Will Jurisdictional Fight Slow Down CISPA's Momentum?

from the one-hopes dept

Thanks to a fair bit of propaganda making the rounds, it feels like CISPA -- the cybersecurity bill that seeks to obliterate privacy protections without explaining how that will increase our security -- is on a bit of a fast track towards approval. However a bit of a stumbling block may have popped up. Congressional Representatives Bennie Thompson and Yvette Clarke -- the ranking members on the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies -- have suddenly realized that all of this is happening without their support. That is, they finally realized that, while this is being handled by the Intelligence Committee, it directly impacts Homeland Security and Cyersecurity (obviously), and so they're suddenly asking why it's not going through their committees.

This is just a basic jurisdictional dispute between various fiefdoms within Congress. They pop up every now and again, and usually get resolved in due time. However, in the short term, it could certainly represent a speed bump that hopefully slows down the pace at which Congress seems to want to rush into approving CISPA.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Beech, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:15am


    It's about time all the convoluted, boring, background subcommittee BS worked in the favor of the people for once. Doubtful it will do much, but every second you still have some semblance of privacy is a win, I guess.

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

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:50am

    Yeah I can just imagine their process

    "The title says something about Cy...bar...secu...rah...ty. Oh Cybersecurity you say? Ok PASSED!"

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

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:43am

    They probably just want their share of lobbying spending.

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

  4. icon
    Ninja (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:57am

    I see a pattern. Introduce pure bs, harmful bills and they'll fast track. Introduce needed, beneficial to the people bills and they'll be ignored.

    Maybe we should introduce the second types of bills assuring congress critters that it's the pinnacle of screwing the people to get them passed?

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

  5. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:03am

    Please, they just want a chance to add their own pet projects/amendments to the thing, soon as that happens I'm sure they'll be happy to give it the go ahead.

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

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:48am


    A piece of the action

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

  7. icon
    special-interesting (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:02am

    Isn't is great when congress cannot do anything? I see several agencies have the smell of a large pork dinner with trimmings. Just think of the increase in appropriations they get for the extra bureaucracy. Bigger slice of the pie, more personnel (political patronage jobs), more control... more power!

    Current electronic technology law is so much in its infant stage it goes so far as to suggests, a 100% preposterous, trust in the prosecution. Luckily the defense has something to say about that mess. Few times has this kind of accusation reached a jury so precedence not really set yet.

    Note that a lot of computer crime law so far is based on hearsay evidence. Example of hearsay: We did not see you do it but we did see an IP or URL that looked exactly like you. (circumstantial evidence by definition) Surely anyone to deny that has other motives irrelevant to a first person (witness) based judicially reviewed by peer based trial system.

    Convenience is no excuse for the prosecution not to do its homework.

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

  8. icon
    gorehound (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:24am

    Just dropping by to show my Hate For Our Government !
    Dysfunctional and Corrupt piece of Sh$t !!!

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

  9. icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:38am

    Given their obvious mis-directed allegiances...

    Why do we keep voting these dipwads into office? Do they have our best interests at heart? Not bloody likely! They are in the pay of big media and other special interests. It is time we voted for some folks who would take OUR interests to heart...

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

  10. icon
    Valkor (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:06pm

    Re: Finally

    They're not working in our interest primarily.

    "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition."
    -James Madison, Federalist 51

    Madison was talking about tension between different branches of government, but the principle is still the same. When one faction in power has the ability to obstruct another faction, it is more likely (not always) that the final action will be more aligned with the rule of law and the will of the people. Single parties (of any sort) have a terrible tendency to steamroll through policies that favor narrow, usually selfish, interests.

    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
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
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.