White House Threatens Veto, ACLU Says CISPA Amendments Not Enough

The White House indicated it would veto the Cyber Intelligense Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which sets up a regime under which government agencies can acquire and retain records from companies that collect private data on the Internet, though largely because the White House doesn't think the legislation goes far enough.

While the White House insists on the “civilian nature” of cyberspace, more importantly, in a fashion typical of this Administration, the federal government would like to see itself granted new authority to “ensure that the Nation’s critical infrastructure operators are taking the steps necessary to protect the American people” as well as to set “cybersecurity performance standards.” The regime proposed by CISPA is described as “voluntary” by its sponsors.

The ACLU, meanwhile, rejected amendments to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) meant to alleviate rights concerns as “not enough.” The amendments offered would narrow the definition of a “threat” and the conditions under which the government could retain or use the information.

CISPA has a much broader base of support than the ill-fated SOPA did, and popular opposition to the bill has not been as fierce as to its predecessor.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The White House indicated it would veto the Cyber Intelligense Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), [...] though largely because the White House doesn't think the legislation goes far enough.

    I get the strangest feeling of deja vu about that line.

  • ||

    Offtopic I know, but how do you do that way of quoting with the bar down the side? I can't find out anything about it.

  • T||

    The word blockquote in the usual manner for html tags.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Unless you're on reason's Hit & Run weblog, in which case your post will be flagged for containing a word with more than 50 characters.

  • fried wylie||

    how this obvious example of spam passed the filter is a mystery.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Lol, ain't it the truth dUde!

    privacy-is-dead.sk

  • Paul.||

    Show off

  • ||

    Just replace the funky apostrophes and quotation marks with standard ones.

  • ||

    The word blockquote in the usual manner for html tags.

    Thanks.

  • fried wylie||

    Intelligense

    pointing out spelling errors is not spam.

  • ||

    Here is the EFF link to complain to Reps:

    https://action.eff. org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8609

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    It's too fucking voluntary.

  • Hyperion||

    It isn't authoritarian enough for the big O. He wanted SOPA or something worse, so now he is going to throw a hissy and wave around his veto pen. We Libertarians have you right were we want you on this one, big daddy O! Bwhahhhaahaahaaa.

  • ||

    Except Obama didn't like SOPA/PIPA either.

  • fried wylie||

    only because it's an election year...

  • Hyperion||

    Where was the ACLU on NDAA? Fucking pussies.

  • Ed||

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Obama will not veto a damn thing. If this gets to him, he'll endorse it.

  • Hyperion||

    If he doesn't veto it, then he damn sure will line item veto parts of it he doesn't like!, same as he always does... oh wait, he has never done that either...

  • ||

    Yes, I seem to remember him threatening to veto NDAA and then signing it "with reservations."

  • Hyperion||

    for the children...

  • Rich||

    signing it "with reservations."

    We were better off when he was just voting "Present".

  • Pro Libertate||

    See, I'm cynical enough about this government to have seen the punch line coming. Because I knew there was no way a veto was being threatened because of concerns about civil liberties.

  • Hyperion||

    no way a veto was being threatened because of concerns about civil liberties

    Geez, what prompted you to start thinking like that, PL? NDAA or something?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I dunno, I think I was in preschool at the time.

  • ||

    He'll grandstand about vetoeing it, then some minor and purely cosmetic changes will be made, he'll sign it and declare victory and his supporters won't give a damn and contiune to fawn over him.

  • ||

    his supporters won't give a damn and contiune to fawn over him

    Yup. The total partisan hacks are really, really being shown for what they are. And it's most of them. And they don't care. Hooray for partisanship!

  • ||

    He slow jammed the news on Jimmy Fallon, man, how could he possibly be a bad guy? The cult of personality I saw in the Huff Po comments were disturbing.

  • ||

    You know who else had a cult of personality?

  • Rich||

  • Everest||

    Living Colour?

  • ||

    Winner! That is indeed the answer I was looking for.

  • Everest||

    I look forward to picking up my substantial cash prize!

  • ||

    Here's your Treasury bond!

  • Everest||

    So I have won toilet paper :(

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Use the corn cob. The paper contains valuable stored thermal energy units.

  • fried wylie||

    Use the corn cob. The paper contains valuable stored thermal energy units.

    Anyone else tempted to do the math on that? I'm not so sure about DRS's conclusion.

  • ||

    Cob wins going away when it comes to stored thermal energy units.

  • ||

    I like to think of myself as a personality in search of a cult.

  • T||

    Don't we all.

  • ||

    Well, T, you're more like a cult in search of a personality.

  • T||

    I have plenty of personality. If you don't like this one, I've got many more.

  • Paul.||

    "Well, T, you're more like a cult in search of a personality."

    And you're literally worse than hitler!

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's crazy how much he's trying to act the celebrity, rather than the president. I don't recall a sitting president ever doing that before.

  • ||

    JFK?

  • John||

    JFK was downright dignified compared to Obama.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not really. Though it turns out that he was, in fact, an earlier iteration of Charlie Sheen. But he hid it well. Like Charlie's dad.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What about President Bubba?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Before his first election, definitely. Less so later on, though he was pretty Sheen-like himself.

  • ||

    DON'T TALK SHIT ABOUT CHARLIE

  • Pro Libertate||

    Charlie is the gauge by which all fame is measured.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I've always wondered - why all this fuss about sopapipas? I think sopapipas are delicious.

  • Hugh Akston||

    No no, dumbass, the problem is with Pippa Middleton, and how she's going to destroy the internet.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    You mean sopaipillas?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopaipilla

    ... Hobbit

  • 0x90||

    "The regime proposed by CISPA is described as 'voluntary' by its sponsors."

    I don't accept your phraseology.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement