CISPA Passes House With Strong GOP Support


Where's the weeping Statue of Liberty?

The House of Representatives has approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act in a 248-168 vote that broke pretty much along party lines. 

The complete roll call shows 206 Republicans voting for the bill, 28 against. Democrats went 42 to 140 in the opposite direction. The Republican No column includes some fairly libertarian-friendly names, including Amash, McClintock and Rohrabacher (who also this week earned the honor of being banned by vile Afghan kleptocrat Hamid Karzai). Voting for the legislation were great libertarian nopes Ryan, Flake and Duncan. The name Paul shows up in the not-voting lineup. 

I don't know if CISPA deserves its worse-than-SOPA designation, and I hesitate to join any side that has such wide agreement from Democrats. Nevertheless, if you want to register your opposition for the benefit of the Senate, you can send a very easy-to-use spam from a site called Demand Progress. (Warning: In addition to having the word "Progress" in its title, the site features a "funny" cat picture. Really, people, 2005 is over.) 

NEXT: Jumping to Conclusions About My Conclusions

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’ve been regretting just registering for reason. Soon I will be liquidating all my computer shit.

    1. Cancel your subscription?

  2. Fuck Karzai. Man, I’d love to subject Karzai to the same treatment Bill Burr gave the entire population of Philadelphia.

    1. I’d assume he was too busy sucking the dicks of eleven year old dancing boys to notice whether someone was in his country or not

    2. Rohrabacher earns serious points there. Anyone that hated by Klepto Karzai must have done something right in his life.

  3. If this passes the Senate and Obama signs, then the fix was in. Some House dems get to strike poses, do some civil-liberty vogueing, but the political class is happy.

    If it fails in the Senate, then one can ask, What were the repubes thinking? Is this meant to highlight in the voting public’s mind some soft-on-crime-and-terrorism feeling about the demothugs? It is all posturing. More repube bs.

    If Obama vetoes, then the repubes were suckered into giving him an opportunity to strut his civil-liberties stuff and do some crowing on the moral high ground.

    In any event, typical repube behavior.

    The republican party must be destroyed.

    1. There’s a different, Obama and Senate-preferred bill which is better in some worse, worse in other ways.

      Obama’s veto threat was mostly about preferring the other bill.

      It’s probably just as likely that we end up with a law that combines the worst of both bills.

      1. a law that combines the worst of both bills

        Conference committee FTW!

    2. +1 on destroying the National Socialist Republican party. If Obama vetoes this he’s got THIS libertarians vote.

      Oh, and this is FAR worse than SOPA. SOPA had private property rights at its heart. This is about the government snooping on private citizens. It’s abysmal in practice AND theory. Republicans are strait evil. I hope to God Ron Paul runs 3rd party just to duck them over. They have NOTHING to offer this world and should be eradicated.
      Oh, and this post will no doubt be going into some government database thanks to CISPA.

      1. You’ll vote for him over this one veto? Man you are an easy lay.

  4. Obama’s veto threat was mostly about preferring the other bill

    Yes, the WH talked veto, but what is the probability that this mess of a proposal could pass the Senate in a form veto-worthy in Obama’s eyes? With the dems controlling the Senate the veto “threat” was just framing the news reporting. A little conference committee hocus-pocus and we’ll have your worst-of law. Remember worm Boehner’s favorite modus operandi is to gesture here and there as if he struggling against some implacable foe and build some tension that has to be resolved for the good of the country in secret via the conference committee.

  5. Andrew Luck is ugly as fuck.

  6. I don’t know if CISPA deserves its worse-than-SOPA designation, and I hesitate to join any side that has such wide agreement from Democrats.

    When in doubt, voting against a bill is the better option.

    1. This. If the bill goves the government the right to… do something, the better bet is “no”.

  7. First lemme rant that the idiotic cheesy ‘cyber’ nomenclature has got to go. It should only be used when dealing with an actual combination of man and machine, not as a reference for anything to do with networking, or computation in general.

    Anyways, as usual the names of these bills are always misnomers. The “information sharing” I have no problem with. It’s how they (forcibly) obtain that information that’s the danger.

  8. US slams Australia’s on-shore cloud fixation

    The United States’ global trade representative has strongly criticised a perceived preference on the part of large Australian organisations for hosting their data on-shore in Australia, claiming it created a significant trade barrier for US technology firms and was based on a misinterpretation of the US Patriot Act.

    1. “Misinterpretation?” Don’t I remember something about a secret interpretation? “Ignorance of the law is no excuse but we’re hiding it from you.” Yeah, I wouldn’t put my data in cloud storage here either.

  9. (Warning: In addition to having the word “Progress” in its title, the site features a “funny” cat picture. Really, people, 2005 is over.)

    That lolcat shit was never funny.

    1. You MONSTER!

      I is in ur bed peein on ur sheetz! lol kitteh is funneh!!11

      1. The funny part would be giving that cat a little nudge forward.

  10. They said “cyber”….huh huh, huh huh, huh huh, huh huh…

  11. Flake won’t be in the House much longer, as I think he’s roughly a lock to take over Kyl’s Senate seat.

    His votes have taken a drastic turn for the un-libertarian the last few years. I wonder if that’s because he’s running for Senate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.