Politics

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
cisa, cybersecurity, senate



Senate Punts CISA Vote Into September

from the didn't-have-the-votes dept

Well, that's interesting. Based on all of the talk this week, it was expected that there would be a vote today in the Senate on the faux cybersecurity CISA bill -- but it didn't happen. Business concluded and everyone went home for the month without a vote, meaning it won't be taken up until September, at the earliest. According to Kaveh Waddell at the National Journal:
Senators are heading home for the August recess without voting on the cybersecurity bill.

Lawmakers worked for days on an agreement about which amendments to include on the cyber bill, but Senate leaders pulled the plug at the last minute on a vote scheduled first for 10:30 a.m, then for 2 p.m. Then they decided to skip town.

Under the deal senators struck Wednesday afternoon, the cyber bill will come up again in September after recess, and 21 Democratic and Republican amendments will receive votes.
It's not entirely clear why the delay happened. Some have suggested it had to do with concern over some of those 21 amendments, but it might also mean that there really aren't the votes that CISA supporters were hoping for. After all, the hope had been to try to "sneak" CISA through when people weren't paying attention, but civil liberties and privacy advocates have been quite active again (and, I'm sure, will continue to be). Either way, the fight to block such a bad piece of legislation goes on, but it's good to see that the actual vote has been delayed for now...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 3:42pm

    "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/249521-cisa-the-dirty-deal-between-google-and-the- nsa-that-no-one-is
    "So CISA would give law enforcement a ton of new data with which to prosecute you for virtually any crime while simultaneously protecting the corporations that share the data from prosecution for any crimes possibly related to it."

    Especially not Techdirt if mentions Google as at all bad! Even though this is referenced:
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150604/18132531231/how-nsas-cybersecurity-surveillanc e-should-completely-change-debate-cybersecurity-bills.shtml

    Now, how many mentions of Google are in that (or this) Techdirt piece? -- That's right, ZERO. Right in line with my expectations from the last six years that Techdirt never has anything bad about Google -- unless first in the NYTimes, meaning it's okay to do a little carping, but don't go further.

    How much were Techdirt readers stirred by a wimpy piece that didn't mention the key corporate surveiller? -- The fifth of a mere FIVE comments notes that it got FIVE comments including his:
    alan turing, Jun 7th, 2015 @ 4:01am There are way more than Five Eyes
    Five comments. Really? This is huge , I guess people are either numbed by all this crap or just don't give a rats ass. I, for one, am disgusted and quite saddened by where we are today in terms of trampled rights and constitutional dismissal.


    Myself, because of the deliberate non-mention of Google, chose to not help Techdirt. If you-know-who ever worried about Google's surveillance, then I might believe that he actually does worry about the surveillance state.

    But here's his ODD central question:
    Of course, we've [Techdirt] been asking for years (1) why, if this is so useful, companies can't already share this information and (2) what attacks these bills would have actually stopped? No one ever seems to have any answers.

    Shortened a bit it's "Why can't companies already share this information?" -- Where's worry about the total surveillance state? Sounds more like a corporatist in favor of it saying: "so hurry up, already!"

    Just by mentioning that the key component to CISA is Google, TheHill has far more clear and specific warning than ever appears from Techdirt writers.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 3:43pm

    "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/249521-cisa-the-dirty-deal-between-google-and-the- nsa-that-no-one-is
    "So CISA would give law enforcement a ton of new data with which to prosecute you for virtually any crime while simultaneously protecting the corporations that share the data from prosecution for any crimes possibly related to it."

    Especially not Techdirt if mentions Google as at all bad! Even though this is referenced:
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150604/18132531231/how-nsas-cybersecurity-surveillanc e-should-completely-change-debate-cybersecurity-bills.shtml

    Now, how many mentions of Google are in that (or this) Techdirt piece? -- That's right, ZERO. Right in line with my expectations from the last six years that Techdirt never has anything bad about Google -- unless first in the NYTimes, meaning it's okay to do a little carping, but don't go further.

