Sheldon Whitehouse Freaks Out, Blames 'Pro-Botnet Lobby' For Rejecting His Terrible CFAA Amendment
from the the-pro-botnet-lobby-is-here dept
As we mentioned yesterday, one of the (many) bad things involved in the new Senate attempt to push the CISA "cybersecurity" bill forward was that they were including a bad amendment added by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that would expand the terrible Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a law that should actually be significantly cut back. Senator Ron Wyden protested this amendment specifically in his speech against CISA. And, for whatever reason, Whitehouse's amendment has been pulled from consideration and Whitehouse is seriously pissed off about it.He went on the Senate floor to directly whine about it, even sarcastically calling out the "hidden pro-botnet, pro-foreign cyber criminal caucus" that somehow fought against the bill. Except it wasn't a "pro-botnet" anyone who killed the amendment. It was a lot of people who were quite reasonably concerned about what the amendment would do to the CFAA. And while it's true that Whitehouse improved the amendment from its originally really terrible state, it still was a bad amendment. Whitehouse goes on and on in has rant about who could possibly be "against" shutting down botnets or raising penalties for hacking into critical infrastructure, citing that "law enforcement" supports the bill. But, of course, that leaves out the other side entirely. And that's not the "pro-botnet, pro-foreign cyber criminal" caucus, but rather people who are well aware of how the CFAA has regularly been abused by law enforcement to bring charges against non-criminals, or to pile on charges on those committing minor offenses. Expanding all of that without stopping the potential for abuse only means the bill will be abused further.
Whitehouse continues to make a name for himself as one of the most technologically illiterate members of the Senate. Late last year he went on a rant about a totally made up Google search (the results did not show what he claimed they showed) and an equally made up Pirate Bay whose actual site did not show what Whitehouse pretended it showed. He also was strongly in favor of backdooring encryption, arguing that if Apple doesn't backdoor encryption, perhaps it will be opening itself up to a lawsuit when the FBI can't track down a kidnapper (ignoring all the times that such encryption would actually protect people). This push to expand the CFAA and then whining about pushback on the Senate floor is only adding to his reputation as one of the most anti-tech industry Senators out there.
And, of course, for all the show on the floor, it's not like the Amendment is dead anyway. As Marcey Wheeler notes in her post (linked above), there's still a good chance that his CFAA amendment will be brought back into the bill when the House and Senate conference to resolve differences in the bills across houses.
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: botnet caucus, botnets, cfaa, cisa, cybersecurity, hacking, sheldon whitehouse
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Would we let someone who looked at WebMD once, do surgery?
Why do we allow those who obviously don't (and willfully refuse to) have any clue about technology make decisions about it?
We can not expect them to know the details of all technologies, but we sure as hell are paying them enough to have staff who can keep them correctly informed. Demanding amendments that make things worse for those they allegedly represent, while screaming it is some secret plot... if he didn't have all of that money we'd be discussing why the mental health system let him roam around unsupervised. (This shows the sad state of healthcare in the country when those with the best plans are allowed to have severe mental defects without treatment.)
When those who are supposed to represent our best interests can't be bothered, perhaps it is time we find new people to represent us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh, I remember this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's password is "12345"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's password is "12345"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's password is "12345"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The last person to do that was JFK and look what happened to him? For shit sake, 90% of the policies passed in the last 30 years have been to no benefit to public. I mean could it be that representative democracy is not an actual democracy but an oligarchy in sheeps clothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, for a foreigner, that sentence can be pretty confusing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't deal with "Senator Whitehouse" any more than I would be able to deal with "Congressman President" or any other such nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
John Representative for President!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"its bipartisan, we worked reeeaaallly hard on this, and the DOJ like it... waaahhhhh the legislature didn't consider my ideas!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dude is a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course law enforcement supports the bill. They support anything that adds penalties or paperwork for people that aren't law enforcement. You could propose a bill outlawing consensual, unprotected sex in the missionary position, between a man and a woman married in the Catholic Church, both of whom remained virgins until they were married, and want to have kids; and law enforcement would support it as long as there was a clause saying "except if one of them is a member of law enforcement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]