poor choices regarding shoddy legislation?

Reminder, it isn’t in contention if this is a poor choice or not. If you seriously think legislation that puts an agency beyond reproach is OK in any form of government, I would like to direct your attention to this nice “Soviet Union” place that had dozens of agencies that were equally protected and abused their power dozens of times throughout their history.

I hope you at least realize what you said was shortsighted, even if you don’t agree entirely with me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hmm

Rather than denigrate people with whom you disagree, why not discuss the issues? For example, why do you think this legislation is needed at this time?

“you can vote the bums out”
This myth is tired and has completely lost all its hot air. Perhaps you would like to address those living in heavily gerrymandered districts. Or maybe those who recently had to get new Ids at the DMV but the nearest offices had been closed. Disenfranchisement is the new favorite tool of the crazy caucus. So, please … enough of the bullshit propaganda.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Hmm

“Rather than denigrate people with whom you disagree, why not discuss the issues? For example, why do you think this legislation is needed at this time? “

We are still at the “dawn” of the electronic communication age. In the same manner as at the start of the age of the telephone and long distance, the congress sees the need to establish laws in regards to the medium, and to work to both meet the needs of the security of the people while respecting their rights under the constitution. It’s a tricky business. The phone is a relatively simple concept and it took a very long time for both written law and the caselaw to back it up to be settled. There are still arguments in court all the time about the validity of a landline phone warrant.

History is important to understand.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hmm

You mean aside from the laws that removes the right of veterans to own guns if the government decides they are not stable enough? Which is virtually all of them when they can get away with it.

Or how about the gun restrictions that make some guns suddenly illegal to own. Or how about the gun registration that was then used to confiscate guns that were deemed illegal under the aforementioned new laws.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Hmm

This for me falls into the category of “Obama is coming for your guns!”. 7 years after being elected, he hasn’t come for the guns, but it doesn’t stop pundits and some politicians from claiming it will happen any day now, so you better donate to the cause.

Amazing. You’re a regular TD reader and you pretend that the idea the government might someday abuse its authority to inappropriately spy on Americans is paranoid nonsense.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Rand Paul

Besides the fact that he’s running for president? If anything, the fact that he’s running should have made him all the more eager to vote against it if he really cared about the public. Unless there’s some rule or something that prohibited him from voting, abstaining in this case should be treated no differently than if he’d voted for it.

bugmenot (profile) says:

Re: Rand Paul

Rand Paul voted to stop Cloture, and tried to amend the bill, which was the most important vote. Without enough votes to stop cloture, or amend the bill, the bill was positioned to go through regardless of his presence. He was unable to prepare for the debate in CO and vote on the final bill at the same time. Even if he had been there, the bill didn’t allow filibustering after that vote.
See his cloture roll-call here:

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“You mean aside from the laws that removes the right of veterans to own guns if the government decides they are not stable enough? Which is virtually all of them when they can get away with it.

Or how about the gun restrictions that make some guns suddenly illegal to own. Or how about the gun registration that was then used to confiscate guns that were deemed illegal under the aforementioned new laws.”


Rekrul says:

When are people going to realize that the whole political process is one big scam? Most of the politicians don’t give a flying f*** what any of the little people want. Most of them would walk right up to you in public, kick you in the balls, steal your wallet, and then take a shit on your head if they thought they could get away with it.

All this running around and protesting various bills that are bad for the public is like the chickens running around the Perdue farm protesting that they don’t want to be eaten, and the results will be exactly the same.

Short of a violent revolution (which will probably never happen due to apathy), nothing is going to change for the better. The government will just keep voting to give itself more and more power, and will continue to hand more and more power to the corporations that bribe them. Any concessions they make which seem to be in favor of the people are nothing more than a distraction.

You might as well go yell at a tornado, it will have about the same effect.

Moonkey says:

Re: Re:

Do you have evidence as to how our privacy is NOT threatened?

I mean, of course, our government is wholly good and undeceiving. Just as our big corporate neighbors really think we should get the absolute best price value for our groceries, and internet service. Right? This is evidence enough for you, I’m sure.

If you lived under a rock.

Seriously. I’m waiting for facts to come out of you rather than assumptions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Basic game theory

Using third party services (AKA: cloud services) increases security because the service provider has a better economy of scale for securing the service than any one customer would ever have. There are also some services that do nothing but provide security, like firewall monitoring.

The reaction of anyone who still wants to protect their privacy is going to be to encrypt even more of their traffic and to stop using third party services wherever possible, meaning this law reduces both the governments ability to see what I’m doing and my security at the same time.

Anonymous Coward says:

“All I want to say is that they don’t really care about us.”
Michael Jackson

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended.
Abraham Lincoln

Anon says:


On the NSA/spying…

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They’re worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

Brezinski at a press conference

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...