Christie Brinkley
10-30-2015, 05:29 PM
CISA the 'cyber security' (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754/text) bill which was passed with the senate voting 71 to 21 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754/text). Critics argue that CISA will allow continued warrantless domestic surveillance.
Critics argue that the NSA and the FBI often have blurred lines between 'cyber crime' and 'terrorism' (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/04/us/document-cyber-surveillance-documents.html?_r=0) saying that the bill will be used for surveillance instead of tackling cyber crime.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7866&stc=1
CISA, as written, would let FBI and NSA veto any scrub (including of content) at DHS. And incoming data (again, probably including content) would be shared immediately not only with FBI (which has been the vehicle for sharing NSA data broadly) but also Treasury and ODNI, which are both veritable black holes from a due process perspective. And what few protections for US persons are tied to a relevance standard that would be accomplished by virtue of a tie to that selector. Thus, CISA would permit the immediate sharing, with virtually no minimization, of US person content across the government[/B] (and from there to private sector and local governments).
Mark Jaycox, a legislative analyst for the civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/) said
The incentive and the framework it creates is for companies to quickly and massively collect user information and ship it to the government (http://www.wired.com/2015/10/cisa-cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-passes-senate-vote-with-privacy-flaws/)
He also went on to say
The passage of CISA reflects the misunderstanding (https://www.eff.org/mention/cisa-data-sharing-bill-passes-senate-no-privacy-protections) many lawmakers have about technology and security. Computer security engineers were against it. Academics were against it. Technology companies, including some of Silicon Valley’s biggest like Twitter and Salesforce, were against
Critics argue that the NSA and the FBI often have blurred lines between 'cyber crime' and 'terrorism' (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/04/us/document-cyber-surveillance-documents.html?_r=0) saying that the bill will be used for surveillance instead of tackling cyber crime.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7866&stc=1
CISA, as written, would let FBI and NSA veto any scrub (including of content) at DHS. And incoming data (again, probably including content) would be shared immediately not only with FBI (which has been the vehicle for sharing NSA data broadly) but also Treasury and ODNI, which are both veritable black holes from a due process perspective. And what few protections for US persons are tied to a relevance standard that would be accomplished by virtue of a tie to that selector. Thus, CISA would permit the immediate sharing, with virtually no minimization, of US person content across the government[/B] (and from there to private sector and local governments).
Mark Jaycox, a legislative analyst for the civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/) said
The incentive and the framework it creates is for companies to quickly and massively collect user information and ship it to the government (http://www.wired.com/2015/10/cisa-cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-passes-senate-vote-with-privacy-flaws/)
He also went on to say
The passage of CISA reflects the misunderstanding (https://www.eff.org/mention/cisa-data-sharing-bill-passes-senate-no-privacy-protections) many lawmakers have about technology and security. Computer security engineers were against it. Academics were against it. Technology companies, including some of Silicon Valley’s biggest like Twitter and Salesforce, were against