Congress tucked CISA inside last night's budget bill

[Fugus]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/16/c...n-budget-bill/

Last night's budget bill wasn't all about avoiding a government shutdown. Packed inside the 2,000-page bill announced by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the full text of the controversial Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015. If you'll recall, the measure passed the Senate back in October, leaving it up to the House to approve the bill that encourages businesses to share details of security breaches and cyber attacks.

Despite being labeled as cybersecurity legislation, critics of CISA argue that it's a surveillance bill that would allow companies to share user info with the US government and other businesses. As TechDirt points out, this version of the bill stripped important protections that would've prevented directly sharing details with the NSA and required any personally identifying details to be removed before being shared. It also removes restrictions on how the government can use the data.

A number of tech companies and privacy groups, including Apple and Dropbox, have publicly opposed the bill citing its "flawed approach" to improving cybersecurity. By tacking CISA on to an urgent budget bill, the chances that it'll pass the House are likely. As Congress looks to avoid a government shutdown, slipping the measure into desperately needed (2,000 pages) legislation is a good way for it to be overlooked.

This needs to be vetoed. The sad thing is if it is, they will try to spin it as Obama's fault on the budget instead of theirs for adding in stuff that doesn't belong and isn't wanted by the public.

[breadisfunny]

after the nsa spying stuff i find it hard to care about this. the nsa is already going to do whatever it wants anyways why bother opposing it?

[Deleted]

after the nsa spying stuff i find it hard to care about this. the nsa is already going to do whatever it wants anyways why bother opposing it?

What do you mean why bother? If all the people on the planet were like you 90% of them would be slaves right now.
You are the reason these retarded politicians exist. Drag them in the streets and show them the judgement of the people.

[Tackhisis]

Only criminals gain from internet anonymity. If the internet cannot be monitored by law enforcement and counterintelligence as effective as the classic means of communication, that should be amended.

[Deleted]

More/better internet regulation is not a bad thing at all.

Just ban online anonymity completely. Only the wrong type of people profit from this anyway.

[Time Sage]

More/better internet regulation is not a bad thing at all.

Just ban online anonymity completely. Only the wrong type of people profit from this anyway.

Good luck saying that when you can't get a job because of something you did online.

[Deleted]

Good luck saying that when you can't get a job because of something you did online.

As an employer, I am on the other side of that.

Could indeed be a good way to profile people before a job interview.

[prwraith]

More/better internet regulation is not a bad thing at all.

Just ban online anonymity completely. Only the wrong type of people profit from this anyway.

You apparently have trouble thinking long term

- - - Updated - - -

As an employer, I am on the other side of that.

Could indeed be a good way to profile people before a job interview.

I am also an employer. I don't need nor do I want to know what people do in their private lives. Just as nobody needs to know what happens in mine

[Slant]

Nobody has a problem with congress putting an entire law inside a swamp of other regulation, just sneaking it in as if nobody would notice? Is that how politics works? "Hi, this is a bill about our budget, please don't read it too closely and ignore the parts about the internet, just approve the whole package" :P

[Deleted]

Nobody has a problem with congress putting an entire law inside a swamp of other regulation, just sneaking it in as if nobody would notice? Is that how politics works? "Hi, this is a bill about our budget, please don't read it too closely and ignore the parts about the internet, just approve the whole package" :P

How long have you been living on planet earth?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Good luck saying that when you can't get a job because of something you did online.

They already do. I know HR at my company looks at people's facebook and twitter accounts before a hire. They also find a ton of other online activities too. To be honest what you do online isn't separate from just what you do. Most people that are assholes online are assholes out in the world too. They just keep their mouth shut because they don't want to be held accountable or punished. A lot of today's asshole internet society could be cleaned up with some accountability as well. My problem is honestly I don't trust the government enough with the information. They have been insanely not responsible with that sort of stuff lately.

[Deleted]

They already do. I know HR at my company looks at people's facebook and twitter accounts before a hire. They also find a ton of other online activities too. To be honest what you do online isn't separate from just what you do. Most people that are assholes online are assholes out in the world too. They just keep their mouth shut because they don't want to be held accountable or punished. A lot of today's asshole internet society could be cleaned up with some accountability as well. My problem is honestly I don't trust the government enough with the information. They have been insanely not responsible with that sort of stuff lately.

We do this too, and I think every company out there these days.
I remember a guy that had some pictures of himself drunk on his Facebook page... Not just one, but many from different dates. Very smart.

