Tag Archives: internet

Reply from Senator Coburn – CISPA

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

This is Senator Tom Coburn’s response to my letter I wrote him regarding CISPA and similar legislation regarding cyber security, civil liberties, and privacy on the internet.

Summary: Coburn’s letter was actually pretty well constructed. It was one of the better examples of political feedback I’ve ever gotten. He gave lots of information about Senate-equivalent legislation since CISPA is yet to reach the Senate, and shares similar concerns to my own, particularly that of the Department of Homeland Security (or other branch of the government) having such broad power over the internet, and the vague and loosely defined terminology within the bill. Currently he says he is monitoring such legislation and will keep these concerns in mind, but also personally supports “[updating] the criminal code to discourage cyber crime and to encourage information sharing about cyber threats between the government and the private sector.” While he did specify sharing information about cyber threats between the government and private sector, he did not directly address my primary concern with such legislation, which is companies having too much power to share a user’s private information without the user’s consent and with no legal liability or consequences for doing so. Still, he did more directly address my concerns with the government having such broad power, which is a good sign.

Full Text:

Dear Mr. Hansen,

Thank you for your message regarding the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA, H.R. 3523). It is good to hear from you again. I appreciate you taking the time to expound on this legislation, in addition to your concerns about the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA, H.R 3261) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA, S. 968), which you previously wrote me about. I am grateful to have the opportunity to elaborate on this important issue.

H.R. 3523 passed the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012 by a vote of 248 to 168. It has not yet been introduced in the Senate. It was then referred to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but has not received consideration by the full Senate.

Cyber security is one of the most important national security challenges facing our nation.  Every day, sensitive and secure government networks are under attack from adversary nations that wish to steal our national secrets.  The National Counterintelligence Executive has testified that the theft of trade secrets from U.S. companies by foreign rivals harms U.S. private sector growth (http://1.usa.gov/K2c4bX). Cyber crime remains a growing problem.

Given these significant challenges, it is important that Congress seriously look at the problem and determine what laws and policies should be changed to strengthen our cyber security while upholding the Constitution. As you note in your message, it is important that Congress vigilantly examine, determine, and define these complex terminologies and definitions in order to comply with the Constitution. I understand you had similar concerns of this nature regarding SOPA and PIPA, and I will keep this important observation in mind.

I am currently reviewing several legislative proposals that have been offered on this matter.  In the Senate, the current focus has been on S. 413, the Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act of 2011, which would give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) broad power to regulate and manage cyber security for government networks and the private sector.  I have concerns about whether it is appropriate to give DHS this power.

I am also reviewing other proposals that have been offered, including efforts to update the criminal code to discourage cyber crime and to encourage information sharing about cyber threats between the government and the private sector.  As I review these proposals, I am committed to balancing efforts to mitigate cyber security threats with protecting and maintaining citizens’ civil liberties.

Thank you again for writing. Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

Reply from Senator Inhofe – CISPA

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

This is Senator Jim Inhofe’s response to my letter I wrote him about CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act), which you can read here. Say what you want about Senator Inhofe, he’s probably the most prompt politician I’ve ever even heard of. I wrote him on May 3rd, and received a response on May 7th. He also responded to my previous letters very quickly.

Summary: Senator Inhofe did not address CISPA at all in his reply, exactly as he did when I asked him of SOPA in the previously linked correspondence. He did, however, mention related legislation such as The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 and the SECURE IT Act, but even still did not give comment on this legislation. He said should this or similar legislation reach the Senate floor, he will “keep [my] views in mind,” and that he “will continue to support efforts to strengthen  cybersecurity defenses while importantly promoting the free flow of commerce and information on the Internet.”

To give just a little commentary here, his letter is almost identically structured and worded as his response to my letter about SOPA, with virtually no specifications about the legislation about which I actually asked. With SOPA, this was apparently because Inhofe was undecided how to publicly approach the legislation, or possibly undecided on it altogether. Given that, it’s entirely possible Inhofe may soon be against CISPA, or at the very least, given that he said nothing to the affect of CISPA in his reply, he’s undecided on the issue.

Full Text:

Dear Mr. Hansen:

Thank you for contacting me regarding  cybersecurity in the United States. As your voice in Washington D.C., I appreciate hearing from you.

