CISPA is back only know it is known as CISA

From Fight For The Future:

CISA: the dirty deal between government and corporate giants.

It's the dirty deal that lets much of government from the NSA to local police get your private data from your favorite websites and lets them use it without due process.

The government is proposing a massive bribe—they will give corporations immunity for breaking virtually any law if they do so while providing the NSA, DHS, DEA, and local police surveillance access to everyone's data in exchange for getting away with crimes, like fraud, money laundering, or illegal wiretapping.

Specifically it incentivizes companies to automatically and simultaneously transfer your data to the DHS, NSA, FBI, and local police with all of your personally-indentifying information by giving companies legal immunity (notwithstanding any law), and on top of that, you can't use the Freedom of Information Act to find out what has been shared.

The NSA and members of Congress want to pass a "cybersecurity" bill so badly, they’re using the recent hack of the Office of Personnel Management as justification for bringing CISA back up and rushing it through. In reality, the OPM hack just shows that the government has not been a good steward of sensitive data and they need to institute real security measures to fix their problems. The truth is that CISA could not have prevented
the OPM hack, and no Senator could explain how it could have. Congress and the NSA are using irrational hysteria to turn the Internet into a place where the government has overly broad, unchecked powers.

Why Faxes?

Since 2012, online and civil liberties groups and 30,000+ sites have driven more than 2.6 million emails and hundreds of thousands of calls, tweets and more to Congress opposing overly broad cybersecurity legislation. Congress has tried to pass CISA in one form or another 4 times, and they were beat back every time by people like you. It's clear Congress is completely out of touch with modern technology, so this week, as Congress rushes toward a vote on CISA, we are going to send them thousands of faxes, a technology from the 1980s that is hopefully antiquated enough for them to understand.

Sending a fax is super easy — you can use this page to send a fax. Any tweet with the hashtag #faxbigbrother will get turned into a fax to Congress too, so what are you waiting for? Click here

Sourceclick here

TPP vote going down to the wire

From Fight For The Future:

Here’s the deal: last month, Congress passed “Fast Track” for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

That means the TPP is now just one vote away from becoming law.

When Fast Track passed, it was heartbreaking. Over the last two years Fight for the Future built a totally unprecedented coalition of advocacy groups, tech companies, and activists fighting Fast Track, and together we were able to successfully defeat or delay Fast Track FIVE TIMES.

But in the end, pressure from the White House and an army of entrenched industry lobbyists was too much for Congress to resist, despite the overwhelming public outcry.

Now, we have a choice. We can just give up, and accept that democracy is over and the TPP is inevitable, or we can take matters into our own hands.

Here at Fight for the Future, we don’t believe in giving up.

If you're the same way and want to fight the TPP to the end.

I can speak for myself and say that I personally can’t sleep at night unless I know I’m doing everything in my power to protect our most basic rights online and off.

Together, we have fought against insurmountable odds before and won — we killed SOPA, stopped CISPA, and just this year we won Net Neutrality. Now, we’re planning to win big again. We don’t care what the DC pundits say – we are going to stop the TPP. But we can’t do it alone.

Just last week, representatives from all 13 of the nations involved in the TPP met in Hawaii to finalize the deal — and they couldn’t do it. The sticking point? The intellectual property rights chapter where copyright and all of the worst provisions for the Internet are housed.

That means if anyone can stop the TPP, it’s us. But, to be frank, we are dangerously low on funds to continue fighting the TPP, and we need to do more than just continue. If we’re going to win, we need to take it to the next level.

Can you chip in to help make sure we have the resources to keep fighting and win?

In emails like this, it’s common for groups to spread either doom and gloom or unsubstantiated optimism. I have neither of those for you today, just real talk.

The TPP is bad. Really bad. It’s arguably one of the worst things that could happen to the Internet, to our economy, and to the planet.

I can’t promise that we’re going to stop it. But I can promise that if we don’t try, it will certainly pass.

Can you chip in $5 to help us keep up the fight?

Yes, I’ll chip in $5 to help stop the TPP.

We plan to fight until the last breath, and we’re honored to have you fighting alongside us.

