Next Internet Censorship Bill

Amaury · Apr 8, 2012

Wow, people don't learn when to give up, do they? When are they going to realize that their actions are futile? Nobody wants censorship.

Sources:

Digital Journal

Examiner

RT

CNET News

Publication Dates:

4/4/2012

4/4/2012

4/5/2012

3/30/2012

Digital Journal said:

Washington - In the wake of SOPA and PIPA, there is yet another terrifying bill on the table. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short) which is currently being discussed by Congress.

In Washington, Congress is discussing the best way to avert the ongoing cyberattacks and some legislators have put forward a new act which, if it passes Congress, will allow the government access to personal correspondence of any person of their choosing.

Much like the Big Brother tactics in the United Kingdom recently, this bill will likely cause an outcry of condemnation and criticism, as happened with the deceased SOPA and PIPA bills.
The title of this controversial act is H.R. 3523 and it has been dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short). It is feared that CISPA is far worse than SOPA and PIPA in its possible effects on the Internet.

While this paper has been created under the guise of being a necessary weapon in the U.S. war against cyberattacks, the wording of the paper is vague and broad. It is thought that the act could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and would allow the monitoring and censorship of any user and also stop online communications which they deem disruptive to the government or to private parties.

Critics say that CISPA would give any federal entity that claims it is threatened by online interactions the ability to take action against the "perpetrator". Unlike the SOPA and PIPA acts which were eventually discarded after a successful online campaign, widespread recognition of what the latest proposed law will do has yet to surface to the same degree.

Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT:

â€œWe have a number of concerns with something like this bill that creates sort of a vast hole in the privacy law to allow government to receive these kinds of information.â€
She states that the bill, as it stands, allows the U.S. government to involve itself in any online correspondence if it believes there is reason to suspect cyber crime.
As with other recent attempts at Internet censorship that have been discussed in Congress, the wording within the CISPA allows the government to interpret the law so broadly, that any online communication or interaction could then be suspect, and monitored without the knowledge of the parties concerned.

The CDT in a press release last month warned that CISPA allows Internet Service Providers to â€œfunnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls. The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DODâ€™s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient.â€

CISPA has also been condemned by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online advocacy group. They say that â€œIt effectively creates a â€˜cybersecurity'â€™ exemption to all existing laws. There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by â€˜cyber security purposes'.â€

According to both CDT and EFF, this means some of the largest corporations in the country, including online service providers like Google, Twitter, Facebook or AT&T could, if pressured, copy confidential information from a user and send this information to the Pentagon, as long as the government believes there is a reason to suspect wrongdoing.

According to the authors of CISPA, this bill has been made â€œTo provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities.â€ They also state: â€œand for other purposes,â€ which is broad and rather undefined.

In the video Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT: â€œCyber security, when done right and done narrowly, could benefit everyone. But it needs to be done in an incremental way with a narrow approach, and the heavy hand that lawmakers are taking with these current bills . . . it brings real serious concerns.â€

At today's date CISPA has the support of over 100 representatives in the House, who favor the cybersecurity legislation, but do not take into account what it can do to the everyday Internet user.

While there are no major protests as yet, as happened with SOPA and PIPA, Burman feels it will only be a matter of time before concerned Americans demand to have their say in the matter.

â€œOne of the lessons we learned in the reaction to SOPA and PIPA is that when Congress tries to legislate on things that are going to affect Internet usersâ€™ experience, the Internet users are going to pay attention,â€ says Burman. She adds that H.R. 3523 â€œDefinitely could affect in a very serious way the Internet experience.â€
She does add that â€œPeople are starting to notice.â€

However, given the speed that this latest bill could be snuck through in Congress, anyone concerned over the future of the free Internet should be on the look out.
Click to expand...

Examiner said:

A controversial new bill that would allow for Internet censorship is quietly moving through Congress. Critics claim H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), constitutes a substantial threat to the Internet as we know it.

