Senator Ron Wyden Slams Cybersecurity Legislation Proposals For Eroding Trust & Privacy

from the privacy-should-be-the-default,-not-the-exception dept

Wed, May 23rd 2012 9:11am — Mike Masnick

Senator Ron Wyden took to the floor of the Senate earlier this week to speak out against pretty much all of the current cybersecurity proposals out there arguing that "privacy should be the default, not the exception." While noting that narrowly targeted cybersecurity rules could be helpful in protecting consumers, he stated that it seems clear that these bills are much more focused on opening up the internet for government to spy and monitor activities online: The full speech is chock full of good points, such as the importance of trust in creating a functioning internet, and how these bills can ruin that by cutting away at our privacy:

Congress’ effort to develop a comprehensive approach to cyber security must not erode that trust. When Americans go online to consume digital services and goods, they must believe and know with some certainty that their privacy is adequately protected. The content Americans consume must be at least as private as their library records, video rentals, and book purchases in the brick and mortar world. Our law enforcement and Intelligence agencies should not be free to monitor and catalog the speech of Americans just because it’s online.

But the bill passed by the other body, known as CISPA, would erode that trust. As an attempt to protect our networks from real cyber-threats CISPA is an example of what not to do. CISPA repeals important provisions of existing electronic surveillance law that have been on the books for years without instituting corresponding privacy, confidentiality, and civil liberties safeguards. It creates uncertainty in place of trust, it erodes statutory and constitutional civil rights protections, and it creates a surveillance regime in place of the targeted, nimble, cyber-security program that is needed to truly protect this nation.

Unfortunately, S. 2105, the bill before the Senate shares some of these defects. Currently Internet services and service providers have agreements with their customers that allow them to police and protect their networks and users. Rather than simply allowing these internet companies to share information on users who violate their contracts and pose a security threat, the House and Senate proposals authorize a broad based information sharing regime that can operate with impunity. This would allow the personal data of individual Americans to be shared across a multitude of bureaucratic, military, and law enforcement agencies. This takes place regardless of the privacy agreements individual Americans have with their service providers.

In fact, both the House and Senate bills subordinate all existing privacy rules and constitutional principles to the poorly defined interest of “cyber-security.”

Wyden goes even further later in the speech noting -- as many of us have been arguing all along -- that these bills are a massive overreaction to the possibility of an issue, which are much more about ways for government contractors to profit from fear:

As they stand, these bills are an overreaction to a legitimate fear. The American people will respond by limiting their online activities. That’s a recipe to stifle speech, innovation, job creation, and social progress.

I believe these bills will encourage the development of a cyber security industry that profits from fear and whose currency is Americans private data. These bills create a Cyber Industrial Complex that has an interest in preserving the problem to which it is the solution.

There's a lot more in the speech that's worth hearing, so check it out.

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, cybersecurity, overreaction, ron wyden

38 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

BeachBumCowboy (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:17am

Trust
"importance of trust in creating a functioning internet,"

It's not just important in creating a functioning internet, it's the importance of trust in creating a functioning democratic society. The government is constantly making claims of "Trust Us", and yet they are completely unwilling to trust The People.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:22am
  
  Re: Trust
  Well, yeah. The People can removew their power whenever The People choose. So, in order to stay in power, they have to curtail the freedom of the masses.
  
  It's like having Troy McClure as your doctor saying "Trust m,e, I'm a Doctor".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 9:21am

Obviously the more your citizens distrust and fear the government the more happier they are! right....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 9:48am

a shame that someone in his position that has such sense and understanding, particularly about the Internet will be totally ignored. it wont be because what he is saying is wrong but because those that are trying to get CISPA and other similar/worse bills (eg, TPP) into law have either received mega 'incentives' to force them through or are so full of themselves that getting what they want, regardless of the consequences, is more important than keeping the constitution intact and keeping peoples rights to privacy, freedom and speech alive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: Incentives
  I was thinking about that this morning... Wouldn't it be nice if there were a law which said:
  "Any person elected or hired in any Legislative or Executive branch of government at any level (Federal, State, County, et al) will be deprived of and banned from government service immediately if it is found that said person proposed, passed, or enforced a law which the Supreme Court later found to unconstitutional."
  (Or something to that effect, certainly the working could be more clear.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pro Se (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re: Incentives
    Yes, your suggestion does need a lot of work. For example, if the PPACA is struck down by the Supreme Court in whole or in part, do you really want the President to be "fired" (obviously the constitution would not permit this) if the Supreme Court does not render a decision upholding the entirety of the Act? Of course the clear answer is "no".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 10:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Incentives
      Actually, the answer is "yes".
      
      I'd like everybody in those branches of government to break out in a cold sweat and think thrice before even considering doing/supporting something which could be deemed unconstitutional.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Incentives
        One major flaw - you assume Congresscritters think.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 23 May 2012 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Incentives
        I'm with Lobo.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pjerky (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 3:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Incentives
      Maybe we could make it a "three strikes" law like the criminal laws in California that have created a prison population so big that it could form a new nation (like Australia, but with much less land).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 9:53am

Ron Paul and this fella should meet up

Ron for Press
Liberty or nothing

UK
International support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  Liberty or nothing? Funny, I always thought was liberty or death. Apparently "Give me liberty, or just leave me with nothing" is a valid cry for change now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro Se (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 9:55am

Actually, it is difficult to take issue with the concerns he raises in his remarks. They are well made and articulately presented.

My only negative comment is that his remarks appear to have been made to an empty house, which is quite common. Speeches are regularly made under such circumstances for inclusion in the Congressional Record, but a speech limited to just inclusion in the CR is not an effective substitute for presentation before the Senate at large.

