Helping cyber security is great, however, the question is where the line between government cyber security and what the rest of us believe to be cyber security is.
The proposition is the government will handle all cyber security threats in the same manner they help security in the real world. They police have a lot of free access to medical records and other personal information if it is seen as a security threat.
Thankfully, it seems the support for the act is limited and if the White House is already against the move we doubt the Senate will accept it. Then again, support on the inside and in political groups seems to be growing. Whatever the case, this will only deter yet another act with some change in the rules, but the big idea is getting government a better platform to handle cyber security. It then goes on to set parameters under which classified intelligence may be shared.
These include sharing information with security-cleared personnel in different intelligence agencies, in the interest of national security in general and to protect the information from further disclosure. While this in itself doesn't seem so bad, the Electronic Frontiers Foundation argues that the vague language could be manipulated and used by the US government to crackdown on sites like Wikileaks in the name of national security.
Congress' latest stab at a cybersecurity bill is getting flak from many people: civil libertarians, experts who say it doesn't do enough to address real problems and, as of yesterday April 25 , the White House. Some groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as well as the hacktivist movement Anonymous, are trying to rally opposition to the bill on the Internet and in Silicon Valley, hoping to repeat their successful campaign against the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Mike Rogers R-Mich. It is currently under consideration by the full House of Representatives, but no vote has yet been called. Clapper to establish procedures for the government and the private sector to share information about cyberthreats. The impetus for CISPA lies in the growing perception among lawmakers and military personnel that America faces threats to its critical infrastructure from foreign or terrorist computer hackers. Congressional testimony by military men warning of a "digital Pearl Harbor" may sound exaggerated , but the Stuxnet worm that crippled Iranian nuclear facilities in proved that such dire scenarios have a basis in fact.
Right now, the sharing of information between the government and private entities is restricted, in part because it is against the law for the government to favor one company over another.
CISPA is an attempt to address that. Their objections are to language that would shield private parties from any liability resulting from the sharing of cybersecurity information. In its current form, the bill says that as long as a private entity is acting in good faith, there is no liability.
Would it fall under civilian or military intelligence? But, both have to do with the way you use the Internet and both threaten user privacy.
This bill has nothing to do with copyright and online intellectual property. It would do more than just shutdown your favorite overseas pirates. CISPA, however, gives companies many Americans use, like Facebook and Twitter the ability to hand over your information to any government agency. As Gizmodo points out in its useful explainer , the law's vague language gives the government a lot of leeway here. Per Gizmodo's Sam Biddle :. CISPA says companies need to give up your information only in the face of a "cyber threat.
Nobody really knows!
0コメント