

CISPA is back - sturdysquirrel
http://www.cispaisback.com

======
tptacek
CISPA would not have given federal agencies unlimited access to private data.
That's the argument this site leads with, and it is a deeply dishonest one.

------
tzs
That was worthless. It starts with hyperbole, and the closest it comes to an
argument is that a prior version of the bill was bad and so we need to stop
this version--which is not much of an argument.

~~~
kunai
I do agree with your sentiment, however, while the argument is weak, it does
make sense. I'm as wary of jumping on bandwagons as any of you are, and while
the fear-mongering could be laid off a bit, many different news sources
confirm that this is really happening.

~~~
tptacek
When 'tzs says "a prior version was so bad" --- a point that many people
dispute --- what he is saying is that the bill that actually got voted on by
the full house had none of the characteristics this site imputes to it. So,
no, the argument does not make sense.

------
nadaviv
Why don't they write anything about the actual contents of CISPA? I went
looking in Wikipedia, and noticed that:

"CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred
private companies ... in addition to individual major telecommunications and
information technology companies like ... Facebook ..." [1]

Why would Facebook support CISPA?

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act#Supporters)

~~~
tptacek
Because CISPA promises (a) to allow Facebook to receive threat intelligence
from the federal government, which collects massive amounts of it in ways that
it is currently forbidden by statute to share, and (b) to allow Facebook to
coordinate with Google and AT&T to track down attacks without worrying that
someone's bogus interpretation of ECPA will land it in court for 5 years.

Worth noting here that CISPA is _entirely opt-in_.

~~~
bcoates
What's wrong with the ECPA that it's going to land someone in court?

~~~
tptacek
There are (faulty) readings of ECPA that would suggest that (say) Facebook
providing NetFlow data to AT&T to help squelch a DDoS attack would constitute
an unlawful sharing of private data.

------
ChuckMcM
Given the thematic resonance with folks who identify with Anonymous I wonder
if this site is trolling. Lots of people have figured out that its very baity
and not very factual so one has to ask, what is its real purpose?

I like Snowwrestler's comment that its an attempt a building a mailing list
for later political action, that is very optimistic. Given the state of the
world and the not so low level annoyances for people with means that various
hacktivists have inspired or created one wonders if this might be a partial
response.

We just got another demonstration that when the federal government sets its
sights are arming Jihadists on American soil they can find someone stupid
enough to take them up on it. [1]

[1] [http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/02/08/fbi-helps-
thwart...](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/02/08/fbi-helps-thwart-san-
jose-mans-plot-to-blow-up-bank/)

------
snowwrestler
The point of this website is to convince you to put your contact information
in, so that you can later be asked to give money and votes.

This is, in political terms, a customer acquisition strategy. CISPA is merely
the "power word" they hope will create enough emotional response that you'll
fill out the form.

(This is primarily what the campaign against CISPA always was. You can tell
because the Senate cyber bill was far more intrusive, but the anti-CISPA
groups did not campaign against it.)

~~~
HistoryInAction
We sure did campaign against the Cybersecurity Act.

However, the Senate was a lot more of an inside game strategy. We focused on
an amendment strategy through Sen. Franken's and Sen. Paul's offices (my
primary contact was with Sen. Franken's staff): [https://www.eff.org/pages/no-
digital-big-brother-keep-milita...](https://www.eff.org/pages/no-digital-big-
brother-keep-military-out-your-email)

The feeling was that we couldn't stop the Cybersecurity Act after CISPA won
the House, but we could improve it enough to make the final result slightly
less awful. We wanted both acts dead.

We were entirely wrong though. Business interests killed Cybersecurity because
of questions of mandates vs. voluntary buy-in. With opposition led by the
Chamber of Commerce, the Senate bill died twice to filibusters. Privacy never
became an important part of the debate, sadly.

PS - None of this disputes OP's very valid points about the purpose of the
site and customer acquisition. However, FFtF is not trying to corral our
votes, it's trying to direct our energy away from social media (which DC
considers noise) to effective phone calls to our elected officials. Yes, they
use their mailing lists to raise funds through donations. So does EFF and
other groups engaged on open internet issues.

------
sturdysquirrel
Fight for the Future put this page together quickly as an immediate response
to CISPA being back on the table. There certainly could be more info on the
site, but there is also plenty out there that you can research yourself. This
is a site to take immediate action if you feel so inclined. If not, go read up
and there will be more chances to take action soon.

~~~
tptacek
"In its previous form, the bill would have given federal agencies unlimited
access to virtually any of my personal data and online communication-- without
a warrant."

No, it would not have. Even had it not been designed to do essentially the
opposite, it couldn't have, because it was an opt-in measure. Being in a hurry
does not excuse this level of wrongness.

------
beastranger
"It's been confirmed"

source?

~~~
justinludwig
Yeah, this "CISPA is back" page doesn't seem to contain much info about what's
new with CISPA. Here are the two news reports from yesterday about this new
cybersecurity bill:

[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-
valley/technology/281309-r...](http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-
valley/technology/281309-ruppersberger-intelligence-committee-to-re-introduce-
cispa-this-year)

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/obama-said-near-
iss...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/obama-said-near-issuing-
executive-order-on-cybersecurity.html)

------
alxndr
Nicely developed -- it requires JS from two domains to be run before anything
is shown on screen.

------
mieubrisse
I found it rather interesting that they didn't include any text from or links
to the bill at all -- if any is even available. This, to me, is the biggest
red flag.

------
kunai
I posted this on the White House "Contact Us" webpage:

"I received notice on a technology message board that CISPA is being
reintroduced with an executive order. The previous bill, which was shot down a
few years ago, would have infringed upon our God-granted rights. Now that it
is being reinstated, I wanted to express my concern for the citizens of
America, who, with every day, and every tick of the clock, are subject to a
more powerful and potentially tyrannical government that is eroding their
privacy and rights one by one.

I would also like to express to the administration that they are merely public
servants, and nothing more. The citizens of the United States are their
rulers, not vice versa. This administration, and the previous Republican one,
are by far the worst in terms of right infringement. The PATRIOT Act, the
Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012, and now CISPA have all but erased the privacy
of American citizens.

They may not mind now, but the American citizens know about their government.
We the people of the United States are not blind. We can see through the smoke
and mirrors that the bars of government continue to put up. If you erode our
rights, we will be upset. And when we are upset, you will lose your jobs, your
credibility, your haughtiness, and your confidence.

Remember, a volcano never stays dormant forever."

Any thoughts? Or should I just start one of those seemingly useless petitions
on WhiteHouse.gov?

Feel free to use the above text if you're going to contact your senators or
the like.

~~~
ismarc
Call your representatives. Seriously, honestly, call them up and explain it to
the staffer who answers the phone. Make sure to let them know that you are a
voting member of your district and express your opinions politely and
confidently. They really do listen to what their constituency has to say,
which is a large part of why younger generation's interests are rarely
represented. The older generations are actually communicating with their
representatives rather than fire-and-forget style of voting. A trip to their
office is the most powerful for communicating how you feel, a phone call next,
a written letter next and an email is basically a "I don't care much" type
message.

While you won't reach your representative directly, the staffers do pass on
the feedback to the representative (each office is different, some will read
each piece of mail while others only get summaries of what people in general
are communicating about).

A representative democracy works only when you actually communicate to your
representative what your interests are.

~~~
skcin7
I just wanted to post real quick to say that I have experience calling my
congressman and talking with staffers politely but confidently and can confirm
that they did indeed take my opinions and ideas very seriously, or at least
gave me the impression that they did.

------
lukejduncan
Source on the confirmation?

