CISPA's Sponsor Can't Even Keep His Story Straight About NSA Having Access To Your Data
from the also,-wtf-politico? dept
CISPA's sponsors are doing the same thing they did last year when confronted with serious opposition to a terrible bill: they start lying about it. First, they released a "fact vs. myth" sheet about the bill that was so ridiculously misleading that the EFF had to pick apart nearly every dubious claim. A big part of this is trying to hide the fact that the bill has very broad definitions that will make it much easier for the NSA to get access to private data. No one has claimed that this automatically allows the NSA to do full "surveillance" via CISPA, but that's what CISPA's supporters pretend critics have said, so they can fight back against the strawman.What's incredible is that the statements from CISPA's supporters are, themselves, quite contradictory. Take, for example, the hilarious statements from CISPA sponsor Mike Rogers to Politico, in which he seeks to "fire back" at critics who worry about CISPA being used by the NSA. Read his comments carefully, and you'll see that he goes from saying that the NSA won't have anything to do with it, to saying that the definitions are broad (so that maybe the NSA will have something to do with it) to then saying that the NSA is the best at this, so it should be able to use CISPA to get access to private information. All within a matter of a few sentences.
Here's the full bit from Rogers: "I don't know where they get that. It doesn't say that in the bill. NSA is not authorized to monitor; this is not a surveillance bill. If you read the bill — I encourage those privacy groups to actually read the bill — you won't find that in the bill. ... We're agnostic on how the government would form [an info-sharing regime]; some want DHS, some want others. We thought, let's be agnostic on that portion so you get the right regime. But if you don't have the capability of the NSA, taking that information from the Iranians and the North Koreans and others, and allowing that to get back into the system, it's worthless. And if you want the gold-standard protection from cyberattacks, the NSA has to be at least somewhere. They don't have to get it, they don't have to be the lead in it, but they're the ones that have the capability for overseas collection."So, basically, it's all an overstatement that the NSA might get access to your data... er... I mean, we don't actually specify, so we'll let the federal government make its own decisions later when its outside of public scrutiny and... oh yeah, of course we want the NSA to have access to the data, because they're "the gold-standard."
That's not going to put the privacy concerns to rest, now, is it? Rogers' problem is that he's pretending that privacy critics are saying this is an ongoing "surveillance" bill, rather than one where the NSA can get access to private data. As far as I know, none of the privacy groups protesting CISPA have made that claim of it being a surveillance bill. They're just worried about how CISPA destroys (literally, wipes out) any privacy protections for companies handing private info over to the government. Basically, the end of his statement exactly confirms the concerns raised by privacy advocates, even as he pretends that it disproves them. Incredible.
Meanwhile, aren't reporters supposed to push back on bogus claims from politicians, rather than just restating them as fact? *Sigh*
Separately, Rogers' own statements contradict that "fact vs. myth" statement that his staff put out. In that statement, the House Intelligence Committee argue that there aren't any problems with "broad" definitions in the bill. And yet, here he clearly talks about how they're "agnostic" on how the program plays out. That's exactly the kind of "broad" issues that people are concerned about.
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, mike rogers, nsa, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Charlie Murphy's Real Washington Stories
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the people" is another word for contributors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sad truth.
Sure they are. But then they lose their jobs, and have any such reporting mysteriously find it's way into the round filing cabinet on the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The sad truth.
Granted, I take all news I didn't witness with a grain of salt (even here) but some folks seem to go out of their way to turn that grain into a whole pile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The sad truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What things are discussed there?
Why do policy shifts happen right after these meetings?
When these questions are answered you will find the reason why the media never questions the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CISPA isn't about 'cyber-security,' it's about circumventing laws, including Constitutional law, in order to extract data from websites without obtaining a warrant.
The Government: 1
The People: 0
So much for being public servants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These guys in Washington are some of the biggest assholes I have ever seen.
They can all eat fucking shit !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I, For One...
Though maybe TD is merely an authorized leak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The price of freedom...
No. That's because the responsibility falls on us, the people, to weigh measures critically, and monitor our constituents and to raise Hell when they do things that are stupid. Government by the people means we have to govern. And when we decided to elect lesser evils and let them do the work and research (which they clearly don't), our representatives ceased being representatives of the people. Now they represent those who finance their elections.
Consider how many birthers we still have in the US, or those who think Obama's greatest crime is that he's a Muslim. Do you think they are doing their fair share getting informed and calling their representatives?
Only Communists monitor and censor their citizens.
Any government who distrusts their citizens will seek to monitor them for subversives. Fascist Germany was notoriously anti-Soviet and anti-Communism yet monitored their citizens ruthlessly.
And Imperial Spain was still a monarchy when everyone was duly watching for those who'd cringe or refuse to eat pork, lest a Jew remained in their midst.
There's a saying in the responder sectors (fire, police, etc.) Before there was a rule there was a problem. And our Fourth Amendment protections didn't come from whole cloth. Those were in the Bill of Rights because British Parliament was already well known for their abuse of inquisitional authority. While England was officially a monarchy, it was diffusion of responsibility within is representative branch that was being abusive of its power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shon Gale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]