Privacy Groups, Reddit Are Urging Obama to Pledge to Veto the Cybersecurity Bill

A bill making its way through the Senate would hand over too much personal data to intelligence agencies in the name of cybersecurity, a coalition warns the president.

National Journal
Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
July 15, 2014, 6:33 a.m.

It hasn’t passed Con­gress yet, but pri­vacy groups are already ask­ing Pres­id­ent Obama to pledge to veto a con­tro­ver­sial cy­ber­se­cur­ity bill they fear would bol­ster the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s spy­ing powers.

In a let­ter sent to Obama on Tues­day, Ac­cess, the Elec­tron­ic Fron­ti­er Found­a­tion, Red­dit, and dozens of oth­er pri­vacy and In­ter­net free­dom groups urged the pres­id­ent to pub­licly op­pose the Cy­ber­se­cur­ity In­form­a­tion Shar­ing Act, which would make it easi­er for com­pan­ies and the gov­ern­ment to share sens­it­ive data with one an­oth­er about cy­ber­at­tacks.

“Le­gis­la­tion that fo­cuses ex­clus­ively on fa­cil­it­a­tion of in­form­a­tion shar­ing “¦ jeop­ard­izes the found­a­tion of cy­ber­se­cur­ity by im­prop­erly pit­ting hu­man rights against se­cur­ity,” the let­ter reads. “We urge you to pledge to veto CISA and all fu­ture le­gis­la­tion that takes a sim­il­ar ap­proach.”

The let­ter comes just a week after the Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee cleared the le­gis­la­tion 12-3 dur­ing a closed-door vote. Sen. Di­anne Fein­stein, the pan­el’s chair­wo­man, said the meas­ure will help re­tail­ers and oth­ers pro­tect the per­son­al in­form­a­tion of cus­tom­ers and help thwart hack­ing at­tempts by for­eign gov­ern­ments.

CISA would make it pos­sible for busi­nesses and gov­ern­ment agen­cies to swap data about po­ten­tial hack­ers and se­cur­ity flaws in or­der to learn best prac­tices for de­fend­ing against such ma­li­cious activ­ity.

But a fa­mil­i­ar chor­us of pri­vacy and In­ter­net free­dom groups have ris­en up in op­pos­i­tion to the bill, which they say is too sim­il­ar to the Cy­ber In­tel­li­gence Shar­ing and Pro­tec­tion Act that the House passed last year. That pas­sage came des­pite Obama say­ing he would veto the meas­ure for lack­ing ap­pro­pri­ate safe­guards on pri­vacy and con­fid­en­ti­al­ity.

Some of the Sen­ate bill’s lan­guage seeks to pro­tect pri­vacy by re­quir­ing com­pan­ies that share in­form­a­tion to first re­move per­son­ally iden­ti­fi­able data (e.g. names or So­cial Se­cur­ity num­bers) of Amer­ic­ans.

Those of­fer­ings have not as­suaged con­cerns of pri­vacy ad­voc­ates, however, who ar­gue the le­gis­la­tion would make it easi­er for a com­pany like Face­book to turn over vast quant­it­ies of private on­line data to the gov­ern­ment. Skep­tics say in­form­a­tion giv­en to the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment would be also de­livered to the NSA and oth­er in­tel­li­gence agen­cies.

In ad­di­tion, the let­ter main­tains that im­munity pro­tec­tions for com­pan­ies lim­it their in­terest in pro­tect­ing cus­tom­er data and do not re­quire per­son­al in­form­a­tion to be stripped out be­fore data is shared with the gov­ern­ment un­less there is veri­fi­able know­ledge that such in­form­a­tion is present.

“While amend­ments at­tached to CISA dur­ing the com­mit­tee markup al­le­vi­ate con­cerns about the bill’s dis­pro­por­tion­ate im­pact on non-U.S. per­sons, the re­vised bill fails to cor­rect many of the bill’s most ba­sic prob­lems,” the let­ter states. “In fact, while amend­ments os­tens­ibly re­quire ad­di­tion­al lim­ited data use and re­ten­tion lim­it­a­tions, those pro­vi­sions are left wide open to secret gov­ern­ment in­ter­pret­a­tion.”

Crit­ics of gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance have long ar­gued that in­tel­li­gence agen­cies op­er­ate un­der loose in­ter­pret­a­tions of vague stat­utes to col­lect far more data on Amer­ic­ans than Con­gress in­ten­ded to al­low.

It is un­clear when the full Sen­ate may con­sider CISA, but some aides have said its back­ers may at­tempt a vote be­fore the Au­gust re­cess.

What We're Following See More »
INDICTMENTS NOT PROOF OF COLLUSION
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
3 days ago
THE DETAILS
Source:
CONTRADICTS TRUMP’S DENIALS
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
3 days ago
THE LATEST

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Source:
“QUEEN FOR A DAY”
Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Source:
ZERO-FOR-TWO
Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

Source:
DISPUTE ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login