In a story published by the Associated Press House Republicans and Democrats
expressed optimism Friday about sending a cyber security bill to President
Obama this year. The House delivered a bipartisan vote (248 to 168) on April 26
for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act despite a White House
veto threat. The bill would encourage companies and the federal government to
share information collected on the Internet to help prevent electronic attacks
from cyber criminals, foreign governments and terrorists. The House also
approved 3 other less-divisive cyber-related bills including one on April 27
(395 to 10 vote) that improves coordination between the private and public
sectors on research and development on cyber security. “Four bills coming out
of the House with strong majorities, I really think the burden is on the Senate
to do something. They can do big bills, small bills, it really doesn’t matter.
Just do something” said Representative Mac Thornberry (R-Texas). The House bill
would impose no new rules on businesses, a Republican imperative. In the Senate
several Democrats and Republicans prefer a bill by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman
(I-Connecticut.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) that would give the Department of
Homeland Security the primary role in overseeing domestic cyber security and
the authority to set security standards. The House bill does not give Homeland
Security that authority. The White House favors the Senate measure. The Senate
could act as early as next month on the legislation although it’s uncertain
what might emerge in light of internal Senate disputes. House members hope
disagreements on a final bill could be settled by a House-Senate conference
committee, if not earlier. “We have a bill; now we start resolving the issues,”
said Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the House
Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat. He said he has talked to both the White
House and top members of the Senate intelligence panel about moving forward. More
than 10 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 lawmakers
describe it as an initial step to deal with an evolving threat in the Internet
age. “We really don’t have a choice to sit still because our adversaries are
not sitting still,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff (D-California) in an
interview Friday. Schiff, a member of the intelligence panel said he didn’t
think the House and Senate were far apart and expected the various factions to
resolve such thorny issues as strengthening privacy protections, whether the
government can require the private sector to take steps to protect
infrastructure and the role of Homeland Security. House Speaker John A. Boehner
(R-Ohio) challenged the administration’s approach, he said “The White House believes
the government ought to control the Internet, government ought to set standards
and government ought to take care of everything that’s needed for cyber security.
They’re in a camp all by themselves.” The House bill would allow the government
to relay cyber threat information to a company to prevent attacks from Russia
or China. In the private sector corporations could alert the government and
provide data that could stop an attack on the country’s water supply or the
banking system. Faced with widespread privacy concerns, Representative Mike
Rogers (R-Michigan), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and
Ruppersberger pulled together an amendment that limits the government’s use of
threat information to 5 specific purposes: cyber security; investigation and
prosecution of cyber security crimes; protection of individuals from death or
serious bodily injury; protection of minors from child pornography; and the
protection of national security. The White House along with a coalition of
liberal and conservative groups and some lawmakers strongly opposed the bill complaining
that privacy could be violated. They argued that companies could share an
employee’s personal information with the government and the data could end up
in the hands of officials from the National Security Agency or the Defense
Department. They also challenged the bill’s liability waiver for private
companies that disclose information, complaining that it was too broad. Despite
the objections Thornberry said he didn’t take the veto threat seriously. “I
cannot conceive of a president vetoing a bill on an issue that they talk about
as being this serious, dealing with a part of the issue they support. They
support information-sharing” he said.
Back in January 2012 the House
passed the Stop Online Privacy Act-HR 3261 that was described as “The worst
proposed internet law in American history” and an “Internet Blacklist Bill”; because
of protests Congressmen withdrew their support and killed the bill. At this
time the Senate had SB 968-The Protect IP Act (Preventing Real
Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of
2011–PIPA) that would shut down
an online domain if any copyright material was obtained online
without the permission of the material’s owner; it was a
re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
which failed to pass in 2010. On January 18 (same day as the Wikipedia blackout) senators
introduced the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN)
which offered more protection than SOPA to sites accused of hosting pirated
content, it also beefed up the enforcement process and would allow digital
rights holders to bring cases before the US International Trade Commission
(ITC), an independent agency that handles trademark infringement and other
trade disputes.
It’s
obvious that this issue is not over.
No comments:
Post a Comment