ONTD Political

CISPA: Congressional plan to censor internet concerns critics

1:19 pm - 04/05/2012
A controversial new bill that would allow for Internet censorhip 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 “to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.” The bill is being sponsored by Rep. Michael Rogers, a Republican representing Michigan’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 “cyber security.”

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation the bill contains “sweeping 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.”

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.

Source.

--

First SOPA, then PIPA, then ACTA, then this. Are they really pushing one of these bills every month?
ellonwye 5th-Apr-2012 06:03 pm (UTC)
'First SOPA, then PIPA, then ACTA, then this. Are they really pushing one of these bills every month?'

Until one gets through, yeah. This is going to be a constant thing.
atomic_joe2 5th-Apr-2012 06:05 pm (UTC)
Censoring the internet would be a huge vote-loser wouldn't it?
erunamiryene 5th-Apr-2012 06:49 pm (UTC)
But will their corporate owners love it? That's the important question (to them).
layweed 5th-Apr-2012 06:15 pm (UTC)
You can censor our internets, but you'll never censor...OUR FREEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMM!
morgondag 5th-Apr-2012 06:58 pm (UTC)
A++
hiddenfantasy 5th-Apr-2012 06:36 pm (UTC)
The politicians just need to admit that they just want to stop internet users from getting access to hilarious websites and memes against them.

Really though, I hate these people and their need to censor every one and every thing. GET OUT OF MY HOUSE BIG BROTHER.
tilmon 5th-Apr-2012 07:42 pm (UTC)
I'd like to see that list of 100 co-sponsors. Why wasn't it published in the press release? Are they cowards?
toxic_glory 5th-Apr-2012 07:48 pm (UTC)
This page has a list of co-sponsors. You have to go under the 'bill overview' section and it has the option to view the co-sponsors.

Edited at 2012-04-05 07:49 pm (UTC)
etherealtsuki 5th-Apr-2012 08:11 pm (UTC)
Really upset my rep co-sponsored this. He usually vote against shit like this. Oh well....
tilmon 5th-Apr-2012 10:20 pm (UTC)
Thanks! Glad to not find my own rep on this list, but I see the neighboring district isn't doing so well. Michael McCaul, shame on you, betraying the internet industry and everyone who depends on it for their livelihood in your district.
toxic_glory 5th-Apr-2012 07:44 pm (UTC)
I'm so sick of this shit. If something like this were passed (because it looks like they're going to do whatever they can to make it pass), is there any hope that the federal courts would stop it? That'd be the only way to actually keep them from rewriting different versions of these censorship bills, wouldn't it?
qable 5th-Apr-2012 10:52 pm (UTC)
The Golan v. Holder ruling this year suggests that SCOTUS would support these laws, since they've already expanded Congress's power to hold and enact copyright laws. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, though.
nyxelestia 5th-Apr-2012 10:48 pm (UTC)
Maybe they're trying to make a calendar of anti-Internet bills?
mskye 6th-Apr-2012 10:53 am (UTC)
I just spent the last 20 minutes trying to come up with a swimsuit model calender joke, but I'm too high and it's almost six in the morning. I'm going to bed now.
evildevil 7th-Apr-2012 12:20 pm (UTC)
No warrant, no probable cause, would be necessary, as long as the action is taken in the name of “cyber security.”

Freedom of speech, who needs it? Right?
This page was loaded Feb 23rd 2017, 2:09 pm GMT.