

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Following the re-introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in Congress last month, voices against the 'cybersecurity bill'--deemed a major threat to civil liberties by its many critics--have grown louder across the country.
This week, a petition placed on the U.S. government's website 'We the People' reached over 100,000 signatures. The 100,000 signature threshold legally requires the White House to release an official response to the petition's greviences.
The petition reads:
CISPA is about information sharing. It creates broad legal exemptions that allow the government to share "cyber threat intelligence" with private companies, and companies to share "cyber threat information" with the government, for the purposes of enhancing cybersecurity. The problems arise from the definitions of these terms, especially when it comes to companies sharing data with the feds.
Additionally, on Monday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and over 30 other internet privacy advocates and civil liberty groups sent a letter to members of Congress demanding they vote "No" on CISPA.
In the letter, the groups--including Mozilla, the ACLU, and the American Library Association--called on representatives to oppose CISPA because of privacy and civil liberties concerns:
We the undersigned organizations write in opposition to H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2013 (CISPA). We are gravely concerned that this bill will allow companies that hold very sensitive and personal information to liberally share it with the government, which could then use the information without meaningful oversight for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity. [...]
CISPA's information sharing regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet records or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for undefined 'national security' purposes unrelated to cybersecurity.
Read the full letter here.
Congress is holding three different hearings on CISPA this week. The hearings will focus on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) role in cybersecurity, proposals to increase penalties for "computer crime laws" (such as those pursued against social justice activist Aaron Swartz), and the future of the U.S. military in modern information technology.
And RT adds:
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Sen. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Calif.) unveiled CISPA to their Capitol Hill colleagues last year and touted it as a surefire solution to the impending cyberwar that lawmakers in Washington -- including the Pres. Obama -- have repeatedly warned of during his tenure as commander-in-chief. In the wake of protests aimed at other computer bills, such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its sister bill, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), the public response to CISPA was overly negative and it never advanced in the House of Representatives far enough to be voted on before the last congressional season expired. Rogers and Ruppersberger recently reintroduced their failed bill, however, and hope to have it added to the books soon as warnings of a cyberwar with the likes of Iran and China continue to come from Washington's elite.
________________________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
Following the re-introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in Congress last month, voices against the 'cybersecurity bill'--deemed a major threat to civil liberties by its many critics--have grown louder across the country.
This week, a petition placed on the U.S. government's website 'We the People' reached over 100,000 signatures. The 100,000 signature threshold legally requires the White House to release an official response to the petition's greviences.
The petition reads:
CISPA is about information sharing. It creates broad legal exemptions that allow the government to share "cyber threat intelligence" with private companies, and companies to share "cyber threat information" with the government, for the purposes of enhancing cybersecurity. The problems arise from the definitions of these terms, especially when it comes to companies sharing data with the feds.
Additionally, on Monday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and over 30 other internet privacy advocates and civil liberty groups sent a letter to members of Congress demanding they vote "No" on CISPA.
In the letter, the groups--including Mozilla, the ACLU, and the American Library Association--called on representatives to oppose CISPA because of privacy and civil liberties concerns:
We the undersigned organizations write in opposition to H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2013 (CISPA). We are gravely concerned that this bill will allow companies that hold very sensitive and personal information to liberally share it with the government, which could then use the information without meaningful oversight for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity. [...]
CISPA's information sharing regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet records or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for undefined 'national security' purposes unrelated to cybersecurity.
Read the full letter here.
Congress is holding three different hearings on CISPA this week. The hearings will focus on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) role in cybersecurity, proposals to increase penalties for "computer crime laws" (such as those pursued against social justice activist Aaron Swartz), and the future of the U.S. military in modern information technology.
And RT adds:
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Sen. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Calif.) unveiled CISPA to their Capitol Hill colleagues last year and touted it as a surefire solution to the impending cyberwar that lawmakers in Washington -- including the Pres. Obama -- have repeatedly warned of during his tenure as commander-in-chief. In the wake of protests aimed at other computer bills, such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its sister bill, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), the public response to CISPA was overly negative and it never advanced in the House of Representatives far enough to be voted on before the last congressional season expired. Rogers and Ruppersberger recently reintroduced their failed bill, however, and hope to have it added to the books soon as warnings of a cyberwar with the likes of Iran and China continue to come from Washington's elite.
________________________________
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
Following the re-introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in Congress last month, voices against the 'cybersecurity bill'--deemed a major threat to civil liberties by its many critics--have grown louder across the country.
This week, a petition placed on the U.S. government's website 'We the People' reached over 100,000 signatures. The 100,000 signature threshold legally requires the White House to release an official response to the petition's greviences.
The petition reads:
CISPA is about information sharing. It creates broad legal exemptions that allow the government to share "cyber threat intelligence" with private companies, and companies to share "cyber threat information" with the government, for the purposes of enhancing cybersecurity. The problems arise from the definitions of these terms, especially when it comes to companies sharing data with the feds.
Additionally, on Monday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and over 30 other internet privacy advocates and civil liberty groups sent a letter to members of Congress demanding they vote "No" on CISPA.
In the letter, the groups--including Mozilla, the ACLU, and the American Library Association--called on representatives to oppose CISPA because of privacy and civil liberties concerns:
We the undersigned organizations write in opposition to H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2013 (CISPA). We are gravely concerned that this bill will allow companies that hold very sensitive and personal information to liberally share it with the government, which could then use the information without meaningful oversight for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity. [...]
CISPA's information sharing regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet records or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for undefined 'national security' purposes unrelated to cybersecurity.
Read the full letter here.
Congress is holding three different hearings on CISPA this week. The hearings will focus on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) role in cybersecurity, proposals to increase penalties for "computer crime laws" (such as those pursued against social justice activist Aaron Swartz), and the future of the U.S. military in modern information technology.
And RT adds:
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Sen. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Calif.) unveiled CISPA to their Capitol Hill colleagues last year and touted it as a surefire solution to the impending cyberwar that lawmakers in Washington -- including the Pres. Obama -- have repeatedly warned of during his tenure as commander-in-chief. In the wake of protests aimed at other computer bills, such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its sister bill, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), the public response to CISPA was overly negative and it never advanced in the House of Representatives far enough to be voted on before the last congressional season expired. Rogers and Ruppersberger recently reintroduced their failed bill, however, and hope to have it added to the books soon as warnings of a cyberwar with the likes of Iran and China continue to come from Washington's elite.
________________________________