Bill expected to encounter Senate resistance
The US House of Representatives has voted in favor of the 2013 revision of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) bill. The proposed legislation passed 287-to-127, widening the margin from the 248-to-168 House vote in 2012 for the initial version, however the bill is nonetheless expected to encounter more resistance in the Senate and a possible presidential veto.
Statement by NSC claims revisions made to bill insufficient
The White House has responded to the 2013 version of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) bill heading to the House floor for a vote. National Security Council (NSC) spokesperson Caitlin Hayden issued a statement saying that "[the White House believes] the adopted committee amendments reflect a good-faith effort to incorporate some of the Administration's important substantive concerns, but we do not believe these changes have addressed some outstanding fundamental priorities" and intimated that the President would veto the bill as it stands.
Changes to bill limited to personal information restrictions
A slightly modified version of last year's failed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) has been voted through the House Intelligence Committee, with an 18-2 victory. The new revision of the bill, left mostly unaltered by the committee, will likely reach the House for a general vote by April 19 along with a number of other cybersecurity bills.
CISPA has broad and alarming reach, says Mozilla
Mozilla has taken a stand against the Internet security bill CISPA. In a statement to Forbes, Mozilla's Privacy and Public Policy lead says that the CISPA bill had “a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security.”
Microsoft backs CISPA bill to the end
Microsoft in a statement Monday clung to a firm stance on the proposed CISPA bill. The firm told The Hill that, despite having said it wanted to "honor the privacy" of users, it wanted the bill to continue forward. It would "look forward" to working with the Senate on the bill.
Obama administration ups the ante over bill
The struggle over the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) reached a new level today, Politico reports, with the White House threatening to veto the controversial security bill should it manage to reach the president's desk. The veto threat came even as House Republicans were preparing to bring their version of the bill to the floor for a vote.
CISPA would curv government access
US Congress representatives Dutch Ruppersberger and Mike Rogers revealed Tuesday that they were changing the controversial CISPA bill to defuse some of the complaints about overreach. Amendments would limit information the government could get about Internet security to specific cases, such as rogue attacks, criminal investigations, safeguards against national security and theft issues, or child porn.
EFF letter asks congress refuse cybersecurity bill
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published an open letter co-signed by a number of engineers, security professionals, and academics who are against proposed cybersecurity bills. Critics argue that security legislation under consideration, including CISPA, uses overly broad language that could potentially lead to privacy loss for Internet users.
White House NSC speaks out against CISPA
An Obama administration official has voiced concerns over the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which is scheduled for a House of Representatives vote next week. In a statement to The Hill, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden noted that such legislation must protect privacy while providing security provisions for critical infrastructure systems.
CISPA goes too far claim EFF
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has launched a campaign to fight the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a cybersecurity bill designed to allow companies and the federal government to share information to prevent or defend from cyberattacks. The EFF, along with other civil liberties organizations, dispute the bill on the basis that is written too broadly and would be a loophole in existing privacy laws.