CISPA

CISPA's Back, But Maybe Not for Long

|

Watching the news, not your browser history

Congress is again taking up the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), the controversial, privacy-violating-in-the-name-of-fighting-cyberterrorism legislation that clears Internet companies to share your information with the government.

Today, President Barack Obama's administration threatened a veto, just as it had last year. CNet reports:

In a statement this afternoon, President Obama's aides said they "would recommend that he veto the bill," which is scheduled for a House of Representatives floor vote this week.

A House committee approved CISPA last week without four key privacy amendments. Sought by CISPA opponents, the amendments would have curbed the National Security Agency's ability to collect confidential data.

The White House had threatened a CISPA veto last year, but its backers had hoped that some changes they made, coupled with a related presidential executive order in January, meant the veto threat would not be renewed.

Republican Michigan Rep. Justin Amash tweeted today that an amendment he introduced to try to shore up user privacy protections was rejected. He has said he will be voting against CISPA's passage.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Envelope Mailed to U.S. Capitol Tests Postive for Ricin

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.

  1. Has Amash declared that he’s running for the Senate yet?

  2. One of the few times I will say, “Yay for Obama.”

    1. That’s provided he actually vetoes it. He’s also the MOST TRANSPARENT PRESIDENT EVER?

    2. It doesn’t go far enough.

      1. My immediate thought.

      2. Almost certainly. He threatened to veto the NDAA because it included too much legislative oversight. Those provisions were removed, and he signed it.

      3. I say your three cent titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough.

    3. Yeah, Fist, you’ve got to take everything Obfuscabama says in its proper context, which is:

      Initial Self-Righteous Bluster

      A Call for Unity

      Solicitation of Compromise, followed by

      Complete Cave-In, and inevitably

      Deflective Rationalization (i.e. “President is powerless to…”)

      This is the dominant pattern of the Obama Presidency, and has been quite effective at mollifying his supporters, giving them the pretty words they can hang on to, while delivering the freedom-stifling measures his puppeteers require.

      1. If it gets vetoed, for whatever reason, he gets a yay. You cynical fucks.

    4. If they pass it, he will sign it, guaranteed.

      THe MOAR POWER must happen.

  3. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/…..?hpt=hp_t1

    Washington (CNN) — An envelope that tested positive for the deadly poison ricin was intercepted Tuesday afternoon at the U.S. Capitol’s off-site mail facility in Washington, congressional and law enforcement sources tell CNN.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was told the letter was addressed to the office of Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi.

    Occutards!

  4. I just saw the funniest thing in the world, or at least it would have been funny, if we didn’t have a fucking democracy.

    http://www.amren.com/news/2013…..-firearms/

    1. We have a constitutional democracy which is supposed to limit the mob…but… you know I had something for this when I started, but it’s just kind of gone.

      1. See, this is why the right to think freely should have been protected by the constitution. Now that, presumably, your state has banned it, all your formerly free thoughts have been chained. If only laws weren’t magic and didn’t literally compel compliance.

    2. These people are potential accessories to the slavemaking schemes of a great many prohibitionists and budding tyrants. That they call themselves Americans sickens me.

      You want them, motherfucker? Come and take them yourself.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.