The Obama administration issued a threat on Tuesday to veto a House cyber-security bill that would confer blanket corporate immunity to companies sharing user information to U.S. intelligence agencies, its second such threat in two years against the legislation.
Known by the acronym CISPA, the bill is meant to facilitate data sharing between intelligence agencies and the private sector to help protect against cyber espionage. It was approved in secret last week by a House intelligence committee by an 18-2 vote after changes, including the removal of a national security exemption, were made during markup.
The committee tweeted that it’s scheduled for a vote on the House floor this week. But the Obama administration still wants more changes, and senior advisers would recommend President Barack Obama veto the bill as written, according to a statement of administration policy (pdf).
Worth keeping a close eye on.
» The key word here is “purported.” Critics of SOPA alleged that the text of the bill was too draconian, and would have allowed for shutting down entire websites for questionable infractions (for example, linking to a message board with a comment that directed users to a site with copyrighted material). Opposition to CISPA, however, comes due to privacy concerns: Critics say the bill allows private companies (such as Facebook and Microsoft which opposed SOPA but support CISPA) to exchange personal information and private data with the government a bit too easily. We’ve still got to delve into the nitty-gritty here, but we recommend you seek out a few different takes on the legislation. TechDirt and Geekosystem are both opposed, GigaOm is so-so, and Lifehacker has a nice rundown as to why Facebook and Microsoft opposed SOPA but support CISPA.
» A consumer-focused brand suffers: A data breach with far-reaching implications, this couldn’t have happened to a better company. Anyone who’s ever bought shoes from Zappos knows the company has a rep for doing whatever it can to make the customer happy. ”We’ve spent over 12 years building our reputation, brand, and trust with our customers,” wrote Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh. ”It’s painful to see us take so many steps back due to a single incident.” According to the company, sensitive data, including the last four digits of customers’ credit card numbers, may have been acquired in the cyber attack.
NPR’s report on SOPA seems to do a good job of burying the lede. “To promote cybersecurity”?
producermatthew said: Suggesting companies should learn to “get hackers on their side” is like saying banks should learn to play nice with robbers. There’s a difference between telling someone their door is unlocked and blatantly breaking in to their house.
» We say: While it’s not necessarily an even match, here’s the reason why I stand behind my prior post. By keeping low-level hackers happy by encouraging homebrew solutions that respect the intentions of the device creators (such as what the article suggests Microsoft has done with their Kinect device), it encourages an environment where much more sinister hackers might give you a pass. The thing is, the PlayStation Network’s hackers should get punished. What Geohot and Alexander Egorenkov did pushed the edges a little but was something Sony could have responded to without lawsuits or raids. Neither of them were intending to do the type of wrong the PSN hackers were. But Sony’s heavy-handed response to Geohot and Egorenkov got their attention.
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
