A New Cybersecurity Bill Could Give the NSA Even More Data

Privacy groups are rallying opposition to the Senate legislation.

A computer workstation bears the National Security Agency (NSA) logo inside the Threat Operations Center inside the Washington suburb of Fort Meade, Maryland, intelligence gathering operation 25 January 2006 after US President George W. Bush delivered a speech behind closed doors and met with employees in advance of Senate hearings on the much-criticized domestic surveillance. 
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
June 27, 2014, 8:52 a.m.

Pri­vacy groups are sound­ing the alarm that a new Sen­ate cy­ber­se­cur­ity bill could give the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency ac­cess to even more per­son­al in­form­a­tion of Amer­ic­ans.

The Cy­ber­se­cur­ity In­form­a­tion Shar­ing Act would cre­ate a “gap­ing loop­hole in ex­ist­ing pri­vacy law,” the Amer­ic­an Civil Liber­ties Uni­on, the Cen­ter for Demo­cracy and Tech­no­logy, the Elec­tron­ic Fron­ti­er Found­a­tion, and dozens of oth­er pri­vacy groups wrote in a let­ter to sen­at­ors late Thursday.

“In­stead of rein­ing in NSA sur­veil­lance, the bill would fa­cil­it­ate a vast flow of private com­mu­nic­a­tions data to the NSA,” many of the same pri­vacy groups warned in a second let­ter to law­makers.

The goal of the bill, au­thored by Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein and rank­ing mem­ber Saxby Cham­b­liss, is to al­low the gov­ern­ment and private sec­tor to share more in­form­a­tion about at­tacks on com­puter net­works.

Busi­ness groups have been com­plain­ing for sev­er­al years that they could bet­ter pro­tect their sys­tems from hack­ers if Con­gress re­moved leg­al bar­ri­ers to in­form­a­tion-shar­ing. The com­pan­ies want to make it easi­er to share in­form­a­tion about at­tacks with each oth­er and the gov­ern­ment.

The Sen­ate bill in­cludes pro­vi­sions aimed at pro­tect­ing pri­vacy, such as re­quir­ing that com­pan­ies that share in­form­a­tion first strip out per­son­ally iden­ti­fi­able data (such as names, ad­dresses, and So­cial Se­cur­ity num­bers) of known Amer­ic­ans.

But the pri­vacy groups are still wor­ried that the le­gis­la­tion could en­cour­age a com­pany such as Google to turn over vast batches of emails or oth­er private data to the gov­ern­ment. The in­form­a­tion would first go to the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment, but could then be shared with the NSA or oth­er in­tel­li­gence agen­cies.

“This new flow of private com­mu­nic­a­tions in­form­a­tion to NSA is deeply troub­ling giv­en the past year’s rev­el­a­tions of over­broad NSA sur­veil­lance,” the groups wrote in one of the let­ters.

They ar­gued that the bill al­lows for broad use of the cy­ber­data once it’s in the hands of the gov­ern­ment. With the com­pany’s per­mis­sion, the in­form­a­tion could be used as evid­ence by state and loc­al po­lice in routine crim­in­al in­vest­ig­a­tions and pro­sec­u­tions. The fed­er­al gov­ern­ment could use the in­form­a­tion for in­vest­ig­a­tions un­der the Es­pi­on­age Act, lead­ing the pri­vacy groups to worry that the bill could be used to tar­get whistle-blowers.

In a state­ment, Fein­stein said her bill in­cludes “nu­mer­ous pri­vacy pro­tec­tions to en­sure in­di­vidu­als and com­pan­ies do not in­ap­pro­pri­ately share per­son­ally identi­fy­ing in­form­a­tion and to pro­tect against the gov­ern­ment’s use of vol­un­tar­ily shared cy­ber­se­cur­ity in­form­a­tion out­side of nar­row cy­ber-re­lated pur­poses.”

She said her com­mit­tee met with pri­vacy ad­voc­ates and made changes to the bill to ad­dress their con­cerns.

“I be­lieve the bill strikes a bal­ance between the need to share in­form­a­tion to im­prove cy­ber­se­cur­ity and the need to safe­guard the in­form­a­tion be­ing shared,” she said.

The Sen­ate’s bill is a coun­ter­part to the Cy­ber In­tel­li­gence Shar­ing and Pro­tec­tion Act, which passed the House last year.

That le­gis­la­tion promp­ted a ma­jor back­lash from In­ter­net act­iv­ists, who fear it would un­der­mine In­ter­net pri­vacy. More than 100,000 people signed a White House pe­ti­tion op­pos­ing the bill, and “CISPA” be­came a dirty word on many blogs, dis­cus­sion for­ums, and news sites.

It re­mains to be seen wheth­er the pri­vacy groups will be able to mount a sim­il­ar cam­paign against the Sen­ate’s “CISA.”

The Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee had planned to mark up the bill Thursday but post­poned the ses­sion un­til after the Ju­ly Fourth re­cess.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×