The controversial bill intends â€œto provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.â€ The bill is being sponsored by Rep. Michael Rogers, a Republican representing Michiganâ€™s 8th district.

According to a press release issued last week, the bill already has over a 100 congressional co-sponsors. Yet the bill is only now beginning to appear on the public radar.

Under CISPA, the feds, and other corporate interests, could require ISPs and others to provide information on Internet users without restriction. No warrant, no probable cause, would be necessary, as long as the action is taken in the name of â€œcybersecurity.â€

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation the bill contains â€œsweeping language that would give companies and the government new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement. It could also be a powerful weapon to use against whistleblower websites like WikiLeaks.â€

Critics claim the bill is draconian in nature, and would effectively eliminate any pretense to online privacy and Internet freedom.

Ostensibly, CISPA is meant to be a tool to prevent online piracy, and protect the nation's security. However, critics argue that in reality the legislation would allow for the circumvention of any and all protections guaranteeing online privacy, allowing the feds and other corporate interests to monitor, censor and prevent online communications considered disruptive or harmful to the government or other significant private parties.

Indeed, critics claim the current legislation is so vague in wording that almost anything could be monitored or censored in the name of cyber security.

CISPA is being compared to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Yet it remains to be seen if the same public pressure that successfully stopped SOPA and PIPA can prevent CISPA from being enacted.
Click to expand...

RT said:

US lawmakers are having another go at regulating the Internet, despite the recent embarrassing climbdown, when public outrage saw anti-piracy plans shelved. With a new cybersecurity bill, CISPA, activists fear their nightmares may now be realized.

*The US government continues spending millions of dollars to support freedom of the Internet around the world. But is it freedom for all?

The whistleblower website WikiLeaks, which to many has become the symbol of Internet freedom, has been under fire from US officials and lawmakers.

â€œBecause WikiLeaks published documents which embarrassed the American government in many ways, WikiLeaks becomes the enemy,â€ a former employee of the US State Department, Peter van Buren, told RT.

The US has reportedly issued a secret indictment against Julian Assange, the head of the website which leaked hundreds of thousands of documents, revealing embarrassing details about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Five major US financial institutions â€“ VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, Western Union and the Bank of America â€“ have tried to economically strangle WikiLeaks by blocking donations to the website.

Until recently, Peter van Buren, served as a Foreign Service officer at the State Department. He says he was fired over the book and the blog that he wrote about the failure of US policies in Iraq.

â€œThe State Department since 2008 has spent $76 million overseas on Internet freedom, giving tools and support to bloggers and journalists and online people around the world, particularly in countries that we have difficulties with,â€ he said. â€œAt the same time, the State Departmentâ€¦ has found Internet freedom to be inconvenient in the form of WikiLeaks, and has worked just as hard and probably spent even more money trying to shut down free speech that it opposes, while supporting free speech that it feels furthers Americaâ€™s own political goals overseas. We call that hypocrisy.â€

But it is not just the whistleblowing websites that the US is after, but also their sources. Critics say this administration has embarked on an unprecedented campaign against whistleblowers.

â€œIn this culture, where this administration is going after whistleblowers in an unprecedented way, we all have an obligation to protect our sources,â€ says Jeremy Scahill, an investigative journalist. â€œI myself, Iâ€™m really nervous about the safety of some of the people that Iâ€™ve talked to. As a national security journalist who covers national security, Iâ€™m talking all the time with people who are in the intelligence and the military community.â€

While trying to stifle inconvenient leaks at home, the US perceives the Internet and social networking platforms as major tools for spreading democracy, and spends millions of dollars to help people in the Middle East and China get around Internet-blocking firewalls.

At the same time, ironically enough, American companies provide Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with the technology to effectively block websites.

