
Obama threatens veto of CISPA bill - evo_9
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-obama-threatens-veto-of-cispa-bill-20130416,0,5917419.story
======
vaadu
I call BS on the veto threat. Obama gave the National Counterterrorism Center
authority to examine government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal
behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them.
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732447830457817...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html)

------
stefanix
I call BS. It's a cheap strategic move to weaken public opposition. The same
thing happened with NDAA.

~~~
myko
It's ridiculous this is being repeated ad nauseum. Yes, he threatened to veto
the NDAA unless specific changes were made. The changes were made, compromised
was reached, and he didn't veto it.

Agree or disagree with the NDAA, saying he threatened to veto it and then
backtracked is just wrong. He threatened to veto it _unless_ it was modified,
and it then was.

~~~
monkeynotes
This is exactly the point being made. Threatening to veto unless minor changes
are made is just a way of getting the public to accept a form of something
they previously opposed entirely on principle. As the previous commenter said,
it's a strategy to erode public opposition. NDAA was augmented and yet
indefinite detention without charge is a reality.

------
tyre
This was issued on Tuesday, before the bill was passed in the House by a veto-
proof margin of 288-117. The only hope for rejection is Congress mustering
less than 60 Yeas.

~~~
nostromo
My understanding is a bit different:

* If he vetos, they have to vote again

* On the second vote, both houses need 2/3rds (not just the house)

~~~
delinka
You are correct. Both houses must vote again, and by that time many votes may
change. A two-thirds majority in both on revote is required to override the
veto.

------
MrBlue
I wonder if Obama will do a better job vetoing CISPA than he did the NDAA.
Probably not.

~~~
skylan_q
Why doesn't he just veto it instead of threatening to veto it?

~~~
hristov
He can't. It has to pass for him to be a able to veto it. Currently it has
only passed the house. It has to pass the Senate. Then it will come up on his
desk for his signature, and then he can veto it by refusing to sign it.

Him saying he will veto it, is like a courtesy notice to the Senate saying
"don't even bother with this, it will get vetoed."

------
jimktrains2
One of the things that seems to be missing is an easily findable "Why CISPA is
bad" page. There are tons of people speaking out against it, but all in
generalities because they assume you know what is in CISPA already.

Now, let's see if he actually does it.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> One of the things that seems to be missing is an easily findable "Why CISPA
> is bad" page.

<https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq>

~~~
jimktrains2
So all it does is make it easier for government agencies to request data from
online providers?

I guess my biggest question is why the amount of time required to get the
proper judicial papers can hamper government investigations.

I feel like when I talk to people about it I need to give them something to
think about and a simple question to ask their rep/sen. Sure, it'll be skirted
with "it's a requirement to ensure safety" but some people won't just buy that
and will feel like they are having smoke blown up their ass.

(BTW, thanks for the link. For some reason I didn't find it myself on the EFF
site.)

------
dewind
The administration has threatened to veto a number of bills and followed up by
signing the bill. It is how the administration plays lip service to their
concerned constituents.

If I recall, we were also supposed to get a number of days to evaluate a new
law before it is signed.

------
homosaur
Yeah the last time I trusted Obama to do something.......

Won't get fooled again on this one.

------
nateabele
I really hope this is legit. My understanding is that a veto threat is often
just used as a bargaining chip. (As mentioned previously, Obama also
threatened to veto the NDAA, so...)

------
monkeynotes
I'm a cynic. All I can see here is Obama positioning himself to appear to be
on the people's side diverting attention from the people's original demand of
opposing CISPA in its entirety.

This posturing is just the thin end of the wedge, a mechanism to get CISPA
accepted in the people's mind. It's classic car salesman technique; 'what
don't you like about the car?'. Once you are in that dialogue it's just a
series of checks to tick off before you are buying a car.

------
Carltonian
My last comment tried to justify why he wouldn't veto this. I am happy to be
wrong. Still though, I see it as drawing attention to the bill to put pressure
on the Senate. I just don't see how passing this bill as a Senator could be
that bad. Pros: $$$, Cons: Young people don't like you. I tend to think that
young people are less of a concern in congressional elections.

------
shaaaaawn
Can't we at least be happy he's in some way opposing this publicly?? Clearly
if Congress gets its way this is fast-tracked no-questions-asked.

------
criley
I don't know who on the Obama team is spearheading his tech policy-- but
thanks. You're doing better than I ever expected you could.

~~~
ryanSrich
He also threatened to veto the NDAA[1]. I wouldn't put my money on him vetoing
CISPA.

[1 [http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-obama-sign-2013-ndaa-after-
th...](http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-obama-sign-2013-ndaa-after-threatening-
veto-992860)]

~~~
lmkg
Obama disagrees with some details of the bill, not with the broad outlines. He
wants the bill to pass, but he wants some also wants some changes made. He's
using (threat of) veto power as leverage to get those changes made. A veto
would be a blunt and somewhat counter-productive response, but veto power is
the main piece of leverage that comes with the office.

So yeah, he actually likes the bill and the likelihood is that he will sign it
or some form of it. The veto threat is just part of the dance.

~~~
pjungwir
Sorry for the dumb question: Is your comment about the NDAA or CISPA?

~~~
lmkg
It's a general strategy, so it applies to the veto threats to both of those
bills, as well as a number of others. I think it applies moreso to CISPA than
to the NDAA, because my impression is that he has smaller reservations about
the details of CISPA.

------
godgod
Just like he threatened to veto NDAA. He will sign it just as soon as it hits
his desk. This is a straight up lie.

