Obama Administration Threatens To Veto CISPA

from the in-no-uncertain-terms dept

Wed, Apr 25th 2012 12:49pm — Leigh Beadon

Yesterday, the Guardian reported that the Obama administration officially opposed CISPA—but they also noted that there was no mention of the V-word. Now that's changed. The executive office just released a statement which says in no uncertain terms that they will be pushing for a veto of the bill:

Legislation should address core critical infrastructure vulnerabilities without sacrificing the fundamental values of privacy and civil liberties for our citizens, especially at a time our Nation is facing challenges to our economic well-being and national security. The Administration looks forward to continuing to engage with the Congress in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to enact cybersecurity legislation to address these critical issues. However, for the reasons stated herein, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The administration's concerns mirror those of civil liberties groups, and could be (partially) addressed by some of the amendments we looked at earlier. But hopefully this clear statement from the White House provides the necessary final push to stop CISPA in its tracks and start working on a better security bill with the help of people who actually know what they're doing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cispa, obama, veto

56 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:54pm

OMG! Is all of Canada cheering?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re:
  wow, looks like trish was right...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Glen, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  They should be, and those of us on the south side of the border should be cheering also!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:28pm
  
  Re:
  Last time was 7 min, now 5 min to flag. Cmon we can get it down to 2.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:58pm

Here's a better amendment!
Let's amend the US Constitution with the following:

Proposed and passed legislation must meet these 3 criteria:
1) May not be more than 2000 words.
2) Must be understandable by any literate citizen of average education level.
3) If titled, the title must clearly and accurately reflect the purpose of the bill.

Failing any of these criteria will mean the bill could not be passed into law.

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re: Here's a better amendment!
  I'm not so sure about the 2000 word limit. CISPA suffered from being too short. In some areas it's good to have long bills that carefully itemize and describe what they cover, instead of using broad ill-defined terms like "cybersecurity"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!
    2000 words is just a starting figure, I'm sure a little scientific analysis would yield a better figure.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!
      Amount of pages doesn't matter. It's how they write the legislation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - :Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!
        Better a short legible bill than some several thousand page monstrosity (see: Patriot Act) to which the Senators/Congresspersons go "TL;DR" and vote effing "YES" anyway--without knowing what is even says!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re: Here's a better amendment!
  This is unnecessary. Not everyone is as stupid as you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!
    Yes, big long unread pork-filled legislation has been working great thus far...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:30pm
    
    Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!
    "Not everyone is as stupid as you."
    
    Now we are back to your mamma?
    
    Does your mom know you are using the computer?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!
    Perhaps your parents are, for not aborting you when they had the chance.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lol, 25 Apr 2012 @ 4:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!
    funny. i love it when trolls try to sound smart. until you realize they are texting while mopping the floors at food lion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:36pm
  
  Re: Here's a better amendment!
  I have a better idea. Let's not. 2000-word limits just mean you can't pass anything that third-graders can't understand, which is stupid. Some legislation has to be more complex than that. I know that's hard for some to accept, but deal with it and move on.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Glen, 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Here's a better amendment!
    Especially if you want to hide spending.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pontifex (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re: Here's a better amendment!
  I'd rather have an anti-omnibus amendment instead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheBigH (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 3:49pm
  
  Re: Here's a better amendment!
  ...and 4) No riders!
  
  No more bills like "Fight pedophilia (and extend copyright terms until the heat death of the universe)"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:58pm

Glad to see Obama taking a strong stand for our rights of privacy here.

Too many politicians think they HAVE to vote CISPA through no matter how bad the bill is. Why? Since it's just 6 months till the election, and you wouldn't want to be blamed for a cyber security attack on the US so close to an election now would you? Just voting against a bill with 'cyber information' and 'protection' in the name would cause your opponent to run attack ads saying you don't take cyber security seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re:
  None of the people responsible for that so-called "cyber bill" take cyber security seriously.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, but they take looking good for the public seriously.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re:
  "Glad to see Obama taking a strong stand for our rights of privacy here." ROTFL, K. Sorry I cant even compose a response.
  Here, once.
  We forget about this:
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120316/00101618123/senators-tell-obama-administration-to-r eveal-its-secret-interpretation-patriot-act.shtml
  
