
CISA passes Senate - heimatau
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/eff-disappointed-cisa-passes-senate
======
mikehotel
Interesting votes:

    
    
      Nay		  I  	Sanders, Bernie	VT
      No Vote	  R  	Cruz, Ted	TX
      No Vote	  R  	Graham, Lindsey	SC
      No Vote	  R  	Paul, Rand	KY
      No Vote	  R  	Rubio, Marco	FL
    

Above from GovTrack [1]

Note, the Guardian [2] has Sen. Graham as voting yes. > Democratic
presidential contender Bernie Sanders voted against the bill. None of the
Republican presidential candidates (except Lindsey Graham, who voted in favor)
were present to cast a vote, including Rand Paul, who has made privacy from
surveillance a major plank of his campaign platform.

[1]
[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291)
[2] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/cisa-
cybersecur...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/cisa-
cybersecurity-bill-senate-vote)

~~~
tptacek
That kind of makes sense, because the bill cleared its cloture vote with
overwhelming support, and if you follow the amendments from the beginning,
pretty much everyone seems to have had their fingers in it. There's nothing
anyone could have done to change the outcome.

~~~
druddha
But it's much easier to tell a reporter, "I voted against CISA" than it is to
explain cloture.

~~~
bostonpete
Then why didn't any candidate except Sanders vote against it?

~~~
adventured
Paul for example is running for President. He has to be at the debate if he
even wants to pretend to still be in the running. Could he be in both places
in the same day? I don't know, I guess you'd have to find out how plausible
that is in terms of debate preparation.

~~~
druddha
I didn't realize the Republican Debate was tonight. Either way, they will get
another chance to cast a vote on the conference report.

------
MikeKusold
The tech world badly needs the equivalent of the NRA. We need to routinely be
grading politician voting records [1] on privacy focused bills. If a
politician votes against privacy, then they should be forced to fear a highly
contested re-election.

If it works for guns and the tea-party, then why can't it work for tech?

[1] [https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/](https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/)

~~~
jakeogh
The EFF is already the most reliable org fighting for our digital arms. As far
as comparison to the NRA, I suggest GOA[1] is a better model. The NRA is only
a fair weather friend of the 2nd.

[1]
[http://www.gunowners.org/114hrat.htm](http://www.gunowners.org/114hrat.htm)

~~~
rayiner
The EFF is probably as good as it gets for digital privacy issues, unless it
becomes a widespread concern for millenials.[1] When you're a small minority
like digital privacy activists are, using the legal system instead of the
ballot box is your proper recourse, by design. Money would help, somewhat,
too, but I'm not sure the tech companies with deep pockets actually support
the digital privacy agenda in more than a tepid way.

[1] Which I doubt. Eventually, you'll have millenial senators. But I am
guessing they will still care more about terrorism, chinese hacking, etc, than
electronic privacy.

~~~
hawkice
Somewhat perversely, Chinese hacking largely _is_ a privacy issue, just not
individual privacy. The reason why Chinese hackers in particular are of
concern is (1) they seem to engage in substantially higher levels of corporate
espionage and (2) are outside of jurisdictions where such things can be
appropriately disincentivised / punished [Although there are some signs China
might start playing ball as they develop more domestic proprietary
information].

There's a data science hurdle -- can e.g. the Russian mob filter though mass
hacked email and facebook accounts to find blackmail material that has
reasonably good returns with minimal personal time investment -- before the
two become one and the same. If we end the decade before we have public
conversations about (modulo details) an email from yourself saying 'send money
here or we will forward this email to your employer/spouse', I would be
surprised. Until then, people only have privacy because there's no economic
incentive to shatter it. There are no rules. Yet.

------
nickpsecurity
EFF isn't getting it: powerful and rich people want this bill to pass for
increased government surveillance, control, financial contracts, and bribes.
It's probably that simple. They didn't make a mistake any more than they
accidentally give the Pentagon or defence contractors ridiculous sums of money
for useless stuff that just keeps people employed in their districts, their
stock portfolios in the black, and their campaign funds full. This is part of
systematic corruption. They just don't give a shit, they have incentives not
to, and agencies promise them an exemption which they believe. (Wait, there's
the mistake.)

Aside from huge voter push, the only thing that could change it would be
similar money and power pushing in the opposite direction. Not talk, not
lawyers, not faxes: one or more groups paying for and demanding curtailing of
mass surveillance with ability to disrupt contracts, bills, or the
politician's careers. Right now, only the pro-surveillance people are in that
position. So, they're winning and will keep winning until people get how the
system really works and make it work for them.

~~~
Umn55
Goes way beyond that...

On the NSA/spying...

The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more
part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests.
They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate
centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this
vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY)

Brezinski at a press conference

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g)

------
stevecalifornia
Here is my problem with EFF: They are raising a stink and not providing any
cited evidence. In Wikipedia terms-- [citation needed]. Take any article
published by them and count how many links deep you have to get to any actual
information and not just general opinion. I still haven't found anything that
goes through the bill and explains what the problem is citing the text of the
bill.

This is an actual opening sentence from some material the EFF published:
"Although grassroots activism has dealt it a blow, the Senate Intelligence
Committee's terrible bill, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Act(CISA) keeps
shambling along like the zombie it is." It's hard for me to get behind an
organization that writes like this.

What I dislike about all the crazy right-wing emails I get is it's all
inflated scare mongering and no actual sourcing. The EFF's publications are
getting way too similar and it saddens me.

Now, on the flip side, I have yet to see the authors of this bill really put
out much material that relates the bill in simpler terms. For that, I am also
saddened.