While I recognize that my views will almost certainly never be added to the Senate rules, this is one area where public attention should be brought to bear.

Moreover, I wish similar arguments were raised against other government programs such as the role of the TSA regarding airline security. Target individuals who exhibit well-recognized actions that have proven to be predictors of possible wrongdoers.

I have in the past criticized some of Senator Wyden's opinion, but this is most certainly not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 9:59am

It's sad that he only has (almost) 800 views (so far). It deserves more views. Common sense, as he states, says that anything critical shouldn't be connected to the Internet.

These cyber security bills will do absolutely nothing to secure the Internet. Separating critical infrastructure from the Internet and securing your infrastructure through well written source code will be less costly, less intrusive, and more effective.

But will Congress listen to him? Of course not. This isn't about cyber security, it's about unnecessary government intrusion into our lives.

and these bills are an overreaction to a non-existing problem. It's sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Publius (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re:
  Since posting on blogs is the furthest I will go into social networking, couldn't someone more savvy nudge the other social/news sites to spread the word?
  
  I'm sure sypathetic folks could be found at Reddit, Fark, and other places.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 9:59am

Andy Phachest
The government is constantly making claims of "Trust Us"

Never, ever, ever, trust anyone that says "Trust Us", especially not a government that says "Trust Us" - it is a key ploy of Fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re: Andy Phachest
  I've long held the view that the phrase "trust me (or trust us)" often translates to "fuck you".
  
  If one wants my trust, they should be able to articulate why.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 23 May 2012 @ 9:59am

If they won't listen to Wyden and instead try to push through CISPA, TPP, and these other crap bills, hopefully the internet will rise up in another epic anti-SOPAlike moment and say, as they did then:

"YOU... SHALL NOT... PASS!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  I can imagine Wyden debating and calling the other guy a "fool of a Took."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  Should I send Wyden my fanfiction?
  
  It's got over 200 chapters, he could read that to filibuster anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TaCktiX (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Only counts if it's either so obtuse or so dry as to put people hyped on several pots of coffee to sleep.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 10:36am

It's awesome to see a politician stand up and say exactly what's on my mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 10:39am

Ya know, I wish Senator Wyden represented my state instead of folk like Lamar Smith from the house, or others of his ilk. I don't much agree with most of the stuff I hear coming out of congress lately, just like most of the citizenship of the nation. I'd much rather see a middle of the road Representatives than all the extremists that seem to inhabit Washington these days.

Senator Wyden has been fairly consistent in his views of privacy for the public. I'll give him kudos and credit for that.

There's a reason why most of the national population is showing so little trust and support for Congress. When you hear what the latest are, such as SOPA, ACTA, or the TPP, it doesn't take long to figure out which side the bread is being buttered from. It just seems to go from there into all aspects and topics when considering bill making.

In my mind it will be a wonder if some of the incumbents survive this years election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 10:45am

Hmm, I might add that in the same vein of Senator's Wydens' speech about how the net is used, it isn't just limited to that.

Look at branches like the TSA. A show and tell security operation but one that can't really function. I can tell you straight up, I won't be flying where ever I travel. I have no wish to harm anyone. My butt would be in the same plane were I on it.

I do not condone sexual groping. If the government can't figure out there is a moral issue here, well and good. I have a distinct opinion (which I might add that I live by) about such operations and I have a choice. I will exercise that choice and never fly while other options are available. Yes, I do feel that strongly about government sanctioned sexual groping under any name. It doesn't change the actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 23 May 2012 @ 10:51am

This is the entire government
that has an interest in preserving the problem to which it is the solution

This can be said about pretty much everything the government does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loki, 23 May 2012 @ 11:04am

When a government feels it is necessary to spy upon a majority of its citizens, then there is a problem with the government, not the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 23 May 2012 @ 11:06am

Maybe not perfect, but better than the rest
Ron Wyden continues to be the only member of congress (that I know of) who is worth a damn as a politician and an American. We need more like him with his pro-American citizen, constitution, and rights of the people stances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael, 23 May 2012 @ 11:11am

I applaud Sen. Ron Wyden for defending core American values. Really shameful state of affairs when a Senator needs defend us not from a foreign oppressor but rather from our own government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 11:48am

Right on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 May 2012 @ 11:50am

I wonder how many members of Congress read this blog?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re:
  There's at least one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter, 23 May 2012 @ 12:38pm

I don't know why but i never get tired of listening to this man (Wyden). Of course i don't always agree with EVERYTHING he says but there's always room for improvement and understanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
davnel (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 1:15pm

I'm worried
Mike:
I don't know how you feel, but Mr. Wyden had best be careful. These people are not above arranging an "accident" to eliminate this interference with their plans, in the best family tradition. He's been much too vocal lately, not that I disagree with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- [citation needed or GTFO], 23 May 2012 @ 9:14pm
  
  Re: I'm worried
  True, but the internet's not above playing dirty themselves...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
quawonk, 23 May 2012 @ 2:27pm

The American people will respond by limiting their online activities. That�s a recipe to stifle speech

and that there is probably the point. They can't have people questioning the "official story".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave Nelson (profile), 23 May 2012 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re:
  Especially when it's pure prevarication.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Jaffa, 24 May 2012 @ 12:11am

I only disagree with his implication
...that we need a narrower cyber-security bill than the ones in Congress.

Companies share cyber-security information under current law.

We don't need a cyber-security bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hemo_jr (profile), 27 May 2012 @ 2:38pm

Amazed
Is Ron Wyden a Democrat? I'm amazed. That was not expected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]