With echoes
of Sopa, critics charge that bill will overturn US privacy protections in
government attempts to track hackers
|
Wikipedia joined other major sites in going dark on 18 January to protest Sopa, but so far internet giants such as Wikipedia and Google have remained silent on Cispa. Photograph: Rex Features
|
Washington
looks set to wave through new cybersecurity legislation next week that
opponents fear will wipe out decades of privacy protections at a stroke.
The Cyber
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa) will be discussed in the House
of Representatives next week and already has the support of 100 House members.
It will be
the first such bill to go to a vote since the collapse of the Stop Online
Piracy Act (Sopa) in January after global protests and a concerted campaign by
internet giants such as Google, Wikipedia and Twitter.
Opponents
fear the way it is currently drafted will open up ordinary citizens to
unprecedented scrutiny. The bill uses the wording: "Notwithstanding any
other provision of law," a phrase that if it became law would trump all
existing legislation, according to critics.
In one
section, the bill defines "efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy" a
network as an area that would trigger a Cispa investigation. Opponents argue
something as simple as downloading a large file – a movie for example – could
potentially be defined as an effort to "degrade" a network.
The bill
also exempts companies from any liability for handing over private information.
"As it
stands the bill allows companies to turn over private information to the
government and for them to use it for any purpose that they see fit, all
without a warrant," said Michelle Richardson, with the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). "For 40 years we have had legislation about
wiretapping that protects people. This would overturn that and make a cyber
exception."
Privacy
advocates are especially concerned about what they see as the overly broad
language of the bill. As people increasingly use services like Skype and other
internet telephony services, Twitter and Facebook to communicate, advocates
fear the bill is a land grab that would give US authorities unprecedented
access to private information while removing a citizen's legal protection.
The White
House has called for the bill to be tightened. In a statement, national
security council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said any legislation should include
"robust safeguards to preserve the privacy and civil liberties of our
citizens".
But
Richardson said with wide support in the House, the bill could still pass.
"The Senate has already said it is looking at this bill as it drafts its
own legislation. There is a real danger it will be rushed through," she
said.
"Our
concern is not about what the bill is aiming to do, it's about the way it is
crafted," said Rainey Reitman, activism director at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights organisation.
She said
the EFF has three main concerns with the bill:
• First,
there is a lack of any standard for the type of information that can be
collected.
• Second,
all the information will go to the national security agency, the US defense
department's online intelligence arm. In 2010, the NSA was found guilty of
conducting surveillance programmes without warrants.
• Third,
there is no clarity in the bill as to what the information will be used for.
"It should be used for cybersecurity purposes only, but the bill doesn't
say that," Reitman said.
Rogers
claims Google has been supportive of Cispa, but the search giant has not
commented. He has amended the bill, most recently taking out references to
theft of intellectual property. Sopa, the last bill to try and tackle such
theft, was scrapped after a global revolt. He added an amendment allowing
people and companies to sue the US government if it violates the terms of use
for the information.
The
homeland security department was also given a greater role in collecting
information, although critics noted that information would still be passed to
the NSA.
Richardson
called the changes "cosmetic" and said the fundamental issues
remained. She said: "This bill is simply too broadly defined and overturns
vital protections."
No comments:
Post a Comment