The Latest Attack On Privacy: The Internet's Patriot Act, aka CISPA
Jeff Saginor writes at The American Prospect:
At its heart, the bill is a warrantless wiretap of your entire digital existence. CISPA would grant Google and Facebook carte blanche to turn over personally identifiable information they deem relevant to the national cyber-security effort directly to federal agencies. Say your computer becomes infected with spyware that you don't even realize is there--a likely scenario given the Electronic Frontier Foundation estimates that 40-90 percent of all computers have been infected at one time or another. This fact alone would authorize Comcast or Verizon or whoever you pay for the privilege of delivering Internet to log your every online movement, and share that data with the government or other private companies. Once the government's got hold of it, however, the bill further allows the sharing of that data between federal agencies and the military, a precedent-setting departure from current privacy law with the potential to create vast databases filled with the personal information of millions of American citizens. "Once that private information is in the hands of the military," Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology says, "it can be used for purposes completely unrelated to cyber security." If this sounds like the top-secret phone logging that the NSA has been carrying out with the help of major telecoms for nearly a decade, that's the point. CISPA would simply enshrine perpetual real-time spying on American citizens in law.As Richard Forno, director of the University of Maryland Baltimore County's Graduate Cybersecurity Program explains, "even other laws that allow a company to maintain privacy, if it can be tied to cyber security under CISPA, that can be shared," Meaning CISPA would trump any state or federal privacy protections already in place. Or, as Colorado representative Jared Polis bluntly put it during the floor debate, "waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cyber security."
CISPA's definition of a cyber threat is chillingly vague. The language describes any "efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy," or to "gain unauthorized access," to a computer system or network. That means virtually everything--from guessing your office's WiFi password to cracking Lockheed's top-secret network and stealing drone schematics--would fall under CISPA's jurisdiction, and would therefore be ripe for warrantless surveillance.
Rogers justifies the broad liberties his bill takes with your personal information by obfuscating his true aims. "We're talking about exchanging packets of information, zeroes and ones, if you will," he says. "So some notion that this is a horrible invasion of content reading is wrong. It is not even close to that." The trick, of course, is that the entire Internet is built on zeroes and ones. Those zeroes and ones, when strung together, tend to form patterns, sentences, pictures, mosaics of our entire digital lives. Calling that a privacy protection is like saying words are only made up of letters. Don't worry, that private email the NSA just vacuumed up? It's mostly R's and T's.








Here's what you have to understand about how the elites view the Internet and its denizens. The interactive nature of the Internet pisses them off hugely. That wasn't the way it was supposed to be. What they would like, very much, is for the Internet to be a medium for mass delivery of entertainment and information, produced by a handful of gatekeeper content providers, to a completely passive audience. Y'know, the way it used to be, back when there were only three TV networks and everyone watched Ed Sullivan on Sunday night.
The important point: as far as the elites are concerned, you have no thoughts or ideas worth communicating. So if you attempt to do so, the most charitable thing that can be said about it is that you are wasting resources. If you insist on blathering about the First Amendment yada yada, then obviously you are engaged in nefarious activity of some sort, since you have no legitimate businss doing so. The First Amendment only gives you the right to echo officially-approved opinions -- all else is reserved for the important people, the opinion shapers. Your attempts to communicate are bandwidth pollution.
Therefore, there is no First Amendment problem with spying on your communications. In fact, it is imperative that the government do so, in order to prevent scarce communications resources from being wasted on the trivial and ignorant thoughts of unimportant people.
(Sorry about the unusual level of negativity; I've been reading Victor Davis Hanson's latest on the medivial nation-state of California this morning.)
Cousin Dave at March 7, 2013 6:59 AM
Time to fire up that VPN
nonegiven at March 7, 2013 7:25 AM
Umm, if you really think VPN a defense, hmm.
Don't worry about the Army - the Signal Corps can snoop you already.
Worry about who you allow in office. Eric Holder, anyone? Janet Reno?
Because these people can see to it that they STAY in office, and they can get the public to shackle themselves. Several right here think handcuffs fit just fine.
Their son is proud to be one of those who don't have to take off their shoes at the airport.
Radwaste at March 7, 2013 7:43 AM
Companies are already doing this.
Amy ad banner is selling the backpack my cousin mentioned yesterday on facebook
lujlp at March 7, 2013 1:02 PM
First get Firefox, AdBlock Plus, and Ghostery. The ads are gone.
Second, a private company doing this is not bound, technically, to track you by the Constitution. It is when the government is doing it that it becomes a Constitutional issue. You may have a tort against FB, Google, Twitter, etc. Their voluntary reporting to the government may be a tortious action.
The turning over of private data to a government without a warrant is somewhere in a tortious action. The Patriot Act is blatantly unconstitutional, but has never been challenged fully.
Jim P. at March 7, 2013 8:03 PM
Leave a comment