For the Internet,
-Evan at Fight for the Future

P.S. Whether we win or lose on the TPP, the battle for the future of the Internet will rage on. To win these fights in the long run, we need to have consistent, ongoing support from people like you. The best way to do that is to chip in a small amount every single month.

CISA would give the NSA more information about you,sign the petition if you oppose this.

From Fight For The Future:

Over the weekend a detailed report in the Washington Post caught the U.S. government in more lies about the scope of its dragnet surveillance programs. The Post showed that the NSA intercepted communications from ordinary people 9 times more often than from “targets” suspected of any wrongdoing.

People are outraged. And we should be. Any politician that plans to keep their job should be doing everything they can to put an end to these illegal and unethical surveillance practices.

Infuriatingly, *today* the Senate Intelligence Committee is rushing to advance “CISA,” a bill that would give the NSA more access to our data than ever before, and give companies like Facebook and Google legal immunity for violating our privacy.

Your signature is needed to stop CISA, the new CISPA. Will you click here to take action right now? Every second counts, the markup is this afternoon.

Does “CISA” sound kind of familiar? That’s because it’s another zombified version of CISPA, a bill that Internet users have beaten back twice before.

It’s despicable that the Senate Intelligence Committee, who are supposed to oversee the government’s spying programs and protect our rights, is choosing this moment to resurrect CISPA, and sneaking it through in a closed door markup.

Thanks to the huge rise in privacy activism and reporting over the past year, it should be easier than ever to defeat legislation like this. But we have to remain vigilant. Congress is trying to do this quietly; we can’t let them. Take action right now.

-Evan at Fight for the Future

1) Barton Gellman, Julie Tate, and Ashkan Soltani. The Washington Post. In NSA-intercepted data those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are. click here

2) Senate Select Comittee on Intelligence schedule: click here

3) Office of Senator Dianne Feinsten. CISA bill text:click here

CISPA stalled in Senate

From Fight For The Future:

Hey!

Like the villain in bad horror movie, CISPA just won’t stay dead.

The privacy-killing zombie-bill is stalled in the Senate, and today the Whitehouse released their response to a petition against CISPA. Thanks in part to the massive public outcry (yes, you) they made some strong statements in support of users’ rights to privacy.

But given that corporate lobbyists have already spent $605 Million on buying support, we can expect that CISPA will be back in some form soon enough. It’s likely that the Senate will split the bill up into several smaller bills that will be harder to keep track of and rally around.

So.... We made an infographic to get everyone up to speed about the threat that CISPA still poses to our online privacy and our most basic rights. Click here to check it out.

To sign petition:click here

A thank you from Demand Progress

From Demand Progress:

Some updates, and a request: The House passed CISPA, but that's as far as the bill will go, at least in its present, privacy-obliterating form:

HUFFINGTON POST: Senate Won't Vote On CISPA, Deals Blow To Controversial Cyber Bill.

We played a huge part in this, with Demand Progress members sending more that 200,000 emails to Congress in opposition to CISPA.

But the fight isn't over yet. There's a good chance the Senate will take up some sort of cyber security legislation later this year -- but we've cultivated strong relationships with several senators who really do care about privacy rights, so we'll have real standing there when the time comes. And, of course, we won't hesitate to ask you to weigh in.

And as a reminder for those of you who missed the successful conclusion of our week of action earlier this month: We told you about that frightening new proposal that actually would have expanded and harshened the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- the law that makes it a potential federal crime to violate a website's fine-print terms of service agreement.

We asked you to help us stop it in its tracks.

Well, here's the big headline:

HUFFINGTON POST: Internet Activists Win First-Round Victory In Fight Over Anti-Hacking Law

It required a mad (exhausting) fury of activism and lobbying, but it looks like we've won this battle.

This rally capped off a couple of weeks of activism in opposition to that expansion proposal and in support of CFAA reform -- which included 150,000 or so emails to Congress, thousands of tweets and phone calls, and a dozen meetings on Capitol Hill with key Congressional offices.

As the Huffington Post reported:

Internet activists won a major victory this week when House Republicans put the brakes on an effort to vote on reforms to federal anti-hacking laws. The reforms had become a legislative flashpoint in the wake of the death of Aaron Swartz, an Internet activist who was facing a bevy of charges under the controversial Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) before committing suicide in January.