  or this:
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120322/16372918216/doj-signs-new-rules-to-let-intelligence -officials-access-store-search-more-info-about-us-citizens.shtml
  
  or this:
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/12034817541/state-union-address-highlights-dirty-tr ick-hiding-more-draconian-ip-rules-trade-agreements.shtml
  
  and on and on:
  http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=obama&tid=&aid=&start=30&searchin=stories
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Long (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 4:20pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, the President has threatened to veto CISPA -- in its current form. However, CISPA's primary sponsors still plan on slapping on some patches (excuse me, amendments) and to proceed towards Friday's vote.
  
  Unfortunately, many of those amendments have their own issues. One even offers -- I kid you not -- a promise to "develop" policies and procedures that will protect individual privacy and civil liberties... after the bill is passed.
  
  It's okay. Trust us.
  
  More at http://www.iSights.org/2012/04/president-obama-threatens-to-veto-cispa-authors-brush-off-threat.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 25 Apr 2012 @ 5:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Politician: We have to pass it in order to find out what's in it because we did not read it. After that we will fix all the loopholes you might use to wiggle your way out of its death grip.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 7:46pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:58pm
  The obama adminisrration just passed a law the makes free speech a felony, look that up.... Put that in your corn cob pipe and smoke it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 26 Apr 2012 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2012 @ 12:58pm
    "The obama adminisrration just passed a law"
    
    The us government is supposed to be comprised of three branches; executive, legislative, judicial. One of these branches passes a bill, one of these branches signs the bill into law ..... does any of this ring a bell?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:59pm

I don't get it, he says he will veto CISPA but he didn't veto NDAA? LoL. Also, how long do you think this threat will last? Do you think it'll end once these "fixes" to the legislation are rectified?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  It will last until the day after the election.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:11pm

Must be an election year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  No to mention the stunning success of SOPA/PIPA and how ACTA and TPP are flying under the radar...
  Maybe giving a large vocal group of people a reason to work together against them would be a bad idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Obama's trying to minimize the damage to his campaigning before his reelection. Given that mostly Republicans are endorsing CISPA, you can see why he would threaten a veto.
    
    Also, this doesn't mean one of the other legislations won't go through and pass giving more power to another branch. This is really all a wrangling for position.
    
    TL;DR the AC is right...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:18pm

So let's add up the score
So let's see:

+1 for this veto threat on CISPA
+1 for his stance on SOPA
-1 For signing the NDAA
-1 for signing the Partiot Act renewal
-1 for prosecuting whistle blowers

That count alone leave Obama in the red for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:18pm
  
  Re: So let's add up the score
  Ooh. Forgot:
  
  -1 for signing ACTA
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TaCktiX (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:49pm
    
    Re: Re: So let's add up the score
    -1 for saying the Senate doesn't need to ratify.
    
    Forgot that one too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gorehound (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:14pm
    
    Re: Re: So let's add up the score
    +1
    Just like our Corporations are People Government would do.Take a step forward then two backwards.
    Probably be the same thing if it was a GOP President.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score
      Things would be no different under a GOP president, unless that president is Ron Paul. Mitt Romney is just more of the same crap we have had for 30 years . I don't want it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Watchit (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score
        while getting a president in office who actually knows what he's doing would be nice, it would be pointless if congress is still the same old pork barrel legislators.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Torg (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score
        I move that we fill Congress with literal pork barrels.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Watchit (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 6:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score
        seconded
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score
        "Things would be no different under a GOP president"
        
        Yea it would - they'd call it anti-pornography, or anti-terrorism (even more than what we've heard so far). It would be part of a huge marketing and talking point campaign that even 1/3 (or more) of the democrats would join in on "for the good of the nation". They'd pick some color of ribbon to tie around trees and order car magnets from China. It would be "unpatriotic" to oppose - treasonist even. They would call "anti-circumvention" technology the growth industry of the future, put Blackwater (AXE now), Haliburton, or whatever corporate chummies they had handy in charge of no bid, multi-million dollar contracts that never expire. You know the drill.
        
