Senate Punts CISA Vote Into September
from the didn't-have-the-votes dept
Well, that's interesting. Based on all of the talk this week, it was expected that there would be a vote today in the Senate on the faux cybersecurity CISA bill -- but it didn't happen. Business concluded and everyone went home for the month without a vote, meaning it won't be taken up until September, at the earliest. According to Kaveh Waddell at the National Journal:Senators are heading home for the August recess without voting on the cybersecurity bill.It's not entirely clear why the delay happened. Some have suggested it had to do with concern over some of those 21 amendments, but it might also mean that there really aren't the votes that CISA supporters were hoping for. After all, the hope had been to try to "sneak" CISA through when people weren't paying attention, but civil liberties and privacy advocates have been quite active again (and, I'm sure, will continue to be). Either way, the fight to block such a bad piece of legislation goes on, but it's good to see that the actual vote has been delayed for now...
Lawmakers worked for days on an agreement about which amendments to include on the cyber bill, but Senate leaders pulled the plug at the last minute on a vote scheduled first for 10:30 a.m, then for 2 p.m. Then they decided to skip town.
Under the deal senators struck Wednesday afternoon, the cyber bill will come up again in September after recess, and 21 Democratic and Republican amendments will receive votes.
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: cisa, cybersecurity, senate
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"
"So CISA would give law enforcement a ton of new data with which to prosecute you for virtually any crime while simultaneously protecting the corporations that share the data from prosecution for any crimes possibly related to it."
Especially not Techdirt if mentions Google as at all bad! Even though this is referenced:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150604/18132531231/how-nsas-cybersecurity-surveillanc e-should-completely-change-debate-cybersecurity-bills.shtml
Now, how many mentions of Google are in that (or this) Techdirt piece? -- That's right, ZERO. Right in line with my expectations from the last six years that Techdirt never has anything bad about Google -- unless first in the NYTimes, meaning it's okay to do a little carping, but don't go further.
How much were Techdirt readers stirred by a wimpy piece that didn't mention the key corporate surveiller? -- The fifth of a mere FIVE comments notes that it got FIVE comments including his:
alan turing, Jun 7th, 2015 @ 4:01am There are way more than Five Eyes
Five comments. Really? This is huge , I guess people are either numbed by all this crap or just don't give a rats ass. I, for one, am disgusted and quite saddened by where we are today in terms of trampled rights and constitutional dismissal.
Myself, because of the deliberate non-mention of Google, chose to not help Techdirt. If you-know-who ever worried about Google's surveillance, then I might believe that he actually does worry about the surveillance state.
But here's his ODD central question:
Shortened a bit it's "Why can't companies already share this information?" -- Where's worry about the total surveillance state? Sounds more like a corporatist in favor of it saying: "so hurry up, already!"
Just by mentioning that the key component to CISA is Google, TheHill has far more clear and specific warning than ever appears from Techdirt writers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"
"So CISA would give law enforcement a ton of new data with which to prosecute you for virtually any crime while simultaneously protecting the corporations that share the data from prosecution for any crimes possibly related to it."
Especially not Techdirt if mentions Google as at all bad! Even though this is referenced:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150604/18132531231/how-nsas-cybersecurity-surveillanc e-should-completely-change-debate-cybersecurity-bills.shtml
Now, how many mentions of Google are in that (or this) Techdirt piece? -- That's right, ZERO. Right in line with my expectations from the last six years that Techdirt never has anything bad about Google -- unless first in the NYTimes, meaning it's okay to do a little carping, but don't go further.
How much were Techdirt readers stirred by a wimpy piece that didn't mention the key corporate surveiller? -- The fifth of a mere FIVE comments notes that it got FIVE comments including his:
alan turing, Jun 7th, 2015 @ 4:01am There are way more than Five Eyes
Five comments. Really? This is huge , I guess people are either numbed by all this crap or just don't give a rats ass. I, for one, am disgusted and quite saddened by where we are today in terms of trampled rights and constitutional dismissal.
Myself, because of the deliberate non-mention of Google, chose to not help Techdirt. If you-know-who ever worried about Google's surveillance, then I might believe that he actually does worry about the surveillance state.
But here's his ODD central question:
Shortened a bit it's "Why can't companies already share this information?" -- Where's worry about the total surveillance state? Sounds more like a corporatist in favor of it saying: "so hurry up, already!"
Just by mentioning that the key component to CISA is Google, TheHill has far more clear and specific warning than ever appears from Techdirt writers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"
And it wouldn't be the first time the law has deputized citizens potentially against their will- Fugitive Slave Act, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops
Now, how many mentions of Google are in that (or this) Techdirt piece? -- That's right, ZERO. Right in line with my expectations from the last six years that Techdirt never has anything bad about Google -- unless first in the NYTimes, meaning it's okay to do a little carping, but don't go further.
Gotta love it. 'TD never posts anything bad about Google! ...Except when they do. But that doesn't count!'
I can't tell if that's a 'No True Scotsman' or a 'Sharpshooter' fallacy, assuming it's just not intentional dishonesty by ignoring any evidence contrary to your claims.
Shortened a bit it's "Why can't companies already share this information?" -- Where's worry about the total surveillance state? Sounds more like a corporatist in favor of it saying: "so hurry up, already!"
Nice attempt at spin, but no. Rather, what they're pointing out is that the excuses for why CISA and similar bills are 'needed', that it would allow companies to share data with government agencies, is bunk, because they can already do that.
It has nothing to do with should they, what's being pointed out is can they, and despite the insinuations otherwise, nothing's stopping companies from sharing the data that government agencies want, it's just without bills like CISA, they run the risk of being sued by angry customers if they do.
Just by mentioning that the key component to CISA is Google, TheHill has far more clear and specific warning than ever appears from Techdirt writers.
So CISA is something that Google (supposedly) supports. And TD supposedly works for Google, or at the very least has a strong pro-Google slant to their articles.
Funny then that TD has been pretty consistently against CISA, no?
Maybe they missed the email telling all their unofficial supporters to back CISA? Maybe the TD staff were collectively sick when the memo was being passed around?
Or maybe, and I'm sure this will just blow you mind, not everything is about Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "CISA: the dirty deal between Google and the NSA that no one is talking about"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EFF used up all their fax paper,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
House Legislative Days: 137
Senate Legislative Days: a few more than the house
over paid and under worked
The spend a large portion of their day seeking campaign funding, seldom read the bills written by lobbyists before casting a vote according to their puppet master's wishes.
These are not your representatives (most of them anyways)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]