The House passes CISPA with a vote of 248 to 168

http://thenextweb.com/us/2012/04/27/the-house-passes-cispa-with-a-vote-of-248-to-168/?utm_source=HackerNews&utm_medium=share%2Bbutton&utm_content=The%20House%20passes%20CISPA%20with%20a%20vote%20of%20248%20to%20168&utm_campaign=social%2Bmedia

by zackzackzack • 14 years ago

275 117 14 years ago

thenextweb.com

r0s• 14 years ago

The House passes all kinds of crazy stuff, the Senate is where legislation goes to die.

cellis• 14 years ago

Seriously who gives a shit what the house does? It's basically a filter for the real issues in the Senate.

newbie12• 14 years ago

That's exactly how the system was designed to work-- a feature, not a bug, to let hot issues simmer down before passage.

akavi• 14 years ago

So much for the theory that the threat of a veto is as good as a veto.

Anyone willing to bet Obama won't sign this?

smashing2• 14 years ago

168 / 248 = 0.67

Overriding a veto could be quite easy if this gets sent back to the House.

eck• 14 years ago

That's not how the math works. It's 2/3 * 435 = 290, so they're still 42 votes short.

larsbot• 14 years ago

Good or bad, I'd be surprised if he ever has the chance to sign it. It has to make its way through the quagmire that is the senate first.

tptacek31• 14 years ago

Just a reminder: many (maybe most) of the Dems who voted against CISPA did so because they favor a more intrusive intervention: they want the government to establish standards for "cybersecurity" to apply to private industry systems they consider "critical infrastructure", and then for the government to deputize specific firms (read: Raytheon, SAIC, Lockheed) to conduct mandatory audits of those firms. Privacy is a fig leaf here.

Also remember: under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, none of the information disclosure "authorized" by CISPA was already unlawful. 18 USC § 2702 (b) (5): private companies can voluntarily disclose private customer information "as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service". Without limitation. With no check on the what the government does with that information afterwards. CISPA added restrictions (albeit weak ones) on sharing; it didn't meaningfully broaden what could be shared.

Regardless of what EFF says about this (unfortunately, I personally believe EFF's interest in CISPA is largely about fundraising), you probably should be careful about cheering CISPA's demise.

rayiner4• 14 years ago

Yes, thank you. The CISPA fear totally ignores the fact that all of the stuff in CISPA is already legal. You don't have a privacy interest in all of that information you give to third parties every day. Maybe you should, but that's a matter for a Constitutional amendment, because as it is that information is fair game.

throwaway644• 14 years ago

there is not however, guaranteed immunity from civil/criminal prosecution for sharing data under the auspices of "national security", thats whats important about CISPA, it is carte blanc for the government to collect whatever data it wants, with zero oversight or accountability.

tptacek seems to be pushing the line that "this bill does nothing, everything it establishes is already legal". But i caution HN users to be aware of his own vested interests in this bill.

koglerjs• 14 years ago

Whether or not it's legal does not inform whether or not it is a positive step as far as privacy advocacy is concerned.

Laws such as this embolden those parties that seek to undermine privacy. It is one thing for someone to be able to say "According to a set of disparate laws, X action is legal" and quite another when "According to CISPA, X action is legal."

hristov4• 14 years ago

If all the stuff in CISPA is already legal, then we do not need CISPA, do we?

ericd3• 14 years ago

In your educated opinion on security, what would you say are CISPA's merits and what are its flaws? Is it a threat to the way websites/organizations that have no bearing on national security operate, or to the way people should treat the internet from a freedom of speech perspective? I imagine that many people fear this is similar somehow to SOPA with a fresh coat of paint, so anything you could do to confirm or dispel that would be helpful.

tptacek31• 14 years ago

CISPA has nothing to do with the objectives of SOPA. It contains no provisions to allow sites to be shut down. It is, in fact, voluntary: private companies that do not want to share attack data with the government are not required to participate.