â€œA lot of the tools of control that are used by the so-called repressive governments are provided by American companies,â€ Peter van Buren explains. â€œThe difference is that corporations, for better or worse, talk about profit as their motivation. However, the American government talks about freedom and democracy as its motivation, when in fact in many ways it seems to act in the opposite direction.â€

Some argue that if left uncontrolled, the export of surveillance and site-blocking tools by American companies could undermine Internet freedom in the same way as arms exports undermine peace initiatives. And as far as the US government efforts to secure Internet freedom go, they seem to discern two different kinds of freedom: the freedom they encourage and the freedom that they punishâ€¦
Click to expand...

CNET News said:

Only weeks after protests over two digital copyright bills demonstrated the political muscle of Internet users, the White House is publicly endorsing new copyright legislation that also would target suspected pirate Web sites.

After the unprecedented outcry against the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act -- designed to target offshore copyright-infringing Web sites -- supporters of the bills on Capitol Hill backed down and moved on to other topics.
Victoria Espinel, appointed by President Obama in 2009, whose office says a new law is necessary "to address offshore infringement."

Victoria Espinel, appointed by President Obama in 2009, whose office says a new law is necessary "to address offshore infringement."
(Credit: White House)

But the White House today reignited the congressional debate by throwing its weight behind legislation targeting offshore Web sites. "We believe that new legislative and non-legislative tools are needed to address offshore infringement," today's report (PDF) says.

The report, prepared by U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, who President Obama appointed to the job in 2009, lists Protect IP and SOPA as "examples of recent attempts by Congress to address the issues of counterfeiting and piracy online." It also endorses the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and lauds Internet providers, including Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, for agreeing last summer to become Internet copyright cops.

The White House did say that it wouldn't endorse a bill that endangers freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risks, or negatively affects the DNS system. On the other hand, it says elsewhere that "combating online infringement" -- not protecting free speech -- is a governmental priority "of the highest order."

"Everyone seems to be talking out of both sides of their mouth in this report," says Julie Samuels, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who follows copyright law.

"They're trying to make everybody happy, I'm sure," Samuels says. "But unfortunately it's pretty easy to read between the lines."

In an earlier statement on January 14 on SOPA, the administration said it supported some kind of legislation. But after the blackouts three days later demonstrated how unpopular the idea was, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), SOPA's author, said a new law was premature until there was "wider agreement on a solution."

Even the most ardent supporters of SOPA and Protect IP are no longer as vocal in calling for new laws targeting offshore Web sites. Hollywood is trying a charm offensive, with Paramount Pictures acknowledging that it was "humbled" by the protests. An op-ed piece last month in The New York Times by Cary Sherman, head of the Recording Industry Association of America, called for "fresh ideas and new approaches" rather than a SOPA v2.0 or v3.0.

That change of heart happened after a joint legislative push by the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America to enact SOPA and Protect IP encountered an insurmountable obstacle: a remarkable protest in January that, by some accounts, involved more than 10 million Internet users. Wikipedia went dark for a day; Google, Amazon, and Craigslist posted anti-SOPA warnings on their home pages; irate voters overwhelmed the U.S. Senate's Web site and demonstrated to politicians that Internet users could be a potent political force.

Afterward, dozens of the companies and groups involved in the blackouts sent a letter (PDF) to Congress warning politicians against trying to rush through a new set of bills. "The concerns are too fundamental and too numerous to be fully addressed through hasty revisions to these bills," the letter says. "Nor can they be addressed by closed door negotiations among a small set of inside-the-beltway stakeholders." (SOPA would, of course, let the Justice Department obtain an order to be served on search engines, Internet service providers, and other companies, forcing them to make a suspected piratical Web site effectively vanish.)

Among the letter's signers: Amnesty International, Cheezburger Network, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Archive, Mozilla, O'Reilly Media, Public Knowledge, Tucows, Twitpic, and WordPress Foundation.

Which is why the White House's report today asking Congress to enact legislation "to address offshore infringement" came as a bit of a surprise.

"If we learned anything in January, it's that Internet users have a voice and they're going to make that voice heard," says the EFF's Samuels. "Whether it's in response to legislative proposals or voluntary agreements, it's going to happen. There are millions of Americans who care about these issues. That's not going to change."
Click to expand...