So as you can see, our work together is having a concrete impact. The ground has shifted in our favor, on the CFAA, CISPA, and on Internet freedom in general.

We shocked the political establishment by responding to the new CFAA proposal so quickly, and we have ever-growing credibility and clout with policymakers and the media as we make our case about these issues that we all hold so dear.

But we'll of course need to keep pressing forward. We still want to achieve positive reform of the CFAA. We still need to watchdog the Senate as they consider taking up cyber security legislation of their own. We're expecting movement in the Net Neutrality fight in coming months.

And we'll keep working to defend our civil liberties more broadly, as reactionaries try to exploit fear to constrain our freedom and undermine constitutional protections.

Thanks.

Demand Progress

If you wish to make a donation to Demand Progress:click here

It looks like our activism is paying off. We let the statists know we mean business,that will rise up and protect our rights and that they better take their crap somewhere else like outside our borders.

Congressional Code of Ethics

Prohibition Against Use of One’s Position With the House for Personal Gain

It is fundamental that a Member, officer, or employee of the House may not use his or her official position for personal gain, including any gain that would accrue to the individual in the form of compensation for outside employment activities. A key provision of the House Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 23, cl. 3) provides that a House Member, officer, or employee may not receive compensation and may not permit compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from his position in Congress.

As noted in the debate preceding adoption of this rule, an individual violates this provision if he uses “his political influence, the influence of his position . . . to make pecuniary gains.”1 Members and staff, when considering the applicability of this provision to any activity they are considering undertaking, must also bear in mind that under a separate provision of the Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 23, cl. 2), they are required to adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the Rules of the House. In any event, the Standards Committee routinely advises Members and staff to avoid situations in which even an inference might be drawn suggesting improper conduct.

In addition, the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which applies to House Members, officers, and employees, provides (at ¶ 5) that a federal official should never accept “benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance” of official duties. The Committee found that this standard was violated, for example, when a Member persuaded the organizers of a privately held bank to sell him stock while he was using his congressional position to promote authorization for the establishment of the bank.2 The Member also sponsored legislation to remove restrictions on the development of property in which he had a personal financial interest. Thus, the Member was found to have wrongly used his official position for personal benefit.

In the same vein, the Code of Ethics for Government Service affirms (in ¶¶ 8 and 10) that “public office is a public trust,” and provides that a federal official should “[n]ever use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties for making private profit.”

One of the purposes of these rules and standards is to preclude conflicts of interest. Although the term “conflict of interest” may be subject to various interpretations in general usage, under federal law and regulation, this term “is limited in meaning; it denotes a situation in which an official’s conduct of his office conflicts with his private economic affairs.”3 The ultimate concern “is risk of impairment of impartial judgment, a risk which arises whenever there is a temptation to serve personal interests.”4

These rules and standards are applicable in a wide range of circumstances relating to outside employment. When there is a potential for a conflict of interest to arise in connection with one’s outside employment or other activities, it would be advisable to consult with the Standards Committee before accepting the position. For example, a conflict of interest may arise when the prospective outside employer is an entity with interests before Congress. In no event may a Member, officer, or employee participate in lobbying or advising on lobbying of either Congress or the Executive Branch on behalf of any private organization or individual, even on an uncompensated basis, as that would conflict with a Member’s general obligation to the public.5 Other circumstances that implicate these rules and standards of conduct are discussed below, regarding receipt of excessive compensation, Member official activities on matters affecting their personal interests, outside employment of one’s spouse, conflict-of-interest concerns for staff members, and seeking future employment.

With regard to the outside employment of a staff person, it may be possible for conflict-of-interest concerns to be alleviated through a requirement that the staff person have no involvement in any matter coming before the congressional office that would be of interest to his or her outside employer. However, in some circumstances, such a requirement either is not feasible or would not be sufficient to satisfy the applicable rules and standards. In those circumstances, there may be no alternative to the staff person declining or terminating the outside employment.