For the record: the bill has few merits. It appears to do very little at all, other than (a) to associate its sponsors with being "serious" about "cybersecurity", and (b) to block the adoption of the far more intrusive intervention the Democratic administration wants. (Note before cackling: I'm a Democrat).

jellicle• 14 years ago

Remember, tptacek has very little idea what he is talking about when he posts this same comment on every thread. Doesn't have a clue about the politics; doesn't have a clue about the law. To be charitable. Because he has been informed, and keeps posting this, which turns it from clueless to intentionally lying.

Yes, under ECPA, information can be disclosed "as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service", which is to say, not very often, since it's not often necessarily incident, and a company which disclosed your information might have to prove in a court of law that it was necessarily incident. Which is a rather big limitation, as opposed to tptacek's lying characterization of it as "without limitation".

I don't really understand tptacek's position here - is he being paid for this? - but this repeated bullshit posting needs to stop. (And the evil-Democrat-vs.-noble-Republican stuff is pure fantasyland. CISPA isn't about cybersecurity as computer professionals think of it. It's about copyright enforcement and general government snooping, not about hacking. Both Democrats and Republicans are fully behind it, despite the political wrangling, assuming that the copyright lobby has made the proper campaign contributions this year.)

Xuzz3• 14 years ago

Is there a way to make your point without the ad-hominem or the accusations, and with more references? You've accused him of deliberately and repeatedly lying (a pretty serious accusation for one of the top HN contributors); do you have any evidence besides your differing interpretation of his citation?

(And I still do not see how it is at all related to copyright.)

sliverstorm• 14 years ago

Besides your thinly-veiled insults, how do we know you know what you're talking about any more than tptacek?

tptacek31• 14 years ago

From the bill language, which you haven't read:

  ‘(B) EXCLUSION.— Such term does not 
  include information pertaining to efforts to gain 
  unauthorized access to a system or network of 
  a government or private entity that solely in-
  volve violations of consumer terms of service or 
  consumer licensing agreements and do not oth-
  erwise constitute unauthorized access.

Putz.

eli• 14 years ago

Ya know, I bet there's a way you could have disagreed with him without attacking him personally.

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

bentlegen2• 14 years ago

Citation please? Seriously, I want to know where the government made these assertions re: deputization.

tptacek31• 14 years ago

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/show

SpaceDragon• 14 years ago

Some will defend liberty, so long as it isn't inconvenient and doesn't disrupt their lifestyle.

Otherwise, they become a good spokesperson for tyranny.

hristov4• 14 years ago

That's a common excuse used to defend bills that erode various constitutional rights. "Everything authorized by this bill was already lawful under other bills. Nothing to worry about, keep moving." This means that you can change things gradually with multiple bills and claim each time that "this bill changes nothing, keep moving".

If this bill changes nothing, then there is no purpose to vote for this bill is there?

tptacek31• 14 years ago

I agree that there is no purpose for CISPA. It's a dumb bill.

rayiner4• 14 years ago

There's no Constitution rights at play here. Sorry, there just aren't. The Constitution protects your right to be secure in your personal effects. Information you hand over to third parties is not protected by the Constitution. It wasn't protected in 1789, it's not protected now.

tedunangst2• 14 years ago

In between what the law bans and what the law permits, there's all the "you're allowed to do it because nobody said you can't" stuff. If you happen to be doing that stuff, it's comforting to have it explicitly called out as legal. If you want that stuff to be illegal, you obviously don't want it getting promoted to "more" legal, because it's harder to get your ban passed.

Imagine a new bill is introduced. "Eating apples is legal." The Apple Pickers Union would love to see this bill passed. The Orange Pickers Union would probably oppose it. They'd both spend millions on a blogocampaign to convince you they are right. But passing (or not passing) the bill changes nothing; it's already legal to eat apples.

jbooth6• 14 years ago

Do you have quote from, sic, "Dems" to this effect? One dem isn't sufficient, you need "many". (Incidentally, "many" is one of my favorite weasel words).

If the dems are bad on this issue for voting no, what does that make the people who votes yes?

tptacek31• 14 years ago

Look up the Rockefeller Cybersecurity bill from the Senate from 2009.

rdl2• 14 years ago

How does passing CISPA now prevent passing something more intrusive later?

tptacek31• 14 years ago

Because industry self-regulation vs. top-down government intervention is a partisan political issue. There's momentum to pass some bill about cybersecurity so that Congress can say it got something done; there will be no momentum after this bill becomes law.

