Senate Panel Passes Cybersecurity Bill Despite NSA Fears

Privacy groups warn the legislation would give the spy agency access to even more personal data.

A person claiming to speak for activist hacker group Anonymous is seen issuing a warning throught a video circulated online to 'go to war' with the Singapore government over recent Internet licensing rules on November 1, 2013.
National Journal
Brendan Sasso
July 8, 2014, 12:57 p.m.

The Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee ap­proved le­gis­la­tion Tues­day aimed at help­ing com­pan­ies and the gov­ern­ment thwart hack­ers.

But the bill faces op­pos­i­tion from pri­vacy groups, who warn that it could give the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency ac­cess to even more per­son­al in­form­a­tion of Amer­ic­ans.

The Cy­ber­se­cur­ity In­form­a­tion Shar­ing Act, ad­vanced in a 12-3 vote, would make it easi­er for busi­nesses and the gov­ern­ment to share in­form­a­tion with each oth­er about cy­ber­at­tacks. Busi­ness groups ar­gue that leg­al bar­ri­ers are pre­vent­ing them from get­ting the in­form­a­tion they need to stop hack­ers.

“Every week, we hear about the theft of per­son­al in­form­a­tion from re­tail­ers and trade secrets from in­nov­at­ive busi­nesses, as well as on­go­ing ef­forts by for­eign na­tions to hack gov­ern­ment net­works,” Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein said in a state­ment. “This bill is an im­port­ant step to­ward curb­ing these dan­ger­ous cy­ber­at­tacks.”

The le­gis­la­tion 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 go first to the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment, but could then be shared with the NSA or oth­er in­tel­li­gence agen­cies.

“In­stead of rein­ing in NSA sur­veil­lance, the bill would fa­cil­it­ate a vast flow of private com­mu­nic­a­tions data to the NSA,” 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 last month.

Demo­crat­ic Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Ud­all voted against the le­gis­la­tion, say­ing in a state­ment that it “lacks ad­equate pro­tec­tions for the pri­vacy rights of law-abid­ing Amer­ic­ans, and that it will not ma­ter­i­ally im­prove cy­ber­se­cur­ity.”

The sen­at­ors said they don’t trust the gov­ern­ment not to ex­ploit loop­holes to spy on Amer­ic­ans. Ac­cord­ing to a Wyden aide, the com­mit­tee de­feated an amend­ment that the Ore­gon Demo­crat offered that would have strengthened pri­vacy pro­tec­tions. 

The le­gis­la­tion 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.

The White House is­sued a veto threat on CISPA, say­ing it lacked ad­equate pri­vacy safe­guards.

“I don’t know what in­form­a­tion you would be con­cerned about that NSA would have in an in­form­a­tion-shar­ing bill,” Fein­stein told re­port­ers fol­low­ing the markup, which was closed to the pub­lic. “If some­body’s hack­ing, you want [the in­form­a­tion] to go where it needs to go.”

She said the le­gis­la­tion is just a “first step” in im­prov­ing cy­ber­se­cur­ity, and that she is hope­ful it will be­come law be­fore the end of the year.

Sen. Saxby Cham­b­liss, the com­mit­tee’s top Re­pub­lic­an, said the bill is a care­fully craf­ted com­prom­ise between busi­ness groups and pri­vacy ad­voc­ates.

“It’s not per­fect for any­body,” Cham­b­liss told re­port­ers. “But if we take no ac­tion, then cy­ber­at­tacks are go­ing to con­tin­ue to oc­cur, and there is the po­ten­tial for the Amer­ic­an eco­nomy to be severely dis­rup­ted.”

 

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×