Example 1. A newly-hired legislative assistant in a Member’s office who had worked for a consulting and lobbying firm in Washington wishes to continue to work for that firm on a part-time basis. His congressional pay is below the senior staff rate. The federal issues on which he would work for the firm are different from those for which he has responsibility in the congressional office, and he would not engage in any lobbying for the firm. Notwithstanding the proposed limitations on his work for the firm, he may not accept any part-time employment with that firm, as it would violate the general principle that Members and staff are not permitted to lobby Congress.

Example 2. A Member is considering hiring an individual who is a professional grant writer to research and handle constituent grant requests in his district office. The individual would like to continue to operate her grant-writing business on a part-time basis. Because there would likely be, at a minimum, an appearance of use of her official position for personal gain in such circumstances, she must discontinue her outside business upon accepting employment in the congressional office.

Example 3. An outside organization that operates a congressional internship program offers a congressional staff member part-time employment as director of that program. Because such a position would likely require use of contacts and information gained through the individual’s employment with the House, the offer must be declined.

At times a Member or staff person wishes to engage in outside employment that involves the selling of goods or services. On the basis of the rules and standards of conduct set out above, a Member should not undertake any outside employment that would involve the Member personally in the selling or endorsement of any goods or services. On the same basis, at a minimum, any staff person who engages in sales may not solicit purchases from either (1) any non-congressional person with whom the employee came into contact through the congressional office or who has interests before the congressional office, or (2) any subordinate staff in his or her congressional office. In addition, in soliciting sales, House employees may not, directly or indirectly, identify themselves as congressional staff, refer to their congressional duties, or otherwise make use of their status as a congressional employee.

The Standards Committee is available to advise Members, officers, and employees on the applicability of the rules and standards of conduct in other specific circumstances.

Source:click here

I knew this was conflict of interest on Congressman Rogers' part. This is big.

CNET gets ahold of CISPA documents

U.S. gives big, secret push to Internet surveillance

Justice Department agreed to issue "2511 letters" immunizing AT&T and other companies participating in a cybersecurity program from criminal prosecution under the Wiretap Act, according to new documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

by Declan McCullagh | April 24, 2013 8:59 AM PDT

NSA director Keith Alexander, shown here in a file photo, who's also the commander of the U.S. Cyber Command.

Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws.

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12.

"The Justice Department is helping private companies evade federal wiretap laws," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which obtained over 1,000 pages of internal government documents and provided them to CNET this week. "Alarm bells should be going off."

Those documents show the National Security Agency and the Defense Department were deeply involved in pressing for the secret legal authorization, with NSA director Keith Alexander participating in some of the discussions personally. Despite initial reservations, including from industry participants, Justice Department attorneys eventually signed off on the project.

The Justice Department agreed to grant legal immunity to the participating network providers in the form of what participants in the confidential discussions refer to as "2511 letters," a reference to the Wiretap Act codified at 18 USC 2511 in the federal statute books.

The Wiretap Act limits the ability of Internet providers to eavesdrop on network traffic except when monitoring is a "necessary incident" to providing the service or it takes place with a user's "lawful consent." An industry representative told CNET the 2511 letters provided legal immunity to the providers by agreeing not to prosecute for criminal violations of the Wiretap Act. It's not clear how many 2511 letters were issued by the Justice Department.

In 2011, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn publicly disclosed the existence of the original project, called the DIB Cyber Pilot, which used login banners to inform network users that monitoring was taking place. In May 2012, the pilot was turned into an ongoing program -- broader but still voluntary -- by the name of Joint Cybersecurity Services Pilot, with the Department of Homeland Security becoming involved for the first time. It was renamed again to Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program in January, and is currently being expanded to all types of companies operating critical infrastructure.

The NSA and DOJ declined to comment. Homeland Security spokesman Sy Lee sent CNET a statement saying:

DHS is committed to supporting the public's privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. Accordingly, the department has implemented strong privacy and civil rights and civil liberties standards into all its cybersecurity programs and initiatives from the outset, including the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program. In order to protect privacy while safeguarding and securing cyberspace, DHS institutes layered privacy responsibilities throughout the department, embeds fair practice principles into cybersecurity programs and privacy compliance efforts, and fosters collaboration with cybersecurity partners.