CISPA is the GOP's response to the Rockefeller Cybersecurity bill from the Senate.

samstave• 14 years ago

Our National Budget is Defense Industry centric. Anyone who thinks that our policy stance is not Defense Industry leaning as a result is not being objective.

Look at it this way; While the majority of humans are pushing to decrease wars and traditional defense spending, the military industrial complex is looking for a way to transition from conventional ordinance revenue streams to digital ordinance revenue streams.

This will be either a long hard transition, or an immediate windfall transition which lets the traditional ordinance stream die over time with a very fast ramp up of digital streams.

This is why we see an uptick in things like Stuxnet, all sorts of hacker claims, wikileaks, Anonymous, etc.

Some are legit, but I withhold judgement on which.

The fact is that there is NO existential physical threat - and that control model is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the illusion.

Thus they need to transition the fear factory to the vector where 30% of the globe is connected.

They have been laying the foundation though for some time with respect to the financial infrastructure. They needed to ensure they had a great number of financial control tools in place prior to 100% online lockdown.

Welcome to the oligarchy's police state.

jebblue• 14 years ago

>> Our National Budget is Defense Industry centric.

Freedom is still in vogue, ask the world.

vectorpush• 14 years ago

I have no faith in an Obama veto. I feel confident that whatever changes are made to the bill before it passes the senate will be used as an excuse for Obama to sign it.

blhack• 14 years ago

Listening to this on cspan was...frustrating.

These are people who only learned what the terms "network" and "line of code" mean a few months ago, using them as if they are an authority on the topic.

And to hear some of this nonsense, about China being "an organized crime syndicate", or all the negativity about Russia.

Or about how they're doing all of this because they need to protect citizens from "cyber threats". FFS, guys, no. Look at the complete disaster of security that is the TSA. You're telling us that you're the ones that are going to protect us? Your understanding of what you're talking about is so limited that it took shutting down wikipedia, reddit, and countless other websites for a day to keep you from completely breaking the DNS a couple of months ago.

I think we're doing fine protecting ourselves from "cyber threats", guys, thanks.

[And yes, of course I realize that the "we're doing it for you!" is just nonsense.]

tptacek31• 14 years ago

I know what a network is and I know what a line of code is.

The underlying concern being addressed here is not invalid.

We are not doing "just fine" protecting ourselves from "cyber threats". In fact, I don't know a single credible person working in software security who believes that. If anything, things in 2012 are far worse than they were in 2001: more critical systems than ever are networked, either directly to the Internet, to open GSM networks, or to proprietary RF. Those that aren't are virtually always one hop away from someone using completely vulnerable clientside software.

Organized hacking syndicates in China are also not a made-up problem.

I probably share your confidence in the Administration's ability to address the problem top-down, but comments like yours actually subtract value from the discussion. Any debate where you lead the opposition to things like CISPA dies immediately, because you've chosen to attack a totally valid premise instead of the specific arguments this bill or Obama's makes.

PaperclipTaken• 14 years ago

I think that to give the responsibility of security to the government is a fallacy, not only because the government is very capable of abusing the power and screwing up in a huge way, but also because it will make private companies less likely to take the appropriate measures to protect themselves.

Defending yourself from an attack is almost always easier than being the attacker. You just have to know what type of technology you are working with and the inherent security holes in that technology. You don't need to blow millions of dollars on security unless you are already a company worth several hundred million dollars.

And the other problem is that there will always be skillful hackers, and these hackers will always have the means and the knowledge to hide from the government, even if the government has access to a much greater percentage of information going through the internet. If the government has fancier tools to access things like email, hackers will be more careful/liberal with their use of encryption.

I believe that this bill is going to work a lot like DRM. It's going to put hackers and civilians alike in a more uncomfortable position, except that the hackers are going to figure out how to work around it fast enough that its hardly going to make a difference, and the techno-ignorant (for lack of a better term) civilians will just have to deal with it.

