Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Privacy Politics

CISPA Seems Dead In the US Senate 76

Posted by timothy
from the in-the-senate-dead-is-a-good-disguise dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Daily Dot: "A Senate committee aide, who requested to not be named, told the Daily Dot that 'there is no possible plan to bring up CISPA,' in the Senate. The aide cited the fact that the Senate tried to pass its own cybersecurity bill, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (CSA). While unsuccessful, it underscored a desire for legislation that took more explicit efforts to protect individuals' Internet privacy. 'There are just too many problems with it,' the aide said of CISPA. This is backed up by U.S. News and World Report, which has reported that a staffer on the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation explicitly claims CISPA is no longer a possibility, and senators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CISPA Seems Dead In the US Senate

Comments Filter:
  • by Stormthirst (66538) on Friday April 26, 2013 @08:55AM (#43555003)

    That's all

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I don't know if we can say the *did* something right. It's more like they didn't do something wrong.
    • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Friday April 26, 2013 @09:19AM (#43555183)

      enators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions.

      Apparently you missed that part. Let me translate: "Who gave this damned thing a name? All the hippies are up in arms over it again! Scrap it, pull the wording out and we'll introduce different parts of it at different times so they don't have an easy target to complain about. Also, we'll all be able to separately oppose parts of it while supporting others, there-by shift blame all over so no-one can target any of us directly when the they realize we passed it anyway."

    • by Greyfox (87712)
      They're really good at not getting things done. I wouldn't attribute them not getting something you didn't like done to any particular competence. It's really just their way of letting the people who really want the bill to pass that they haven't received enough money yet. Once the likes of the RIAA offers up a few more teats for congressmen to attach to, I'm sure it'll be back.
      • Let's hope they will be good enough to kill the internet sales tax as well.
        • by geekoid (135745)

          Why would you want to kill that? It's a convenient way to pay a tax you owe.

          • Assuming you're serious, the reason is simple: because it's a bitch for small stores. Mistakes will be made and the small businesses will get into big time hassles with the sales tax board of different states. Small businesses, especially mom-and-pop stores will have one more hurdle to clear and many will fail.

            I think the purpose of the legislation is to force mom-and-pops out of the internet sales because it is so onerous. Now you may say that there a technological solution could easily be made. Yes it
            • Now you may say that there a technological solution could easily be made. Yes it could. But it's not in the works.

              Yes it is. It's called TaxCloud, and it's a web service offered without charge to all U.S. Internet retailers, paid for by states participating in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA).

              different states tax different items in different ways and change them frequently. For instance NYS taxes clothes when an individual item is 110.00 and above but doesn't when it is below. Now what is an item of clothes and what is an accessory (which is fully taxed.)

              States participating in SSUTA have simplified their tax codes precisely to minimize this.

              We can easily see a technological solution. There is a central database which all transactions refer to (kept in cache via a google API) and which the STATES are responsible to keep updated.

              One such database is called TaxCloud.

          • by gmhowell (26755)

            Why would you want to kill that? It's a convenient way to pay a tax you owe.

            Not true for residents of many states. Try again.

    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday April 26, 2013 @09:23AM (#43555225) Journal

      senators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions

      Death by guillotine vs death by 1000 cuts
      Being on cut #549 is not much of a victory.
      You're still going to end up dead..

    • by Anonymous Coward

      no, they didn't.

      staffer on the Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation explicitly claims CISPA is no longer a possibility, and senators are 'drafting separate bills' to include some CISPA provisions.

      translation: the senate is preparing amendments to add to totally unrelated bills that do the same thing, probably worse.. these unrelated bills will be the kind that the senators must vote for or face a hailstorm during re-election.

    • Too bad they did it in secret. I wrote my senators asking them to reject CISPA, and that my vote would hinge on whether they opposed it. Since everything was done in secret, I can't even remotely provide proper feedback into our broken democratic system.
      Hooray broken democracy.

      • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Friday April 26, 2013 @10:33AM (#43555913) Homepage Journal

        Since everything was done in secret, I can't even remotely provide proper feedback into our broken democratic system.

        Sure you can - your democratically elected, public officials attempted to secretly alter public policy; Therefore, they are not worthy of re-election.

        Apart from that, you can always hound them about their secret activities, and when they try to give you some bullshit excuse, use their own words against them:

        If you have done nothing wrong...

      • by geekoid (135745)

        It's a broken democracy becasue isn't a democracy, idiot.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      No, don't be fooled. They're just going to hide all the legislation in other bills. This controlled leak by an "unnamed staffer" is just to fool people like you and everyone that modded you up.

    • by PhxBlue (562201)
      ... by doing nothing at all.
  • For now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TWiTfan (2887093) on Friday April 26, 2013 @09:08AM (#43555091)

    As a governor once said: "I'll be back."

    • Don't worry, it'll get attached as an eleventh-hour amendment to a bill funding childrens' hospitals the evening before summer recess.

  • What's really going on? There must be some other way we're being screwed here....

    • by Anonymous Coward

      No, see this is how bad legislation works, you have a giant angry chunk of nasty, then it gets defeated into smaller chunks of nasty, those get defeated into even smaller chunks of nasty.

      Eventually the individual chunks don't seem to matter so they get passed.

