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!!!!"


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    vegetaman (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 10:10pm

    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.

    Their concern is that the American public still has a right to privacy protections -- and they're mostly concerned that they can't figure out an easy way to circumvent that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Feb 7th, 2013 @ 10:21pm

    If it somehow passes through House and Senate...it's sure fire Obama will sign away at it. It feels liberating to be in a place where I can say what I please :-)

    Anyway...I mean its just like recent FISA amendments being signed in right? I hope to God this doesn't pass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 1:08am

    All the better to distract the feds from all the drunk drivers and child molesters in Congress.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 2:22am

    So it's like the monsters/psycho killers in horror films.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 3:07am

    Re:

    Except the slashing being done is through Congress, rather than with an axe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 3:27am

    But if nothing is done, hackers will steal the internetz. Is that what you want? No internetz.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 3:30am

    Re:

    But then i cant haz lolcats D:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Feb 8th, 2013 @ 3:55am

    Re:

    That's okay, enough people would just have to be awesome enough to be awarded some 'internetz' and it would be back up in no time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 4:01am

    Re:

    Better hackers than the spiritual successors of the Nazi Party. At least the former knows how it works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    anonymouse, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 4:28am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Joseph M. Durnal, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 4:45am

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Joseph M. Durnal, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 4:47am

    we're "under siege"

    I love how they claim that we are under siege, but then dismiss the doomsday survivalists who are concerned that a cyber attack that takes down the power grid could cause wide spread panic, shortages, and civil unrest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 4:49am

    '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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 4:54am

    Re: we're "under siege"

    I love how they claim that we are under siege

    You are, by your own government. They are trying to take down democracy in favour of corporate totalitarianism.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    The Real Michael, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 5:30am

    Re: 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.

    So much truth in such a short post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Digitari, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 6:06am

    RE: change we can believe in

    is there ANY way we can get that Dorner fellow to Washington??

    is there any way we can get LAPD uniforms for the Congress and Senate??


    two birds, one stone....................

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 6:25am

    Probably because they have some little gems in those new bills that people aren't supposed to know about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    slinkySlim, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 7:43am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 8th, 2013 @ 8:19am

    Make noise, rise awareness, push back. But better than all that: DON'T VOTE ON BAD POLITICIANS AGAIN. Ahem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 8th, 2013 @ 11:00am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Feb 8th, 2013 @ 2:25pm

    Existing laws can't apply

    Existing laws can't apply here because they don't say "on the internet" in them. Duh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Joe, Mar 21st, 2013 @ 5:53am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This