Yesterday, I wrote that “the Internet has a new enemy,” and its name is CISPA, short for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011. And it’s true: this poorly crafted piece of “cybersecurity” legislation is irking concerned Web citizens the world over.
Using our Chartbeat analytics tool, I saw wave after wave of users flood into the article, from all parts of the globe. North Dakota, Sweden, Portugal, Mexico, New York — everybody, it seems, is interested and concerned about this bill that critics (rightly) believe could threaten the types of information we can access online, as well as our privacy and freedom of speech.
In less than 24 hours, a petition on Avaaz.org entitled, “Save the Internet from the US,” has racked up more than 300,000 signatures, asking the federal government to drop CISPA. By the time you read this article, that number will likely be well over half a million, or more. And the anti-CISPA movement already has its own hashtag, a sure sign of meme-ability, which is vital to any online campaign.
And yet, I can’t shake the feeling that the Internet community will lose this battle, that CISPA will pass — that there will be no blackout, this time around.
The first problem is the nature of the threat this bill poses: At its core, CISPA is about companies and the government sharing information. Now, to anyone concerned with privacy, this is a big issue, especially considering that CISPA places absolutely no explicit limits on the type of information that may be shared with the government, or between private companies, as long as it is somehow related to cyber threats. To me, and a lot of you, that’s terrifying.
For most people, however, sharing information about ourselves is just the way things work nowadays. We post every aspect of our lives online, from what we’re eating to our location to all the gritty details of last night. These companies already know all our secrets. In other words: privacy just ain’t what it used to be. And I just don’t see every Jack, Jill, and John getting their knickers in a knot over something that sounds like what they do on a regular basis — share information — or which many people believe is already happening: that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and every other Web company out there hands over our private information the second Uncle Sam looks at them funny. We are in Brave New World, not 1984.
Second — and this is the real problem — the CISPA opposition does not yet have the technology industry on its side. In fact, many of the most important players, the ones with the big scary guns, have already embedded themselves in the enemy’s camp. Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Intel, AT&T, Verizon — all of them (and many others) have already sent letters to congress voicing support for CISPA. And that should come as no surprise. Whereas SOPA and PIPA were bad for many companies that do business on the Internet, and burdened them with the unholy task of policing the Web (or facing repercussions if they didn’t), this bill makes life easier for them; it removes regulations and the risk of getting sued for handing over our information to The Law. Not to mention doing what the bill says it’s going to do: protecting them from cyber threats.
In short: Supporting CISPA is in these companies’ interest. Supporting SOPA/PIPA was not.
This means that the Internet community is on its own. No technology company is going to buy a full-page ad in The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal condemning CISPA by their own volition— unless we somehow force them to. And the only way to do that is to set our sights on them first, and on the actual bill second.
Unfortunately, such a scenario creates a political problem for the CISPA opposition. By scrambling to get the Internet and technology industries on the side of the Internet users, it creates an opportunity for the bill’s many supporters in Washington to push forward without the hassle of a concerted resistance.
Now, I could very well be wrong about this. I hope I’m wrong — I hope all of you reading this prove me wrong. I would be absolutely giddy if everything I’ve just said is rendered moot by the shock and awe with which the CISPA opposition fights against this bill. CISPA is a terrible piece of legislation, one that very well could result in the government blocking access to websites on the basis of copyright infringement, or sites like Wikileaks under the guise of national security*. And just because I’m playing the defeatist doesn’t mean that the masses are incapable of rising up against CISPA, and bury it away in the catacombs of legislative hell — they, we, absolutely are. But until I see more than online petitions and Twitter hashtags, my bet is on the bad guys.
*Update: In a conference call with reporters on April 10, CISPA co-sponsors Reps. Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger said that CISPA does not give the government the authority to block access to any websites, which is true. What remains unclear, however, is whether the government may use information shared under CISPA to block access to sites for reasons of cyber security or national security.