[nebula]

Nobody has a problem with congress putting an entire law inside a swamp of other regulation, just sneaking it in as if nobody would notice? Is that how politics works? "Hi, this is a bill about our budget, please don't read it too closely and ignore the parts about the internet, just approve the whole package" :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_%28legislation%29

pretty dumb, but pretty common, unfortunately.

[Shibito]

More/better internet regulation is not a bad thing at all.

Just ban online anonymity completely. Only the wrong type of people profit from this anyway.

Thats not true, people should be able to have their views on immigration heard without the risk of losing their job. Obiously im talking about NORMAL views not like lock them all up and burn them kinda views.

[announced]

it should be illegal to slip another bill inside of a first one. Sadly no1 in congress would ever vote on that, lol.

[Nobleshield]

We do this too, and I think every company out there these days.
I remember a guy that had some pictures of himself drunk on his Facebook page... Not just one, but many from different dates. Very smart.

And just what business is it of yours what someone does on their own time? You don't control their lives, and quite frankly this idea that a company should be able to dictate what you can and can't do 24-7 is reprehensible to me. You can only dictate what people do for 8 hours a day (sometimes more, sometimes less). After that, mind your own business.

This bill is terrible, and should be shot down. Also yes this is politics as usual; throw a controversial bill in a bill that makes sense, so you can use it against anyone who votes otherwise by spinning it as them voting against the good part of the bill, and not because they don't want the bad part of the bill introduced as well.

[Slant]

How long have you been living on planet earth?

I know know politicians are cheating scumbags. I'm just surprised that the Americans apparently developed a tactic to hide an entire bill inside another bill. That's new to me. It's also a bit douchy. I have seen them tying conditions to bills often enough, like "If we do this, we want you to agree to this" and such, but an entire whole set of laws? That's bad manners, IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

And just what business is it of yours what someone does on their own time? You don't control their lives, and quite frankly this idea that a company should be able to dictate what you can and can't do 24-7 is reprehensible to me. You can only dictate what people do for 8 hours a day (sometimes more, sometimes less). After that, mind your own business.

This bill is terrible, and should be shot down. Also yes this is politics as usual; throw a controversial bill in a bill that makes sense, so you can use it against anyone who votes otherwise by spinning it as them voting against the good part of the bill, and not because they don't want the bad part of the bill introduced as well.

I have to defend him in this case, as arrogant as he is sometimes. As little as a company has the right to dictate your private life, you have little right to prevent them from just picking the cherries of their applications for whatever reason they see fit. If you're dumb enough to post inappropriate photos on Facebook, don't be surprised a company looks at it and decides to go for the other guy posting pictures of him helping his local community in various activities. Who would you hire? The drunkard or the responsibly charity person?

I'm not too sure what the bill is all about, though. All I heard was some talk about internet spying and stuff, so that's bad. Perhaps someone could summarize the controversial parts here for the Europeans that don't follow US politics as closely?

Yes, that's me. :P

[Deleted]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/16/c...n-budget-bill/



This needs to be vetoed. The sad thing is if it is, they will try to spin it as Obama's fault on the budget instead of theirs for adding in stuff that doesn't belong and isn't wanted by the public.

Corporate lapdogs will say that the innocent have nothing to fear and at the same time talk about how the government shouldn't get involved in their activities,cus MAH FREEDUM.

[negawonka]

And just what business is it of yours what someone does on their own time? You don't control their lives, and quite frankly this idea that a company should be able to dictate what you can and can't do 24-7 is reprehensible to me. You can only dictate what people do for 8 hours a day (sometimes more, sometimes less). After that, mind your own business.

This bill is terrible, and should be shot down. Also yes this is politics as usual; throw a controversial bill in a bill that makes sense, so you can use it against anyone who votes otherwise by spinning it as them voting against the good part of the bill, and not because they don't want the bad part of the bill introduced as well.

I don't know if it is about control, it is about screening. It is like saying you don't want to hire a smoker, you aren't forcing them not to smoke. After all your job isn't the only job being offered. Or put it this way, it is like choosing who you associate with.

How a person acts when they can get away with it by hiding behind anonymity is definitely something I would want to know if I were an employer.

[Strangebrew]

Ah what a great future we are heading towards when people are so willingly to give up their freedom and privacy because after all, "they dont have anything to hide"