      In the end some rich guy strokes his dick with money.

      • No, see this is how bad legislation works, you have a giant angry chunk of nasty, then it gets defeated into smaller chunks of nasty, those get defeated into even smaller chunks of nasty.

        Eventually the individual chunks don't seem to matter so they get passed.

        In the end some rich guy strokes his dick with money.

        And then They sneak the little chunks of nasty into a bills that have nothing to do with the original nasty,and "We the People" don't even realize that our will has been circumvented. And in the end " A WHOLE BUNCH of RICH Guys are circle jerking and "WE the People" are the pivot man.

  • by geckoFeet (139137) <gecko@dustyfeet.com> on Friday April 26, 2013 @09:16AM (#43555157)

    ... to implement the provisions, the thing may not be dead. It may be metastisizing.

  • They will just parse up the bill and add it as amendments to future legislation.

    They have been paid far too much money by big business to let it die here.
  • Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grenadeh (2734161) on Friday April 26, 2013 @09:46AM (#43555427)
    I like the wording in this article.: "While unsuccessful, it underscored a desire for legislation that took more explicit efforts to protect individuals' Internet privacy." A desire by whom, praytell? No one who uses the internet wants any legislation PERIOD. We don't want explicit protection, we want absolute laissez faire internet the way it is supposed to be. A desire by "lawmakers"? It isn't their job to come up with the ideas behind the legislation. It's their job to do what their constituents want. While, admittedly, the majority of America is retarded and increasingly so - increasingly falling prey to mob opinion and misinformation from every level so that they are still willing to be spoonfed this Constitution-shredding bullshit, I HIGHLY doubt that each district is going out saying "REGULATE OUR INTERNETS". Not happening. Anywhere.
    • I like the wording in this article.:

      "While unsuccessful, it underscored a desire for legislation that took more explicit efforts to protect individuals' Internet privacy."

      A desire by whom, praytell?

      The fucktards commenting on Yahoo! News.

      Seriously, you want to lose all faith in humanity? Go read some of the shit those ego-maniacal sociopaths post. It's fucking depressing.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I HIGHLY doubt that each district is going out saying "REGULATE OUR INTERNETS". Not happening. Anywhere

      I'm not so optimistic.

      People don't scream verbatim "REGULATE OUR INTERNETS", but people do scream that we gotta do "something" whenever:

      -some criminal/mass murder/terrorist is found to have used technology of some kind (i.e played video games, left some message on social media. etc)
      -some kid gets bullied online and something bad happens (i.e commit suicide)
      -some story comes up about foreign (Chinese) hackers succeeding in doing something that sounds threatening, or that there's a cyber cold war going on, et

      • Sounds to me that, if we need to be regulating anything, it's the knee-jerk reactionary jackasses scared of their own shadows...

        • Sounds to me that, if we need to be regulating anything, it's the knee-jerk reactionary jackasses scared of their own shadows...

          Which is why we don't need anymore gun control.

          Oh, wait, this isn't about gun control, is it? What I meant to say was "Someone was SHOT??? OMG, MORE GUN CONTROL!!!"

      • Actually, it is usually politicians who scream that we "gotta do something" whenever something happens that they see as an opportunity to expand their power. They are often able to stampede people into supporting what these expansions of power right after some tragedy, even if what they propose would not have had any impact on preventing the tragedy (for example, none of the control legislation proposed in the wake of the Newtown school shootings would have had any impact on that event). Even worse, is that
    • by SirGarlon (845873)

      No one who uses the internet wants any legislation PERIOD.

      Speak for yourself. If you want your email and VOIP conversations handed over to the Feds without a warrant, if you feel you shouldn't need to be notified of a server breach that compromises your financial data, if you feel that ISPs should be able to give preferential quality of service to their own partners and degrade the connection speed of their competitors, and if you want to be under constant surveillance and tracking by corporate overlords

  • You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment!
  • Ooh! It's dead!
    Shove that giant metal spear into it's chest to be sure!
    *LIGHTNING BOLT!*
    *Zombie CISPA*
    It's alive! Let's give it a new name!
    We shall call it FOICRRA! Fuck Over Internet Constituency Rights Rapeage Act!
    Let's get a vote!

  • Anybody else get the email about this? I'm hearing that CNET has a 1000 page document outlining that the government has already allowed companies total immunity from prosecution over backdoors for wiretapping, and they just want to retroactively make it legal with CISPA.
    Am I really late on the game here, or not?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The legislature passes and the President signs off on a bill either granting the exact *opposite* of CISPA, or enacts legislation stating that such measures shall not be legislated or executivized at all.

    Otherwise, as others have suggested it may come back chunk by chunk or attached to must pass legislation.... Or have we all gone so brain dead as to not remember this is the second pass at this, which shall imply a third, fourth, or as many times as needed to pass???

  • CIspa is dead which is Great, a bill like should have never even been inspired to come in to existence. I am glad that it is now dead. However Online privacy is still a concern and people are still very vulnerable to cyber attacks. People have started using VPNs (http://goo.gl/Ddp8U) in order to protect their privacy. the people; living in a democratic state; have to pay an extra penny for their privacy, something the govt is liable to do.

No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.

Working...