White House Threatens To Veto CISPA If Privacy Is Not Protected

from the now-carry-through dept

Tue, Apr 16th 2013 1:18pm — Mike Masnick

While it had hinted at a veto threat earlier, the White House has now put out a statement on CISPA that, if privacy protections are not added to the bill, it will likely veto the bill. I know some cynical folks will note the possibility of an out, and the chance that he'll sign the bill anyway, but hopefully the meaningful threat of a veto will convince Congress to think twice about passing a bad bill that wipes out privacy protections.

Both government and private companies need cyber threat information to allow them to identify, prevent, and respond to malicious activity that can disrupt networks and could potentially damage critical infrastructure. The Administration believes that carefully updating laws to facilitate cybersecurity information sharing is one of several legislative changes essential to protect individuals' privacy and improve the Nation's cybersecurity. While there is bipartisan consensus on the need for such legislation, it should adhere to the following priorities: (1) carefully safeguard privacy and civil liberties; (2) preserve the long-standing, respective roles and missions of civilian and intelligence agencies; and (3) provide for appropriate sharing with targeted liability protections.

The Administration recognizes and appreciates that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) adopted several amendments to H.R. 624 in an effort to incorporate the Administration's important substantive concerns. However, the Administration still seeks additional improvements and if the bill, as currently crafted, were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. The Administration seeks to build upon the continuing dialogue with the HPSCI and stands ready to work with members of Congress to incorporate our core priorities to produce cybersecurity information sharing legislation that addresses these critical issues.

There are some good amendments proposed, which would help protect privacy, but it's unclear how likely they are to pass.

Furthermore, it's still quite troubling that no one seems willing to explain why this is needed, and what existing laws are somehow getting in the way of important information being shared. We keep asking that question, and it seems odd that no one replies other than "but... but... but... cyberattacks from China!!"

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, privacy, veto, white house

24 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:31pm

Nice to see the administration can act like it cares about our privacy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- varagix, 16 Apr 2013 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re:
  I'm thinking it's the administration trying to look good while it's push for other legislation it supports, like gun control, is floundering. It gets to look good, while opposing a law that only really makes the kind of spying that's already being done secretly (and likely illegally) easier and more legal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon Man, 17 Apr 2013 @ 12:23am
  
  Re:
  I think the president wants is to allow malware to be legally installed on our computers. Remember the Dutch government? They legalized malware to spy on its citizens.
  
  He's not really threatening to veto for privacy, but he wants the bill to allow the government to hack into our PCs, Macs, and mobile devices and install malware.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 12:51am
    
    Encrypt, encrypt, encrypt.
    And invoke plausible deniability whenever possible.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:33pm

But CISPA is vitally needed! Why? Because my biggest campaign donors say it is!

Generous campaign donors can't POSSIBLY be wrong about something this important!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re:
  While I generally want to lean towards this theory, I think it is more complex:
  
  Internationally cybersecurity has been pointed out as one of the most expensive problems today (while the numbers are complete Hollywood piracy estimates, the threats are "real"). The reports have created interest in shoring up cybersecurity.
  
  The first step in stopping the crimes is getting a more centralized collection of Ddos-information. Why exactly they need a new law is unknown. I guess it is to assure even more data can be cross-referenced for the illegal activities. Afaik. the crimes they want to stop are primarily viruses and Ddos (the everyday kind you see done by every idiot online), but also hacking and trojans. They may never be able to stop it, but it seems that is what they are shooting for.
  
  Imo. Public "anonymous statistics" for pattern hunting by whoever wants to hunt are a better start to fighting it, but what do I know?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:34pm

We're all set then, Pollyanna.
Check CISPA off your list of worries. Next topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC Unknown, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: We're all set then, Pollyanna.
  Hold your hat, Blue. After all, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re: We're all set then, Pollyanna.
  I think OooB's hit the quota for payment by his corporate masters.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vidiot (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:24pm
    
    Re: Re: We're all set then, Pollyanna.
    As evidenced by his declining word count.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:38pm

That's good news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:41pm

Its a step...
I suppose its better than nothing, I guess its possible that politicians may have a tiny amount of common sense...eh maybe not.

Then again, CISPA should never have even been drafted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 1:43pm

All meaningless bluster
David Cameron vowed that the NHS was safe in his hands. Now, public confidence has plummeted and the privatisation has begun. You cannot believe a word that comes from our leaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:01pm

Furthermore, it's still quite troubling that no one seems willing to explain why this is needed, and what existing laws are somehow getting in the way of important information being shared. We keep asking that question, and it seems odd that no one replies other than "but... but... but... cyberattacks from China!!"

I've got a hunch the problem is nepotism. Someone should check how many of the "We must stop the cyberhackers!" bozos have nephews working at those cybersecurity firms. I'm guessing somewhere between 3 and 10.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 16 Apr 2013 @ 2:43pm

Isn't the entire point of CISPA to violate people's privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Apr 2013 @ 6:54pm

Remember the NDAA?
You know the appropriations bill that declared US soil (or anywhere) as a battleground, allowing the DoD and the White House to disappear anyone they chose, without due process?

Remember that Obama promised to veto that?

Eventually he signed it with a signing statement this administration won't act on Title X, Subtitle D. So allegedly he won't but the next guy can.

It is still awaiting legal challenge, BTW.

I don't trust Obama to veto the Final Solution to the Jewish Question let alone CISPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 10:50am
  
  Re: Remember the NDAA?
  You know the appropriations bill that declared US soil (or anywhere) as a battleground, allowing the DoD and the White House to disappear anyone they chose, without due process?
  
  Remember that Obama promised to veto that?
  
  Are you talking about the NDAA or something else? I remember he threatened to veto the NDAA (that authorized the military to arrest US citizens inside the US and hold them indefinitely without trial) because it didn't give enough unchecked power to the executive branch. Disturbing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Remember the NDAA?
    I remember he threatened to veto the NDAA (that authorized the military to arrest US citizens inside the US and hold them indefinitely without trial) because it didn't give enough unchecked power to the executive branch.
    
    Pillars of creation, you're right! I had forgotten that detail.
    
    MY WORLDVIEW IS COMING APART AT THE SEAMS.
    
    Oh wait...no that just means Obama's more of a bastard. Yeah, we can't count on Obama to veto his own execution order.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 10:10pm

Obama has vowed to veto unpopular things before and then signed them into law despite his vow. He's a political master.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 17 Apr 2013 @ 10:54am
  
  Re:
  Obama has vowed to veto unpopular things before and then signed them into law despite his vow.
  
  Did you hear about how they quietly gutted the STOCK act that was passed a while back to much fanfare?
  
  http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/293919-obama-signs-stock-act-step-back
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Apr 2013 @ 11:32pm

O's a statist if it hits his desk it will get signed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2013 @ 3:02am

Apparently, the country is run by 14-year-olds from the White House basement. Rep. Mike Rogers was right after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2013 @ 8:58am

It helps to read Stewart Baker's comments at http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/16/george-gershwin-cispa-and-the-presidents-veto-threat/ to understand the issue. He is quite correct in noting that the statement by the White House not only contradicts the draft legislation it send to Congress, but if implemented would virtually shut down the "sharing" of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 17 Apr 2013 @ 11:37am

Rep. Mike Rogers
Having just seen the Rep. Mike Rogers video; from my UK point of view, the guy seems incredibly sincere and obviously believes in what he's talking about. Er.....oh dear, my own sincerity circuitry seems to be failing.....Click! Ah, that's better.....sounds like a pack of lies, FUD and obfuscation to me. The guy sounds about as sincere as a loan shark on pay-day, or maybe a double-glazing salesman in full flight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]