Paul Rosenzweig, a former Homeland Security official and founder of Red Branch Consulting, compared the NSA and DOD asking the Justice Department for 2511 letters to the CIA asking the Justice Department for the so-called torture memos a decade ago. (They were written by Justice Department official John Yoo, who reached the controversial conclusion that waterboarding was not torture.)

"If you think of it poorly, it's a CYA function," Rosenzweig says. "If you think well of it, it's an effort to secure advance authorization for an action that may not be clearly legal."

A report (PDF) published last month by the Congressional Research Service, a non-partisan arm of Congress, says the executive branch likely does not have the legal authority to authorize more widespread monitoring of communications unless Congress rewrites the law. "Such an executive action would contravene current federal laws protecting electronic communications," the report says.

Because it overrides all federal and state privacy laws, including the Wiretap Act, legislation called CISPA would formally authorize the program without the government resorting to 2511 letters. In other words, if CISPA, which the U.S. House of Representatives approved last week, becomes law, any data-sharing program would be placed on a solid legal footing. AT&T, Verizon, and wireless and cable providers have all written letters endorsing CISPA.

Around the time that CISPA was originally introduced in late 2011, NSA, DOD, and DHS officials were actively meeting with the aides on the House Intelligence committee who drafted the legislation, the internal documents show. The purpose of the meeting, one e-mail shows, was to brief committee aides on "cyber defense efforts." In addition, Ryan Gillis, a director in DHS's Office of Legislative Affairs, sent an e-mail to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, discussing the pilot program around the same time.

AT&T and CenturyLink are currently the only two providers that have been publicly announced as participating in the program. Other companies have signed a memorandum of agreement with DHS to join, and are currently in the process of obtaining security certification, said a government official, who declined to name those companies or be identified by name.

Approval of the 2511 letters came after concerns from within the Justice Department and from industry. An internal e-mail thread among senior Defense Department, Homeland Security, and Justice Department officials in 2011, including associate deputy attorney general James Baker, outlines some of the obstacles:

[The program] has two key barriers to a start. First, the ISPs will likely request 2511 letters, so DoJ's provision of 3 2511 letters (and the review of DIB company banners as part of that) is one time requirement. DoJ will provide a timeline for that. Second, all participating DIB companies would be required to change their banners to reference government monitoring. All have expressed serious reservations with doing so, including the three CEOs [the deputy secretary of defense] discussed this with. The companies have informally told us that changing the banners in this manner could take months.

Another e-mail message from a Justice Department attorney wondered: "Will the program cover all parts of the company network -- including say day care centers (as mentioned as a question in a [deputies committee meeting]) and what are the policy implications of this?" The deputies committee includes the deputy secretary of defense, the deputy director of national intelligence, the deputy attorney general, and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"These agencies are clearly seeking authority to receive a large amount of information, including personal information, from private Internet networks," says EPIC staff attorney Amie Stepanovich, who filed a lawsuit against Homeland Security in March 2012 seeking documents relating to the program under the Freedom of Information Act. "If this program was broadly deployed, it would raise serious questions about government cybersecurity practices."

In January, the Department of Homeland Security's privacy office published a privacy analysis (PDF) of the program saying that users of the networks of companies participating in the program will see "an electronic login banner [saying] information and data on the network may be monitored or disclosed to third parties, and/or that the network users' communications on the network are not private."

An internal Defense Department presentation cites as possible legal authority a classified presidential directive called NSPD 54 that President Bush signed in January 2008. Obama's own executive order, signed in February 2013, says Homeland Security must establish procedures to expand the data-sharing program "to all critical infrastructure sectors" by mid-June. Those are defined as any companies providing services that, if disrupted, would harm national economic security or "national public health or safety."

Those could be very broad categories, says Rosenzweig, author of a new book called "Cyber War," which discusses the legality of more widespread monitoring of Internet communications.

"I think there's a great deal of discretion," Rosenzweig says. "I could make a case for the criticality of several meat packing plants in Kansas. The disruption of the meat rendering facilities in Kansas would be very disruptive to the meat-eating habits of Americans."

Source:click here

I didn't think Obama was against CISPA and I was right. I figured he approved of all the other assaults upon our civil liberties why would he be opposed to CISPA? Now we know truth.