The vague and broad definitions in the bill would allow the government to block/sensor any communications they deem “disruptive”. So that means spying on every communication you have online, and if you dare speak out against the government for something like say, the NDAA for example, you can be deemed a threat and cut off from the internet. This could spell the end of things like The Young Turks, Info Wars, and Prison Planet.
Do you want China-esqe sensorship? If not, say no to this bill!
Dennis, I agree the “disruptive” definition is too vague to make this a good bill. The ironic twist is the “spying” or monitoring portion of the bill. CISPA provides better privacy protection and privacy oversight than the most popular “free” sites we enjoy, including this one. People often forget sites are free because they derive income from your personal information, click patterns and ads based on same. It’s the tradeoff we agree to – Freedom of Expression in trade for losing Personal Privacy. So if we’re to oppose these bills it’s hypocritical to complain about loss of privacy. I don’t really care if the government profiles me, but I’m really annoyed that corporations of all sizes selling products will gain financial reward from manipulating me based on the profile they legally gain from this and other sites. (Apparently not so annoyed I boycott, but still). Government looking at my info? Go for it. Government taking action based on a floating definition of “danger?” That’s happened before, and it was dubbed McCarthyism. Bad news. I DO see some positive advances in the wording of these bills in that they’re now criticized more for definitions than for general intent.
BTW, if you doubt the privacy trade-off on free sites, here’s an excerpt you’ve agreed to for this site:
“Digital Trends may use other third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our Web site. These companies may use information (including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements on this site and other sites about goods and services that may be of interest to you.”
I’m not criticizing this site, just pointing out something they share with every other free site. Paying for Freedom by giving up right to privacy.
If they’re just using our information for advertising and revenue generating purposes – no problem there.
The problem becomes when they start using the info to censor, or otherwise punish, people who speak out against government corruption, and those who call out stuff like NDAA and the Patriot Act as the facist powergrabs that they are.
Again, I fail to see the need for this new CISPA law… sharing personal information with the government. Consider that Obama’s justice department is comprised of former RIAA lawyers. Consider that CNET distributed over a billion copies of p2p file sharing software, and the RIAA doesn’t seem to give a rat’s ass. Now the government wants to track everything we do online, de-anonymize all internet activity. Combine that with the NDAA and for-profit prisons. Something fishy is going on here…
People know when they are being lied to and they hate it, CISPA is a Lie, it is abuse, it is everything that the Internet is against, The Internet is about Freedom, and yes sometimes that means that the world is not a perfect place, we have seen that in extreme instances justice is served, that should be enough, because when you step over the line as CISPA does, you not only sell your soul but you take one step closer to Evil, Its not Broken so Dont fix it, not that hard to figure out, unless your a member in congress, who may have allegedly taken money from big business… The truth is a simple thing and it is not always attractive, we have a corrupt congress, it needs to be cleaned up starting with the Two men who sponsored this Garbage, Just Vote them out, Mike Rogers (R-MI) and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD) Start with these two men who think they can insult the intelligence of Millions of Americans, Send a Message, the only way to stop this kind of Abuse, and make no mistake this is Abuse, If one of you did this or took money from Corrupt organizations, you would be in Jail, its time to send a message to Congress, Do the right thing or Pack you Bags and Get out of Washington. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD) Vote these Out of office, end this abuse now…
CISPA is the greatest threat to freedom of speech and individual privacy that I’ve ever heard of -and it’s an international threat to our freedoms. No compnay should be allowed to share an individuals personal information without their written consent. It’s the old arguement that cutailing the freedom of the many will protect the few -back in it’s Cyber form -and it’s just an insidious as ever. Count me OUT.
Your freedoms does not include breaking into and/or disrupting private business networks. That is the focus of this bill.
“For most people, however, sharing information about ourselves is just the way things work nowadays. We post every aspect of our lives online, from what we’re eating to our location to all the gritty details of last night. These companies already know all our secrets. In other words: privacy just ain’t what it used to be. And I just don’t see every Jack, Jill, and John getting their knickers in a knot over something that sounds like what they do on a regular basis — share information — or which many people believe is already happening: that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and every other Web company out there hands over our private information the second Uncle Sam looks at them funny. We are in Brave New World, not 1984.”
