White House Reiterates Plans To Veto CISPA In Its Current Form; Though For The Wrong Reasons

from the amendments-not-convincing dept

As I'm sure you remember, the House passed CISPA with a few amendments -- some of which may have limited the possible abuses, while at the same time expanding the scope. Right before the bill went up for a vote, the White House stated that it would veto CISPA, if it got to the President's desk. It appears that, even with the amendments, the White House is still not willing to support the bill. White House "Cybersecurity Coordinator" Howard Schmidt appeared on CSPAN reiterating the White House's objections to CISPA, specifically calling out the problematic privacy issues.

That said, the White House is still supporting the Lieberman cybersecurity bill in the Senate, which isn't quite as bad as some of the other proposals, but still has plenty of problems. And, most importantly, still doesn't include any clear explanation for why it's needed. It's bizarre and troubling that no one in the federal government seems willing to provide a real justification for any of these bills others than "oooooh, it's scary out there on the internet!!"

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, veto, white house

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2012 @ 9:48am

    What really exposes what this bill is about is the fight over disagreements in the different versions of the bill.

    Republicans in the house (and a lot of republicans in the senate to) strongly oppose the Lieberman version of the bill, specifically because it would add federal cyber security standards for businesses to adhere to in order to protect their data better.

    Why do they oppose the security standards? Because it's a 'job killing big government regulation' on businesses in their own words.

    So... how exactly can CISPA protect us from cyber security attacks if big businesses with lots of data about consumers on their servers (the kind of data CISPA is met to protect) continue to have weak security guarding that information because the businesses decide it's just too expense to spend the extra money protecting it properly?

    Sure, it might make it a bit easier AFTER a cyber attack for the government to get the information necessary from those companies to find out who did it, but it won't stop the attack from happening in the first place! And really, if a big corporation is hacked and has lots of data stolen do you really think they'd tell the federal government "we're not giving you information you need to catch the hackers who did this to us" without CISPA being passed?

    To me, this all looks like a blatant attempt by some big businesses to shift blame for any cyber attacks away from the business being attacked and onto the government, with as little work for the business as possible. That way if a company gets attacked they can point to CISPA and say "it's the governments fault for not stopping them, we've been sharing lots of information with them to prevent something like this from happening".

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.