Rogers and Rogers: one sees to its passage the other makes sure its profitable

Congressman Mike Rogers R-Michigan


Kristi Clemens Rogers



Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing...

from the no-conflict,-no-interest dept

It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers' wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It's somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.

It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can't even keep his own story straight about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement. Wrong and insulting.

Of course, as we've noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money. Mainly, money to big defense contractors aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive "solutions" to the cybersecurity "problem" -- a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as "a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world."

Hmm. Sounds like a company like that would benefit greatly to seeing a big ramp up in cybersecurity FUD around the globe, and, with it, big budgets by various government agencies to spend on such things. Indeed, just a few months ago, Rogers penned an article for Washington Life Magazine all about evil hackers trying to "steal information." In it, there's a line that might sound a wee-bit familiar, referring to the impression of hackers as being "the teenager in his or her parent's basement with bunny slippers and a Mountain Dew." Apparently, both of the Rogers really have a thing about teens in basements. The article is typical FUD, making statements with no proof, including repeating the NSA's ridiculous allegation that hackers have led to the "greatest transfer of wealth in American history." It's such a good line, except that it's completely untrue. The top US companies have recently admitted to absolutely no damage from such attacks. The article also lumps in "hacktivists" like Anonymous, as if they're a part of this grand conspiracy that needs new laws.

Tellingly, in the print version of Washington Life that this article appeared in, which you can see embedded below, you'll note that there's a side bar right next to her article about the importance of passing cybersecurity legislation in Congress. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere at all? The fact that Kristi Rogers, author of the fear-mongering article, happens to be married to Rep. Mike Rogers, the guy in charge of pushing through cybersecurity legislation. That sure seems like a rather key point, and a major conflict of interest that neither seemed interested in disclosing. Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she's now the "managing director of federal government affairs and public policies" at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she's apparently focused on "executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors." I'm sure having CISPA in place will suddenly create plenty of demand for such problem solving.

A few months ago, on one of his FUD-filled talks about why we need cybersecurity, Rogers claimed that it was all so scary that he literally couldn't sleep at night until CISPA was passed due to an "unusual source" threatening us. The whole statement seemed odd, until you realize that his statement came out at basically the same time as his wife's fear-mongering article about cybersecurity. I guess when your pillow talk is made up boogeyman stories about threats that don't actually exist, it might make it difficult to fall asleep.

Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard -- and we're not suggesting it wasn't -- this is exactly the kind of situation that Larry Lessig has referred to as soft corruption. It's not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less. At the very least, in discussing all of this stuff, when Mrs. Rogers is writing articles that help the push for CISPA, it seems only fair to disclose that she's married to the guy pushing for the bill. And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing. And yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.

Source:click here

Protest CISPA: click here

Sounds like conflict-of-interest to me and that is very illegal. We should call them on it. It looks like this son of a bitch is going to kill our privacy rights by giving them as an anniversary gift. Fuck him,let's stop him.

CISPA goes to the Senate

From Demand Progress:

Here we go again.

Last week, a majority of representatives in the House voted in favor of CISPA, and therefore in favor of allowing companies to share your personal data with other firms, the US government, and the NSA--all without a warrant and with legal impunity.

On the bright side, the Obama administration once again heard our voices and threatened to veto CISPA if the legislation did not more "carefully safeguard privacy and civil liberties."

Now the fight moves to the Senate, where where we won this fight last year and have some of our staunchest allies. Please sign at right to tell your Senators to oppose any cyber-security legislation that doesn't protect our privacy and civil liberties, and then click these links to get your friends to do the same:

CISPA's corporate backers--IBM, Intel, Verizon, and AT&T--are spending millions lobbying in support of the bill precisely because it empowers them to share your private data with government agencies and the military while safeguarding themselves from legal action.

Indeed, IBM's VP of government affairs admitted last week that his company intended to use CISPA to "work directly and share information directly" with the National Security Agency.

The big corporations are going to keep pushing for CISPA at the expense of their users' privacy and liberties. Sign to tell your Senators to oppose anti-privacy cyber-security legislation now.