Technic☆Kitty · Apr 9, 2012

*Sigh* They won't quit, we won't either. Maybe they will learn one of these days they can't do anything without the approval of the people (or at least the blatant disregard to care which is most often the case) Let's see just how many e-mails I can send in this time. Don't dooooooooooo it!<--- That's gonna be the whole body of the emails I send in lol But seriously, no censorship!

Itachilives · Apr 11, 2012

Will this one actually be passed I wonder? Probaly not

JedininjaZC · Apr 11, 2012

So, now the US goverment is sneaking behind our backs. Why am I not surprised?
I looked for a copy of the CISPA bill, and here it is
I don't have time to view it right now though, but what do you guys think?

Always Dance · Apr 11, 2012

Actually, CISPA doesn't censor anything. It's still a terrible bill.

What CISPA DOES do is allow companies to view anything you do, without any sort of regulation. It strips every internet user of any sort of privacy. Under CISPA, any company can view any message you send to anyone regardless of any privacy policy. They can send it to the government as well, and can stop the message from reaching its destination if they see fit. This bill is unamerican and a frankly disgusting violation of natural rights. Under CISPA, anything you do can be monitored.

I am deleting my Facebook because Facebook is in support of CISPA, I encourage all of you to do the same.

Shikou · Apr 11, 2012

with the deceased SOPA and PIPA bills
Click to expand...

Oh, I've always wondered what happened with them. This thing will join them soon enough.

Slaughtermatic said: ↑

Actually, CISPA doesn't censor anything. It's still a terrible bill.

What CISPA DOES do is allow companies to view anything you do, without any sort of regulation. It strips every internet user of any sort of privacy. Under CISPA, any company can view any message you send to anyone regardless of any privacy policy. They can send it to the government as well, and can stop the message from reaching its destination if they see fit. This bill is unamerican and a frankly disgusting violation of natural rights. Under CISPA, anything you do can be monitored.

I am deleting my Facebook because Facebook is in support of CISPA, I encourage all of you to do the same.
Click to expand...

The pages didn't really give me a direct description (must be because Im still asleep) but your post sure paints me a clear picture, thanks :D *gives rep*

Willis · Apr 11, 2012

Bills like this make me nervous. :/ Just think of what you search on a daily basis in Google for school reports/current events. Some of mine are:

Worst school shootings
Bomb makers
Terrorist leaders
Effects of narcotics
Marijuana legalization
Prostitution

If this bill was passed, I wouldn't have to worry right away, of course. But if years from now a president or some type of government leader (new world order yo) decides to target individuals and not just cyber terrorist groups, I wouldn't want them to see some of the stuff ive put out on the internet, it could be misinterpreted.

Lite · Apr 11, 2012

And my faith in the U.S dwindles further...

Seriously, these kinds of bills are what drive people to loathe the U.S government so much. I understand why they started bills like SOPA or PIPA to stop piracy (even though they were completely out-of-line as well), but this is just blatant disregard for someone's privacy. If this goes through, it'll be the death of the U.S government.

Feenie · Apr 11, 2012

I don't understand people who would even consider to support these kinds of things.
At least SOPA and PIPA had some sort of discreetly understandable goal. This is just down right wrong, I mean it's invading peoples' personal privacy, and for what exactly?

Hopefully this will eventually join its cousins to burn in a pit of shame for all eternity. I will eat my foot if this gets accepted, not to mention lose any respect I had for the U.S. Government.

Log in or Sign up

Next Internet Censorship Bill

Amaury Chaser

Premium

Technic☆Kitty Hmm

Premium

Itachilives Gummi Ship Junkie

JedininjaZC Hollow Bastion Committee

Always Dance Chaser

Premium

Shikou Kingdom Keeper

Willis Traverse Town Homebody

Lite The Future

Premium

Feenie Finny, Fin of the Feenie Fish

Premium