“We post every aspect of our lives online, from what we’re eating to our location to all the gritty details of last night.These companies already know all our secrets.In other words: privacy just ain’t what it used to be. And I just don’t see every Jack, Jill, and John getting their knickers in a knot over something that sounds like what they do on a regular basis ”
NO we dont! Some of what people post is a LIE some ANT period!
The info I give to a Webiste to start my account MAY not be what i tell people in Public and i do not feel the websites should share ANYTHING I have allowed them to have in confidence!
The only time Private information should be given to the government is if they have a valid warrant for it.. nothing I say to one company may be what i tell another company I might tell one company I am Liz Vicious and another company my real name. Nothing should be shared Unless
I CLICK YES YOU CAN SHARE IT! thats period bottom line to me.
SO NO these companies do NOT know all our Secrets and even if they do they should ASK FIRST before sharing anything!
He then says
“Second — and this is the real problem — the CISPA opposition does not yet have the technology industry on its side. In fact, many of the most important players, the ones with the big scary guns, have already embedded themselves in the enemy’s camp. Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Intel, AT&T, Verizon — all of them (and many others) have already sent letters to congress voicing support for CISPA. And that should come as no surprise. Whereas SOPA and PIPA were bad for many companies that do business on the Internet, and burdened them with the unholy task of policing the Web (or facing repercussions if they didn’t), this bill makes life easier for them; it removes regulations and the risk of getting sued for handing over our information to The Law. Not to mention doing what the bill says it’s going to do: protecting them from cyber threats.”
Your Right the companies are for this bill cuz it will give them the FREE hand they been wanting for a long time to spy on us and share the info at WILL without Having to ask for permission FIRST..
This cannot be allowed to happen the people have a right to be ASKED FIRST before information is shared..
Liz Vicious (not my real name and thats my Business not yours)
Liz, you may want to read up on the bill, it doesn’t affect what information corporations can or can’t view or use. The only thing affecting that is the little “Accept License Agreement” checkbox you or anyone clicks on (usually blindly) when you sign up for Facebook, Google, or any other site. What this bill does affect is the ease with which the corporations can share the information with law enforcing branches of the government, IF they have reason to believe the specific information relates to criminal acts. What’s concerning most is the broad definition of how that might be determined. The government can certainly gain the information anyway as things stand, but it’s a longer process which makes many companies wary of civil lawsuits if they share info. It’s civil rights versus catching criminals. I’ve no doubt this pendulum will swing from one to the other a few more times before the world gets it right. Tough compromises in both directions.
“For most people, however, sharing information about ourselves is just the way things work nowadays. We post every aspect of our lives online, from what we’re eating to our location to all the gritty details of last night. These companies already know all our secrets. In other words: privacy just ain’t what it used to be. And I just don’t see every Jack, Jill, and John getting their knickers in a knot over something that sounds like what they do on a regular basis — share information — or which many people believe is already happening: that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and every other Web company out there hands over our private information the second Uncle Sam looks at them funny. We are in Brave New World, not 1984.”
“We post every aspect of our lives online, from what we’re eating to our location to all the gritty details of last night.These companies already know all our secrets.In other words: privacy just ain’t what it used to be. And I just don’t see every Jack, Jill, and John getting their knickers in a knot over something that sounds like what they do on a regular basis ”
NO we dont! Some of what people post is a LIE some ANT period!
The info I give to a Webiste to start my account MAY not be what i tell people in Public and i do not feel the websites should share ANYTHING I have allowed them to have in confidence!
The only time Private information should be given to the government is if they have a valid warrant for it.. nothing I say to one company may be what i tell another company I might tell one company I am Liz Vicious and another company my real name. Nothing should be shared Unless
I CLICK YES YOU CAN SHARE IT! thats period bottom line to me.
SO NO these companies do NOT know all our Secrets and even if they do they should ASK FIRST before sharing anything!
