Unfortunately, yes. Louis Tordella, the longest-serving deputy director of the NSA, acknowledged overseeing a similar project to intercept telegrams as recently as the s. It relied on the major telegraph companies including Western Union secretly turning over copies of all messages sent to or from the United States.
The telegraph interception operation was called Project Shamrock. President Richard Nixon, plagued by anti-Vietnam protests and worried about foreign influence, ordered that Project Shamrock's electronic ear be turned inward to eavesdrop on American citizens. Nixon later withdrew the formal authorization, but informally, police and intelligence agencies kept adding names to the watch list.
Martin Luther King Jr. This apparently has continued. In his book titled "State of War," New York Times reporter James Risen wrote: "The NSA has extremely close relationships with both the telecommunications and computer industries, according to several government officials.
Only a very few top executives in each corporation are aware of such relationships. Though to be clear: if you trust your Internet provider, e-mail provider, and so on, to protect your privacy, CISPA should not be a worrisome bill.
The U. But as the warrantless wiretapping debate shows, the private sector may acquiesce. One reason CISPA would be useful for government eavesdroppers is that, under existing federal law , any person or company who helps someone "intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication"--unless specifically authorized by law--could face criminal charges.
CISPA would trump all other laws. Q: What's the argument for enacting it? Rogers and Ruppersberger says their bill is necessary to deal with threats from China and Russia and that it "protects privacy by prohibiting the government from requiring private sector entities to provide information. During the April 26 floor debate, Rogers said :.
You know, without our ideas, without our innovation that countries like China are stealing every single day; we will cease to be a great nation. They are slowly and silently and quickly stealing the value and prosperity of America. One credit card company said that they get attacked for your personal information , times a day, one company. A shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;.
Despite the broad definition and usage of data permitted in the bill, there are some basic protections. CISPA honors restrictions placed on data by companies, so the government cannot request access to personal information if the company chooses to protect its users by making their information anonymous. And the bill prohibits companies that share under the law from using each other's data to gain an unfair advantage in the market.
Since the bill does not require that shared data be stripped of personal information, it's up to private companies to choose how to share your information with the government. In other words, you can't sue them for sharing your information if you're deemed a "cyber threat" — even if a mistake is made.
Despite public discussion, many major tech companies have not backed popular outrage. Supporters of the bill say that it will help safeguard against cyber attacks, and cite innovation and success in industry. The Telecommunications Industry Association says that "the legislation takes a significant step forward in safeguarding consumers and businesses from increasingly aggressive and sophisticated cyber attacks," and that "it establishes a collaborative approach that won't introduce heavy bureaucracy that could harm high tech innovation.
Web and civil liberties advocates have condemned the bill. The EFF says that the bill "leaves ample room for abuse," and that it would "cut a loophole in all existing privacy laws. While the bill easily passed in committee by a vote of 17 to 1 last year, its passage yesterday was mostly driven by House Republicans for, 28 against , and opposed by Democrats 42 for, against.
Additionally, the White House's threat of veto is likely to influence Democrats who currently control the Senate. We'll continue to track the bill as it makes its way through the other half of Congress. Subscribe to get the best Verge-approved tech deals of the week. Cookie banner We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from.
By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies. Cybersecurity Mobile Policy Privacy Scooters. Will you join us in calling on Congress to stop this and any other privacy-invasive cybersecurity legislation? Under a broad cybersecurity umbrella, it permits companies to share user communications directly with the super secret NSA and permits the NSA to use that information for non-cybersecurity reasons.
This risks turning the cybersecurity program into a back door intelligence surveillance program run by a military entity with little transparency or public accountability.
But the amendments didn't address many of the sign ificant civil liberties concerns. Here's a brief overview of the issues:. First, CISPA would still give businesses 1 the power to use "cybersecurity systems" to obtain any "cybersecurity threat information" CTI —which could include personal communications—about a percieved threat to their networks or systems. The only limitation is that the company must act for a "cybersecurity purpose," which is vaguely defined to include such things as "safeguarding" networks.
A rogue or misguided company could easily make bad "decisions" that would do a lot more harm than good, and should not be immunized. CISPA's authors argue that the bill contains limitations on how the federal government can use and disclose information by permitting lawsuits against the government. But if a company sends information about a user that is not cyberthreat information, the government agency does not notify the user, only the company. CISPA essentially equates greater cybersecurity with greater surveillance and information sharing.
But many of our cybersecurity problems arise from software vulnerabilities and human failings , issues CISPA fails to address. For instance, the recent series of hacks suffered by New York Times were suspected to be from spearphishing and victims downloading malicious software masked as email attachments—the types of issues that CISPA doesn't deal with.
We were heartened to hear that President Obama's new Executive Order on cybersecurity will encourage government agencies to more readily share cybersecurity information with companies, and may even reduce unnecessary secrecy around cybersecurity information. This summer million Americans had their most sensitive information breached, including their name, addresses, social security numbers SSNs , and date of birth.
The breach occurred at Equifax, one of the three major credit reporting agencies that conducts the credit checks relied on by many industries, including landlords, car lenders, Today, House leadership released text of the " Omnibus package. The cybersecurity bill is a combination of three bad cybersecurity bills
0コメント