~~~
h1818902
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/senate-intelligence-
co...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/senate-intelligence-committee-
advances-terrible-cybersecurity-bill-surveillance)

TL;DR: More surveillance under the guise of "Cybersecurity"

------
atomi
Enormous multi-national corporations should not function as an extension of
our Government. This is the separation of church and state debate all over
again.

~~~
msellout
I think you've got it backwards. For the last 200 years, the government has
mostly functioned as an extension of wealthy people/corporations. Heck, the
revolutionaries of the Boston Tea Party were upset that legally imported
British tea was cheaper than the colonists' smuggled Dutch tea. The USA was
founded by merchants trying to avoid competition.

~~~
atomi
Well yeah, the US government has a mandate to protect commerce.

------
givan
What is the bigger picture here, what is really happening?

Europe also wants to regulate internet traffic, at the same time an internet
law is passed and both us and europe want a broader commerce union with TIPP.

Are all these tools implemented to eventually censor people who will disagree
with all that is coming with this new union? something like china does with
everything that is against the party? what are they trying to do to our
society with these baby steps?

------
mikehotel
Does the final version produced by the conference committee require revotes in
the House and Senate again before heading to the President for signature?

The gap between US lawmakers and the EU is only widening when it comes to
Privacy matters. This vote only lends more credence to the EU's decision
earlier this month to scrap Safe Harbor [1].

[1]
[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/10/european_cour...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/10/european_court_.html)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Does the final version produced by the conference committee require revotes
> in the House and Senate again before heading to the President for signature?

Yes. The House and Senate must actually pass the same bill, not merely similar
bills.

~~~
mikehotel
Thanks! So there is more time to voice concerns with elected representatives.

------
aaronmhatch
What impact did Facebook's lobbying have on this?

~~~
hamai
Wonder if TPPA and CISA are related somehow.

------
Amorymeltzer
The final bill passed with a resounding 74-21
([https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291)).
Here's the list of people who voted for it:

D Bennet, Michael CO

D Blumenthal, Richard CT

D Boxer, Barbara CA

D Cantwell, Maria WA

D Carper, Thomas DE

D Casey, Bob PA

D Donnelly, Joe IN

D Durbin, Richard IL

D Feinstein, Dianne CA

D Gillibrand, Kirsten NY

D Heinrich, Martin NM

D Heitkamp, Heidi ND

D Hirono, Mazie HI

D Kaine, Timothy VA

D Klobuchar, Amy MN

D Manchin, Joe WV

D McCaskill, Claire MO

D Mikulski, Barbara MD

D Murphy, Christopher CT

D Murray, Patty WA

D Nelson, Bill FL

D Peters, Gary MI

D Reed, John RI

D Reid, Harry NV

D Schatz, Brian HI

D Schumer, Chuck NY

D Shaheen, Jeanne NH

D Stabenow, Debbie MI

D Warner, Mark VA

D Whitehouse, Sheldon RI

I King, Angus ME

R Alexander, Lamar TN

R Ayotte, Kelly NH

R Barrasso, John WY

R Blunt, Roy MO

R Boozman, John AR

R Burr, Richard NC

R Capito, Shelley WV

R Cassidy, Bill LA

R Coats, Daniel IN

R Cochran, Thad MS

R Collins, Susan ME

R Corker, Bob TN

R Cornyn, John TX

R Cotton, Tom AR

R Enzi, Michael WY

R Ernst, Joni IA

R Fischer, Deb NE

R Flake, Jeff AZ

R Gardner, Cory CO

R Grassley, Chuck IA

R Hatch, Orrin UT

R Hoeven, John ND

R Inhofe, Jim OK

R Isakson, John GA

R Johnson, Ron WI

R Kirk, Mark IL

R Lankford, James OK

R McCain, John AZ

R McConnell, Mitch KY

R Moran, Jerry KS

R Murkowski, Lisa AK

R Perdue, David GA

R Portman, Rob OH

R Roberts, Pat KS

R Rounds, Mike SD

R Sasse, Benjamin NE

R Scott, Tim SC

R Sessions, Jeff AL

R Shelby, Richard AL

R Thune, John SD

R Tillis, Thom NC

R Toomey, Pat PA

R Wicker, Roger MS

~~~
meatysnapper
both senators from both WA and CA, which are the tech-heavy stastes. No good!

~~~
nindalf
Those senators vote on tech issues as they are instructed by tech companies.
If they voted this way, I think its reasonable to assume that tech companies
lobbied for it.

------
benevol
That's 1 more call for consumers not to use US companies for IT/Web related
matters.

~~~
beedogs
Considering the US is also tapping every cable leading out of the country,
where do you suggest folks take their business?

~~~
wavefunction
I think OP means non-Americans should not patronize American businesses.
Unfortunately though, much of the Internet's transit traffic passes through
the US.

------
Shivetya
and this is why people should cheer when Democrats and Republicans cannot
agree on how to run the government instead of buying into the line that
divisiveness is bad.

because when they get along we lose.

------
mtgx
We need to raise hell on all of those politicians including the White House
months from now, when there will inevitably be another breach where tens of
millions of people's data is hacked and their beloved CISA didn't stop it.

Shame them into admitting it's not only a useless, but harmful law, and force
them to repeal it.