Retric• 14 years ago

If you actually dig into things hacking has directly caused surprisingly little actual economic harm. The proactive and reactive response tends to be expensive, but in economic terms good old fashion fraud is still way more damaging. As to attacks by nation states, we are actually willing to respond with nukes if things cross a somewhat vague threshold and they are so unprotected as you suggest.

rosebush• 14 years ago

Every US Citizen that reads & participates in Hacker News needs to protest this. This will impact all of you if this goes through & is signed by the President.

America, the home of the free & brave. This is no longer true anymore.

dholowiski• 14 years ago

citizens in other countries need to find out how to participate too, because as the us goes, so goes many other countries too.

nextparadigms• 14 years ago

So now how do you get a bill like these repealed, and after how much time? Imagine if SOPA passed like this. I think a lot of people just give up after a bill like this is passed. Plus it's simply much harder to repeal it afterwards - could be a decade or more. Just look at the Patriot Act.

No wonder the politicians wants to pass some bills before Christmas or other vacation. They know once it's passed quickly, the population will do nothing serious about it, and it's over.

tptacek31• 14 years ago

Why exactly would you want to repeal CISPA? Fast forward 1 year, at which time CISPA is in effect, repeal CISPA, and then fast forward again 1 day. How is that day different than the one before it? Be as specific as you can.

Peaker• 14 years ago

If government pressures telcom to give it user data, and the telcom gives it data, it becomes open to lawsuits. Thus, telcom might decide it wants a warrant after all.

dguaraglia• 14 years ago

Oh, here we go... not this shit again. FFS.

sehugg2• 14 years ago

Don't forget to thank your Congressperson if they voted NO.

tptacek31• 14 years ago

How do you know your congressperson doesn't favor some worse intervention than CISPA? Because by HN standards, the Administration's favored course on "cybersecurity" is way worse.

r00fus2• 14 years ago

Reward good behavior - it's the only way to train them.

jongraehl• 14 years ago

Good point.

Obviously you'd let them know why you were thankful they voted no :)

sehugg2• 14 years ago

Even if a worse intervention is planned (like the one you described above) wouldn't passage of CISPA help to validate it? Probably even make it easier to pass because the Internet's rage has already been depleted?

Joakal• 14 years ago

You don't. The thanks is for voting against CISPA bill that you disagree with.

Summarily, people also rally against their congressperson if they vote poorly on something.

ajross2• 14 years ago

Note that this is a 57% margin. If the same holds in the Senate, it won't pass cloture and won't reach the president's desk.

bonjourmr• 14 years ago

When SOPA was beaten, I was hoping that our victories against it and each latter mutation of it would outlast the senators voting for it. Should we be worried now?

rdl2• 14 years ago

What is the deal with the Quayle amendment?

"Would limit government use of shared cyber threat information to only 5 purposes: (1) cybersecurity; (2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; (3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; (4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and (5) protection of the national security of the United States."

cfinke• 14 years ago

It's an attempt to gain more votes, as opponents could then be painted as having voted against preventing "physical or psychological harm" to minors.

westicle• 14 years ago

Without wanting to sidetrack the thread from the real issue of CISPA, I have to take issue with the quality of reporting.

"Many have found the bill to be troublesome, given that, in their estimation, its language was too broad to be safe. Also that the government could use the mandates and powers contained therein in ways that would be antithetical to privacy, and even in the cause of cyber security, could be too intrusive."

In their estimation, powers contained therein, antithetical. What happened to plain language?

"The language of the bill is too broad. It gives the government powers to intrude on the privacy of individuals. Even in the context of security legislation these powers are too intrusive."

bitsoda• 14 years ago

With each passing year, Richard Stallman looks wiser.

debacle• 14 years ago

If CISPA is passed, we, the citizens of the Internet, need to take broad and quick action to protect ourselves from the affronts of these aging, bloated government bodies.

Tor has proven to be compromised. Almost every forum on the Internet has its handful of sock puppets. What can we do to ensure that our future is free, secure, and anonymous?

Tipzntrix• 14 years ago

EVE is coming to real life. Watch out for space pirates out there man.

"2mil ISK OR PODDED"

The House passes CISPA with a vote of 248 to 168

Related Stories