House passes CISPA, Obama promises veto

[So the Heroes Fall]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57422567-281/house-approves-cispa-despite-last-minute-push-by-opponents

Now it's worth noting that while SOPA was bipartisan awfulness, CISPA is mostly a Republican bill, though obviously not all Democrats are exempt. Note the vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml

But as noted in the topic, Obama has said he'll veto meaning this is basically the vast majority of Republicans trying to push something awful against Obama and most Democrats.

[Senator Snowstalker]

And of course my fascist congressman Pitts voted for it.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Obama said he'd veto it because it doesn't go far enough.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Obama said he'd veto it because it doesn't go far enough.

What?

[ChairmanSanchez]

And of course my fascist congressman Pitts voted for it.

That makes two of us

[Senator Napoleon]

Obama said he'd veto it because it doesn't go far enough.

Did he?

I see Larson voted against it; he was a co-sponsor on SOPA.

[Zioneer]

Why do they keep doing this? It's not like the RIAA or Hollywood, or the Internet itself or whatever is at the edge of Armageddon with web pirates swarming or something; they already still make ungodly amounts of money, and are doing quite well.

Why do they keep pushing these idiotic bills?

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Obama said he'd veto it because it doesn't go far enough.

Where do you see that?

Anyway, this is a horrifying bill. It deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Obama said he'd veto it because it doesn't go far enough.

Where do you see that?

Anyway, this is a horrifying bill. It deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.

Apparently the databases in the bill are "voluntary" and he wants to make them mandatory.

[Senator Snowstalker]

No, he said he opposes the bill as an infringement of privacy and wants internet piracy measures passed which threaten privacy as little as possible. Granted, that's still too moderate hero for me, but he opposes the bill from the right side.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Why do they keep doing this? It's not like the RIAA or Hollywood, or the Internet itself or whatever is at the edge of Armageddon with web pirates swarming or something; they already still make ungodly amounts of money, and are doing quite well.

Why do they keep pushing these idiotic bills?

Because they're idiots.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

No, he said he opposes the bill as an infringement of privacy and wants internet piracy measures passed which threaten privacy as little as possible. Granted, that's still too moderate hero for me, but he opposes the bill from the right side.

Wrong, he wants mandatory government databases instead of "voluntary" on-site databases, because obviously the government is so much more concerned with your privacy than those evul corporations.

[shua]

People seem to be confusing this with PIPA and SOPA. This is not an anti-piracy bill. It is an anti-privacy bill.

[Bacon King]

For those arguing over why they think Obama will veto it, you can at least bother to read the damn press release.

H.R. 3523 fails to provide authorities to ensure that the Nation's core critical infrastructure is
protected while repealing important provisions of electronic surveillance law without instituting
corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards.  For example, the bill
would allow broad sharing of information with governmental entities without establishing
requirements for both industry and the Government to minimize and protect personally
identifiable information.

...

The bill also lacks sufficient limitations on the sharing of personally identifiable information
between private entities and does not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures
necessary to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes.  Citizens have a right to
know that corporations will be held legally accountable for failing to safeguard personal
information adequately.  The Government, rather than establishing a new antitrust exemption
under this bill, should ensure that information is not shared for anti-competitive purposes.
In addition, H.R. 3523 would inappropriately shield companies from any suits where a
company's actions are based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this
bill, regardless of whether that action otherwise violated Federal criminal law or results in
damage or loss of life.  This broad liability protection not only removes a strong incentive to
improving cybersecurity, it also potentially undermines our Nation's economic, national security,
and public safety interests.

...

The American people expect their Government to enhance security without undermining their
privacy and civil liberties.  Without clear legal protections and independent oversight,
information sharing legislation will undermine the public's trust in the Government as well as in
the Internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer
protections.  The Administration's draft legislation, submitted last May, provided for information
sharing with clear privacy protections and strong oversight by the independent Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Here's an interesting and no doubt accurate analysis from a magazine that isn't exactly a bastion of liberal thought: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/27/cispa-passes-the-house-with-tea-party-support

[crypto-fascist superhero]

For those arguing over why they think Obama will veto it, you can at least bother to read the damn press release.

I did read the damn press release.  Once you get past all the fluff, two lines stick out:

Moreover, such sharing should be accomplished in a way that permits appropriate sharing within the Government without undue restrictions imposed by private sector companies that share information.

...

The Administration's proposal also provided authority for the Federal Government to ensure that the Nation's critical infrastructure operators are taking the steps necessary to protect the American people. The Congress must also include authorities to ensure our Nation's most vital critical infrastructure assets are properly protected by meeting minimum cybersecurity performance standards. Industry would develop these standards collaboratively with the Department of Homeland Security. Voluntary measures alone are insufficient responses to the growing danger of cyber threats.

But I'm sure the "independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board" will protect us.

[So the Heroes Fall]

People I am actually happy to see as "Aye" votes:

Bass
Cravaack
West
Biggert
Benishek
Dold
Schilling
Lungren
Buerkle

Amongst others. Nice to help write your opponent's ads for you.

The biggest disappointment (aside from the Democrats obviously) is Chaffetz, while terrible on many issues he's usually good on civil liberties. Another big surprise was the "Nay" vote from that fascist Sensenbrenner.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What's with all the NY Democrats voting for this horrid bill?

[Zioneer]

What's with all the NY Democrats voting for this horrid bill?

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that NY Democrats get a lot of donations from those in the entertainment industries (Hollywood, TV Networks, and whatnot), and those industries support these kinds of bills because they think an unregulated Internet cuts into their profit margins.

If this is true, that probably also explains California Democrats (where Hollywood is located after all) doing the same thing, and why Al Franken is in support of this (because he's been involved with the same industries, if I recall correctly).

[shua]

What's with all the NY Democrats voting for this horrid bill?

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that NY Democrats get a lot of donations from those in the entertainment industries (Hollywood, TV Networks, and whatnot), and those industries support these kinds of bills because they think an unregulated Internet cuts into their profit margins.

If this is true, that probably also explains California Democrats (where Hollywood is located after all) doing the same thing, and why Al Franken is in support of this (because he's been involved with the same industries, if I recall correctly).

People seem to be confusing this with PIPA and SOPA. This is not an anti-piracy bill. It is an anti-privacy bill.

Probably it's because NY Democrats (or at least the type that end up in Congress) are more hawkish on security/law enforcement than a lot of places, esp post 9/11.

[Fuzzy]

What's with all the NY Democrats voting for this horrid bill?

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that NY Democrats get a lot of donations from those in the entertainment industries (Hollywood, TV Networks, and whatnot), and those industries support these kinds of bills because they think an unregulated Internet cuts into their profit margins.

If this is true, that probably also explains California Democrats (where Hollywood is located after all) doing the same thing, and why Al Franken is in support of this (because he's been involved with the same industries, if I recall correctly).

People seem to be confusing this with PIPA and SOPA. This is not an anti-piracy bill. It is an anti-privacy bill.

Probably it's because NY Democrats (or at least the type that end up in Congress) are more hawkish on security/law enforcement than a lot of places, esp post 9/11.

And because they live next to New Jersey.