        Ron Paul is a social conservative and just as likely to do the same only call it "anti-porn" and for "the good of society". It's impossible to debate faulty logic and "faith". At least this way there is a chance to argue over actual merits.
        
        Politics always seems to be a lessor of the evils.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        abc gum, 25 Apr 2012 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let's add up the score
        "Things would be no different under a GOP president"
        "Yea it would ... You know the drill."
        
        You left out the vagina patrol.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:22pm

i think the frightening thing is that almost on a daily basis there is some fucking idiot in Congress, that hasn't got the intelligence of a moron on the subject that he is trying to introduce a Bill on, trying to introduce a Bill! why do they do it? if it's to try to achieve something, they are doing that, but it's only achieving how stupid it makes them out to be! if it's to please which ever industry that has made 'campaign contributions' to them, it's about time the contributors saw the writing on the wall and moved on. before the next ridiculous attempt is made, you would think that someone suitable would be chosen. atm, even the White House can see how ridiculous things are getting, and that's saying something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:26pm

Saddest thing about congress is that Americans are going to put the same exact idiots back in office. *sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:33pm

"The administration's concerns mirror" his attempts to get re-elected. Otherwise, it's doubtful he would sign this anti-public interest bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re:
  doubtful he would veto *
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nathan F (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:49pm

Honestly I see this as a very safe move for the White House. They already know that changes are going to be made to it, so they can say "Yes, if the bill shows up on his desk we will recommend he veto it." Then after they make the changes the White House can say "We feel that the changes that have been made are acceptable and we will sign it if and when it makes it to his desk."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin, 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:24pm

read it carefully
The underlined sentence in the quoted text reveals the problem: "However, for the reasons stated herein, if H.R. 3523 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

This isn't OBAMA saying he will veto it. It says his senior advisers will RECOMMEND he veto it. He can just as easily ignore them and sign it anyway. He's not making any promises, so don't get pulled in by a superficial show of support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re: read it carefully
  This isn't OBAMA saying he will veto it. It says his senior advisers will RECOMMEND he veto it.
  
  True, but the OP doesn't say Obama is threatening a veto. It's saying the Obama administration is, which is true (although weaker than we would hope).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
terry (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:28pm

Deja Vu, Obama will use the same pen he used to veto the NDAA as promised.

Oh, wait change was the promise he kept: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hope-and-change-gas-prices-have-gone-67-percent-obama-became-pre sident_553930.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re:
  If you believe that the president has control of gas prices, I've got snake oil to sell you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Kulawiec, 25 Apr 2012 @ 2:31pm

The people to ask (slight recap of post from another thread)
Off the top of my head (and I apologize to anybody that I should have remembered but didn't) these are the people that Congress should have in the room before they even dream of writing legislation that touches the Internet: Jacob Appelbaum, Steve Bellovin, Danah Boyd, Bill Cheswick, Ben Edelman, Dave Farber, Ed Felten, Richard Forno, Dan Gillmor, Alex Halderman, Dan Kaminsky, Valdis Kletnieks, Susan Landau, Chris Lewis, Peter Neumann, Marcus Ranum, Bruce Schneier, Chris Soghoian, Gene Spafford, Lauren Weinstein.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 3:07pm

Another bill
Someone needs to introduce a bill stating that no changes to the internet should be passed into law without consulting specific sectors that are familiar with the internet - sort of a cyber consumer protection agency.

Yea - I know. That's sounds like a punch line for a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re: Another bill
  Republicans? Wanting protections? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 7:34pm

1. Where are those people who call the interwebz netcitizens keyboard warriors, chubby nerds living in their parents basement?

2. Are those same people the ones now saying keyboard warriors can bring about the end of the world as we know it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 7:39pm

Whether or not he vetoes the legislation will depend on whether both houses have a veto-proof majority. If Congress passes the law with a veto proof majority in both houses, a veto would be a lesson in futility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hegemon13, 26 Apr 2012 @ 9:52am

Yeah, just like he promised to veto the NDAA. Just more political posturing to score points with his base. When it comes to his desk, he'll quietly sign it over a holiday weekend with his pre-cooked excuse of why it's yet another "necessary evil" committed against the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]