backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by saganhill.. on Apr 26 at 8:06 AM

Cash greases the wheels on the hill

Washington, D.C. was alive yesterday with the squeak of lobbyist cash lubricating Congress to thrust a controversial new law on the American public.  The new bill is on the surface similar to big media's Orwellian SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) (H.R. 3261).  But while a merry brand of citizen activism struck down SOPA and its Senate equivalent -- the "PROTECT IP Act" (PIPA) (S.968) -- in the eleventh hour, this time around there were no massive protests to derail the bill.

I. Cash Pushes CISPA Through

The last time around sponsors like Viacom, Inc. (VIA), Time Warner, Inc. (TWX), and Sony Corp.'s (TYO:6758) movie and music subsidiaries paid a whopping $86M USD (source: Maplight) to active Senators alone over the last six-year cycle, only to see their carefully laid plans dashed when the PROTECT IP Act.

With the defeat of PIPA, big media moved on, partnering with internet service providers to police file sharers via "six strikes" systems.  

But a new coalition of special interests, which include America's two largest cellular service providers AT&T, Inc. (T) and Verizon Wireless -- jointly owned by Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD) -- as well as two of the nation's largest software firms Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Intel Corp. (INTC), came together to create a similar data grab bill (Microsoft has since renounced its support).  Security firms like Symantec Corp. (SYMC) also backed the bill.

That bill -- the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act" (CISPA) (H.R. 3523) -- passed the house by a healthy 288-to-127 margin.
CISPA passage
CISPA passed by a healthy margin (Yeas are dark). [Image Source: GovTrack]

Pushing the bill through was $84M USD in funding from special interest backers (source: Maplight).  With the average cost of a House seat running at a cool $1.44M USD in 2010 (source: OpenSecrets), that represents nearly 13 percent of the total cost of election for the 435 members of Congress.

Bribe under table
CISPA was backed by nearly as much lobbyist cash as SOPA. [Image Source: i-Sight]
 
Perhaps that’s why 92 members of the Democratic minority joined with 196 members of the Republican majority in passing the measure, despite opposition from President Obama (D).

II. Supporters Defend "Voluntary" Warrantless Sharing

The bill in essence will create an open door that allows corporations to voluntarily share citizens’ records with the government without the government issuing warrants.  Some companies find that appealing for a variety of reasons.  First, some may be hoping to snag lucrative contracts to handle that data.  Second, some may view it as protection against large-scale threats like Chinese hackers.  Third, some feel that its language protects them from financial fallout of citizen lawsuits.  

Corporate backers also appreciate that the government isn't trying to force them to share information on threats -- that was a major bone of contention about SOPA.

Sponsor Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has long said the purpose of CISPA is to protect vital parts of America's connected infrastructure -- like utilities or cellular systems -- from attack from China, Iran, and other hostile foreign internet powers.
In a document "CISPA: Myth v. Fact" [PDF], Rep. Rogers and the bill's other backers defend it, pointing out that the bill limits when the government can collect data -- namely, in response to "cybersecurity threats", to assist in the investigation of violent crimes, or to counter child exploitation.

Rep. Rogers may have a bit of vested interest -- his wife Kristi Clemens Rogers is CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, who could score lucrative contracts to provide cybersecurity "solutions" to the government under CISPA.  Her company already has a $10B USD contract with the U.S. Department of State.

III. Innocent Bystanders Could be Exposed

To be fair, he's right.  Versus SOPA, the language regarding privacy is seemingly much stronger and the scope of warrantless information passing is seemingly much narrower.  But some argue that even cracking open the door of warrantless surveillance may lead to problems.

That's the position of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  The ACLU writes:

[CISPA] would threaten Americans' privacy while immunizing companies from any liability should that cyberinformation-sharing cause harm.

One scenario that the bill could lead to trouble is if a public/shared connection or an infected citizen computer is used in an attack.  Under such circumstances, innocent bystanders could have their email or browsing history seized despite not personally committing the crime under investigation.

Search on Google
If a shared connection at a coffee shop is used in an attack, your records could be seized.
[Image Source: Google Images/Unknown]

On Monday Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) slammed the bill, reiterating previous criticism.  In a post he says CISPA represents "the new SOPA", "the latest assault on internet freedom", an "alarming form of corporatism," and a "Big Brother writ large."  

Ron Paul
Rep. Ron Paul blasted CISPA on Monday.  [Image Source: AP]

Rep. Paul did manage to amend the bill to protect firearms and library records from warrantless surveillance.  Rep. Paul abstained from the final vote on the bill, which saw only one of his suggested three amendments made.