He then says
“Second — and this is the real problem — the CISPA opposition does not yet have the technology industry on its side. In fact, many of the most important players, the ones with the big scary guns, have already embedded themselves in the enemy’s camp. Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, Intel, AT&T, Verizon — all of them (and many others) have already sent letters to congress voicing support for CISPA. And that should come as no surprise. Whereas SOPA and PIPA were bad for many companies that do business on the Internet, and burdened them with the unholy task of policing the Web (or facing repercussions if they didn’t), this bill makes life easier for them; it removes regulations and the risk of getting sued for handing over our information to The Law. Not to mention doing what the bill says it’s going to do: protecting them from cyber threats.”
Your Right the companies are for this bill cuz it will give them the FREE hand they been wanting for a long time to spy on us and share the info at WILL without Having to ask for permission FIRST..
This cannot be allowed to happen the people have a right to be ASKED FIRST before information is shared..
Liz Vicious (not my real name by the way and thats none of your Business)
Well, I was gonna say. If you were Liz Vicious, I am a huge fan! :D
The most productive thing people could do would be to propose a solution to the truly scary cyber security and malicious private data theft (along with child porn, etc.) without such a general threat to personal privacy. It’s a fine line and many of the technology experts (and the EFF) are yelling about what NOT to do, while offering few suggestions regarding what TO do. The government and big corporations propose ham-handed legislation, that’s true, and I’m not defending these bills in any way. But at some point the intelligent public might be better served by offering solutions other than “Leave us alone.” We’re faced with a choice between losing privacy to our government or having it stolen and abused by malevolent people, countries or groups. We continue to complain that the legislators aren’t experts and don’t comprehend many of the issues, yet we demand that THEY fix things. At this point it’s clear many of the corporations with services we do like are more scared of the malevolent attacks than angry customers. These are insanely complex issues needing complex and subtle solutions. They’re not black and white “do nothing and it’ll work out” or “restrict everything and lose civil liberties” solutions. It’d be nice to see an organization evolve that’s in between the screaming “hands off” of the EFF and the “shut it down” of the DOJ. We need solutions.
To which I say, leave me alone! I can handle my own privacy. That’s the way it should be looked at.
Also, shouldn’t the corporations who “are more scared of the malevolent attacks than angry customers” assume that the malevolent attackers are in fact their customers? Maybe that simple point is the reason why they get attacked in the first place! They don’t think they deserve it! Not saying it’s the right thing to do, just a point I was thinking about as I was reading your post.
Regarding the possibility of attackers “attacking” because they’re disgruntled customers, I think we’d have to have a discussion to define “malevolent attacks” to debate that. My definition doesn’t include temporary DDOS or even minor defacement with little or zero financial harm. And your “I can handle my own privacy” is certainly a fair statement for you to make, and I’d say same. But I’m not sure it’s right for us to assume everyone who might have their identity stolen would just “take their lumps” and not want help with protection, enforcement or some sort of remuneration from their credit companies.
Well we can chalk that up to social Darwinism. I have had my credit card account used on two occasions. Both was due to a hacker gaining access to their servers and spending money on my account. Never once has it impacted my credit history, or have I had to pay for it. I have never taken it to the police either. I am not an advocate for corporations, but there are way to secure yourself. If you are so foolish to spread your information around without thinking there could be a problem, I’m sorry, but I have no sympathy. Not in this day and age with all the information out there. Not anymore.
Furthermore, should it be alright for laws to come in place to protect people, when they should be able to protect themselves? If you or I can do it just fine, why can’t they? Why does there need to be a law that does it for them?
Because it’s part of attempting to live in a society. Otherwise we’re recluses. Some people don’t know how to build a house, or fix their plumbing or car, etc., so others participate in doing so for them. Some similar services are sponsored by the state to promote security, health or other well-being, and everyone who desires these services participates by giving to the whole (taxes) even if such individuals can perform the services themselves. The real question you’re hinting at though is “How much should be collectively sponsored?” It’s a valid one.