Now, as before, we cannot sacrifice our hard-won liberties and privacy rights in the pursuit of a misguided and overbroad conception of "cyber-security."

Sign the petition here

We won the first round against the CFAA

From Demand Progress:

Alright. This email should serve as a pick-me-up.

We told you about that frightening new proposal that actually would have expanded and harshened the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- the law that makes it a potential federal crime to violate a website's fine-print terms of service agreement.

We asked you to help us stop it in its tracks.

Well, here's the big headline:

HUFFINGTON POST: Internet Activists Win First-Round Victory In Fight Over Anti-Hacking Law

It required a mad (exhausting) fury of activism and lobbying, but it looks like we've won this battle.

And we're fresh off of our rally in Boston this afternoon -- we went offline and took to the streets. And as you can see from this photo, it was a great success.

We rallied downtown and marched to the court house where Aaron's trial would've been coming to a close this week, and demanded criminal justice reform and accountability for the prosecutors.

This rally capped off a couple of weeks of activism in opposition to that expansion proposal and in support of CFAA reform -- which included 150,000 or so emails to Congress, thousands of tweets and phone calls, and a dozen meetings on Capitol Hill with key Congressional offices.

As the Huffington Post reported:

Internet activists won a major victory this week when House Republicans put the brakes on an effort to vote on reforms to federal anti-hacking laws. The reforms had become a legislative flashpoint in the wake of the death of Aaron Swartz, an Internet activist who was facing a bevy of charges under the controversial Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) before committing suicide in January.

So as you can see, our work together is having a concrete impact. The ground has shifted in our favor, on the CFAA and on Internet freedom in general.

We shocked the political establishment by responding to the new CFAA proposal so quickly, and we have ever-growing credibility and clout with policymakers and the media as we make our case about these issues that we all hold so dear.

But we'll of course need to keep pressing forward. In addition to the CFAA, we need to return our focus fighting the privacy-obliterating cyber-snooping CISPA bill this week, and there's much more on the horizon.

Thanks.

Demand Progress

Good news indeed. This shows activism pays off. Now only if MRA's did the same thing.

Secret vote on CISPA

From Fight For The Future:

If you're a Google, Facebook, or Twitter user, or if your friends are, you should be worried.

Today, Congress held a secret vote on CISPA, the modern government surveillance system that every website, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter could participate in, if it becomes law.

Here's one important way to protect all that data they have on you right now.

Facebook supported CISPA when it was proposed last year. This time, even Facebook is saying the bill has privacy problems, but we still haven't heard from Google or Twitter.

Will they let the government get all of our data against all privacy laws? Will they share your personal data with the government once you're no longer able to sue them for it? We don't know.

As Congress takes a secret vote on CISPA, tell these companies: "No way! We want to trust your privacy policy and believe you will stand by it! Respect our privacy!"

This is an important moment to get them before it's too late.

That's why Reddit's co-founder, Alexis, called Google's CEO himself to ask them about where they stand on CISPA.

We're making headway -- FFTF is delivering 300,000 signatures to CISPA co-sponsors one by one over Twitter. But the threat of CISPA moving forward in the House is very real. The bill passed out of Committee today and will be rushing to a floor vote next week.

Help your friends too and forward this email.

It's your email; tell Google to support your right to keep it private!

It's your private information; tell Facebook and Twitter to keep it that way!

Take an important step to protect all that data they have on you right now.

Thank you for everything,

Tiffiniy Cheng, Fight for the Future

Who's with us? Who isn't? Make your voice heard here

If you want to keep your private information private and preserve your rights to sue for grievences you may want to sign the petition. Don't delay.

A couple of things I want to bring to your attention

First,the bad news: CISPA is back. That anti-privacy bill is back for the new Congress. It was bullshit last time and it is just as equally bullshit now. If you believe in safeguarding your privacy stand up for it by opposing CISPA. More on CISPA here

Now the good news: Good guy U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky-R) introduced Audit The Fed in the Senate. What Audit The Fed will do is make the Federal Reserve accountable to the American people. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve,Ben Bernanke,is fighting Audit The Fed tooth and nail. This is where Senator Paul needs you help click here. You want transparency in government? Make it happen.