IV. Obama Threatens to Veto Bill

The bill now goes on to the Senate.

President Obama (D) has for a second time threatened to veto [PDF] the bill, should it pass the Senate.  On the surface the stand is somewhat puzzling -- the President supported a similar Senate bill (S.2105 [PDF]).  The President has even pushed through measures similar to the bill's language with executive orders.

President Obama
President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. [Image Source: AFP/Getty Images]

One bone of contention appears to be "data cleansing" -- removing information irrelevant to an investigation before passing it to the government.  Writes his office:

…the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable…for failing to safeguard personal information adequately.

Furthermore, CISPA allows information on internal (domestic) threats to be passed to military and intelligence organizations primarily tasked with the defense of the U.S. against foreign threats, including the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).  President Obama preferred the information to solely be controlled by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a domestic security agency.

His office complains:

The Administration supports the longstanding tradition to treat the Internet and cyberspace as civilian spheres…[and] newly authorized information sharing for cybersecurity purposes from the private sector to the government should enter the government through a civilian agency.

Of course the President's DoD appointees recently declared that internet attacks from foreign powers could be construed as an act of war, so this statement is somewhat inconsistent.

Nonetheless, under the threat of veto don't expect the Democratic-controlled Senate to be too eager to quickly take up the issue.  That means that for now only similar executive orders from President Obama will be in place.

Source: House of Representatives



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Another example...
By ebakke on 4/19/2013 11:05:00 AM , Rating: 3
Lobbying isn't the problem. That lobbying can even get you bills like this, is the problem.

Restrict the power of the government, and lobbying goes away on its own.


RE: Another example...
By Uncle on 4/19/2013 1:47:07 PM , Rating: 3
As far as I know the Constitution and Bill of Rights was suppose to take care of that. Now America has a problem with the Justices of the Supreme Court pandering for retirement funds. What I fail to understand is, most people hear, read, and see the corruption on a daily basis, and it just continues, day after day. From Government to Wall street,to the State level. No one seems to be able to come up with a solution, other then to say "Well what can I do about it." Its like people have given up and decided that all their going to do is steal as much as they can get, while they have the chance.


RE: Another example...
By JPForums on 4/22/2013 10:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one seems to be able to come up with a solution, other then to say "Well what can I do about it."
It's not a full solution, but I'll throw in a couple of ideas that would help:

Limit the amount of time politicians can spend in federal office and completely remove any follow on benefits. If politicians have to live under the rules they create without exemptions (like the general populace), then they will be less likely to pass laws that obviously screw their constituents. It would not get rid of laws that they legitimately believe to be for the best, but they aren't going to pass a law that will obviously end up screwing themselves when they get out of office.

Make the majority of the public aware, in real time , of the full details of the proceedings and debates happening in the legislature and laws like this won't get passed before the general public even realizes it is in debate. The populace needs time to respond before such legislation is passed. Politicians will also be far less obvious about screwing the populace if they know their constituents are watching their every move.

America is a republic. That means the politicians are workers hired to represent the interests of the populace (boss) who do the hiring (electing). You'd never imagine a corporation anywhere in the world where a boss wasn't able to evaluate the employees work whenever he sees fit (particularly when the employee is suspected of failing his assigned duties). However, the lack of easy general access to a real-time or at least up to date record of the actions of the U.S. government has effectively removed the ability of the American populace to monitor or influence their "employee's" actions until the damage has been done.


RE: Another example...
By Uncle on 4/23/2013 12:10:51 AM , Rating: 2
Good examples. I still ask the question how do Americans get their elected officials to respond to your idea when it has to come up for a vote. If the majority of the elected vote against your change, no changes will happen. Any ideas?


RE: Another example...
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2013 7:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well lobbying of course is a big problem.

My problem with the knee-jerk "ban lobbying" crowd is that they apparently haven't thought it through. Because if you did so a few things would happen:

1) Since these people essentially operate above the law on a daily basis already, who's exactly going to enforce this new ban on lobbying and how?

2) Actual legitimate uses of lobbying for generally good causes would also be made illegal.

You absolutely nailed the real issue, and I've harped on it every time lobbying comes up. The real problem is the scale of the Federal Government and Congressional power is entirely out of whack. As more and more power is taken from the States and consolidated at the Federal level, you've dramatically increased the scale of lobbying.

More simply put, what at one point in the past would have taken the consent of 50 separate State legislatures or Governors, making new legislation more difficult, now only takes the consent of a single (or handful) Congressman that can be bought off or otherwise convinced to draft a bill.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki