I'm busy at the moment and can't write a proper analysis, but it's called CISPA and essentially it's SOPA, but the scapegoat has been changed from piracy to cyberterrorism. Don't underestimate this or blow it off, it's at least as serious. There are many similarities to SOPA, the important ones being that it gives corporations and the government much greater visibility and power over internet communication, it's very broad - it's limits as to what can be collected are vague, and that it's getting a lot of suppourt in congress. These two articles do a better and more thorough job of breaking it down. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...e-worried-about-this-cybersecurity-bill.shtml http://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-bill-sopa-internet-175/ Edit: Here's a quick summary someone else made, everyone should read it. Two summaries. First devoid of bullshit. Second longer and more officious. Links: govtrack on HR 3523, bill text I am not a lawyer, feel free to correct me if you think I've misinterpreted any provisions. TLDR: Gives ISPs power to collect information about you and share it with companies. Does not explicitly allow censorship. ISPs have the power to collect information about your Internet use. The RIAA/MPAA/etc can contract with your ISP to obtain this information. This information is "proprietary" -- you don't have the right to know what info they're collecting on you. The ISP is exempt from all legal and criminal action for surveillance under this bill. TLDR in more legalese. The bill Gives private companies the power to collect "cyber security information." Gives them the high-security clearance necessary to handle that information. Allows companies, on behalf of themselves or other "protected entities", to: A. "Use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity." B. Share that private information with said entity and/or the Feds. The information collected is "proprietary" and may not be shared with anyone else. Private companies acting under this law are exempt from: A. Being sued or criminally prosecuted for doing this surveillance; B. Being sued or criminally prosecuted for "not acting on information obtained or shared." There must be yearly privacy reports made to the government. "Cyber threat intelligence" means any information pertaining to "efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy" a network; "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information." "Protected entities" mean companies only, not individuals.
Again? It seems like the government is just trying to zerg rush us with a bunch of bills, until the internet gets tired.
Waiting for pedro to give a well thought out response, but in the meantime I'll do some research on the Bill.
At first glance this seems both very different from SOPA/PIPA, and at the same time not a huge expansion of what already takes place. Companies routinely trade your personal information obtained from social media sites and your google search history. Ever wonder how you get ads that are more or less catered to your specific interests? It's because when you fill it your facebook profile, facebook sells that information (the things you like, the types of things you comment on) to advertising firms who then build ads targeted to your preferences. The only real difference here is it seems like companies would have qualified immunity for doing this, although I'm pretty sure there haven't been any big lawsuits in this field as is. My interest isn't really in this aspect of the law though so I'm not an expert
This bill will probably pass, for two reasons. One, it isn't quite as radical as SOPA was. Two, its scapegoating cyber terrorism and that means the majority of people in the US at least will support it because the minute someone starts saying it will stop terrorism then it gets passed. With piracy, a lot of people (teenagers especially) do it. But, with terrorism, well there is really no opposition because I know noone who is a terrorist or supports terrorism, and I guarantee none of you do either (I hope if you did you would keep an eye on them). By the way, is it just me or are cyber terrorism and terrorism turning into buzzwords?
Yes, it already is. In fact, last month someone called me a "red terrorist" when he overheard me telling my much more intelligent (compared to the other guy, not me ) friend about the merits of socialism. I'd like to point out that it appears being a socialist in America is still heavily frowned upon.
Can someone who has the attention span to read and interpret this tell me if this bill will effect places outside the US?
Don's be so sure it will stay confined to the U.S. if it passes since other countries seem to take on the mentality of "Hey those corrupt rich politicians in America-land are doing it for the benefit of the people lining their pocket's. LET'S DO THE SAME IDIOTIC THING!!!