    How much were Techdirt readers stirred by a wimpy piece that didn't mention the key corporate surveiller? -- The fifth of a mere FIVE comments notes that it got FIVE comments including his:
    alan turing, Jun 7th, 2015 @ 4:01am There are way more than Five Eyes
    Five comments. Really? This is huge , I guess people are either numbed by all this crap or just don't give a rats ass. I, for one, am disgusted and quite saddened by where we are today in terms of trampled rights and constitutional dismissal.


    Myself, because of the deliberate non-mention of Google, chose to not help Techdirt. If you-know-who ever worried about Google's surveillance, then I might believe that he actually does worry about the surveillance state.

    But here's his ODD central question:
    Of course, we've [Techdirt] been asking for years (1) why, if this is so useful, companies can't already share this information and (2) what attacks these bills would have actually stopped? No one ever seems to have any answers.

    Shortened a bit it's "Why can't companies already share this information?" -- Where's worry about the total surveillance state? Sounds more like a corporatist in favor of it saying: "so hurry up, already!"

    Just by mentioning that the key component to CISA is Google, TheHill has far more clear and specific warning than ever appears from Techdirt writers.

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

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 3:47pm

      Re: "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"

      Only three tries through TOR that time. I like to give numbers so you can admire my persistence to overcome the obstacles.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 3:59pm

      Re: "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"

      That article mentions nothing about Google specifically, really.

      And it wouldn't be the first time the law has deputized citizens potentially against their will- Fugitive Slave Act, anyone?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 4:04pm

      Re: "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"

      Whether Google wants all your private information is a different question, of course.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 5 Aug 2015 @ 4:40pm

      Oops

      Google obsession/fetish kicked in again I take it?

      Now, how many mentions of Google are in that (or this) Techdirt piece? -- That's right, ZERO. Right in line with my expectations from the last six years that Techdirt never has anything bad about Google -- unless first in the NYTimes, meaning it's okay to do a little carping, but don't go further.

      Gotta love it. 'TD never posts anything bad about Google! ...Except when they do. But that doesn't count!'

      I can't tell if that's a 'No True Scotsman' or a 'Sharpshooter' fallacy, assuming it's just not intentional dishonesty by ignoring any evidence contrary to your claims.

      Shortened a bit it's "Why can't companies already share this information?" -- Where's worry about the total surveillance state? Sounds more like a corporatist in favor of it saying: "so hurry up, already!"

      Nice attempt at spin, but no. Rather, what they're pointing out is that the excuses for why CISA and similar bills are 'needed', that it would allow companies to share data with government agencies, is bunk, because they can already do that.

      It has nothing to do with should they, what's being pointed out is can they, and despite the insinuations otherwise, nothing's stopping companies from sharing the data that government agencies want, it's just without bills like CISA, they run the risk of being sued by angry customers if they do.

      Just by mentioning that the key component to CISA is Google, TheHill has far more clear and specific warning than ever appears from Techdirt writers.

      So CISA is something that Google (supposedly) supports. And TD supposedly works for Google, or at the very least has a strong pro-Google slant to their articles.

      Funny then that TD has been pretty consistently against CISA, no?

      Maybe they missed the email telling all their unofficial supporters to back CISA? Maybe the TD staff were collectively sick when the memo was being passed around?

      Or maybe, and I'm sure this will just blow you mind, not everything is about Google.

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

    • identicon
      That One Other Not So Random Guy, 5 Aug 2015 @ 5:49pm

      Re: "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"

      Poor boB. They did find meds that worked... for a while. Poor little fellah.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 4:17pm

    I ceased using Google when they started censorship, and serves them right for all the take down requests they are dealing with now. They made their deal with the devil and lost their soul, how sad. As for the senate, we all know the system is broken and they are unable to do anything to rectify the situation. They won't wake up until our currency is worthless, and by then it will be too late. Thank you techdirt for the "secure" connection, not using tor or a VPN to post,just anon.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2015 @ 4:37pm

    EFF used up all their fax paper,

    whatever that is...

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 6:29am

    Congressional Base Salary: $174,000.00
    House Legislative Days: 137
    Senate Legislative Days: a few more than the house

    over paid and under worked

    The spend a large portion of their day seeking campaign funding, seldom read the bills written by lobbyists before casting a vote according to their puppet master's wishes.

    These are not your representatives (most of them anyways)

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


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
Close
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
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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