Cyber attacks on the federal government continue to increase.  In 2011, out of the total 107,655 attacks reported, 43,889 were aimed at federal departments and agencies.  As new high-tech dangers emerge, we must be prepared to defend against both domestic and foreign hackers who wish to do harm to the United States.

Several bills were introduced in the 112th Congress to address these increasing  cybersecurity threats.  On February 16, 2012, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Senator Susan Collins (R- ME   )   introduced S. 2105, the  Cybersecurity Act of 2012.  This legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, to conduct risk assessments to determine which sectors are subject to the greatest and most immediate cyber risks.  It authorizes DHS, with the private sector, to determine  cybersecurity performance requirements based upon the risk assessments, and issue regulations to ensure they are met. The performance requirements would cover critical infrastructure systems and assets whose disruption could result in severe degradation of national security, catastrophic economic damage, or the interruption of life-sustaining services sufficient to cause mass casualties or mass evacuations.

The bill is designed to cover the most critical systems and assets in a given sector, and only if they are not already being appropriately secured. Some critical infrastructure is already required to adhere to very high standards by their oversight agency. Lastly, this bill provides a framework for the sharing of cyber threat information between the federal government and the private sector, and within the private sector.

Additionally, on March 1, 2012, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the SECURE IT Act, which encourages voluntary information-sharing between the government and private sectors but includes no requirements for securing privately owned critical infrastructure.

  Should either of these bills be considered by the Senate during the 112th Congress or a new consolidated bill come to the Senate floor, I will certainly keep your views in mind.  Please know that I will continue to support efforts to strengthen  cybersecurity defenses while importantly promoting the free flow of commerce and information on the Internet.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with any other concerns or comments you may have.

Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

Reply from Senator Inhofe – Stop Online Piracy Act (2)

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

This is Senator Jim Inhofe’s response to my most recent letter I wrote him about SOPA and PIPA, which you can read here (read my original letter, and Inhofe’s initial response). Inhofe and I now agree on this legislation, so my correspondence with him on this issue will end. I initially received this letter Monday, January 30th.

Summary: Senator Inhofe is fully opposed to PIPA, largely because of its dangerously broad language and the power it gives to the Attorney General and Justice Department.

Full Text:

Dear Mr. Hansen:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Preventing Real Online Threat to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PROTECT IP). As your voice in Washington D.C., I appreciate being made aware of your views.

As you are aware, the Internet has become a central part of the American economy.   However, the free flow of information has created problems with copyright and trademark infringements. It is estimated that the unauthorized sale of copyrighted and counterfeit goods costs the U.S. billions of dollars per year, and results in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

In an effort to combat online piracy, S. 968, the PROTECT IP Act was introduced on May 12, 2011.  The Senate was scheduled to vote on a procedural motion to begin consideration of the bill on January 24, 2012.  However, Senator Harry Reid (D –NV) delayed the vote .  The Act includes provisions that would give the Justice Department the ability to demand that search engines remove links to allegedly offending websites.   Critics have argued t he act would potentially give the U.S. Attorney General unprecedented powers of censorship and, unwarranted le verage over innocent, privately  operated companies.

I am concerned with the broad definition of  the term  “Internet” in the bill. I  believe that  the broadness of the definition could infringe our freedom of speech, by giving government the ability to regulate, and in some instances block access to,  some  Internet sites . Secondly, concerns have been raised that suggest the bill may affect the integrity of the Internet, affecting the  I nternet’s reliability, security, and performance. Lastly, some lawmakers are concerned that content owners will use private rights of actions to stifle Internet innovation and protect outdated business models, disrupting the traditional business model for reasons having nothing to do with infringement.

The Protect IP is not the answer to the problem of online counterfeiting and piracy. I share the concerns of America’s technology companies, industry leaders, and the many citizens who have voiced their concerns to my office.  It is clear to me that this bill will inflict too heavy a burden on third-party non-infringing entities and could do serious harm to one of the last vestiges that is relatively free from government regulation, the Internet. When addressing intellectual property rights, Congress must be careful to also protect the freedom of speech and flow of information that the Internet provides.

I am glad you took the time to let me know just how important this issue is to you and to explain your thoughts and concerns. As your Senator, I seek to ensure that Oklahoma’s values and needs are priorities here in Washington.

I will continue to monitor this legislation, and again, thank you for sharing your concerns.

Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

Followup: SOPA & The End of the Internet

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

My original letter to Senators Coburn and Inhofe

I finally got around to responding to my Senators about their statements on SOPA and other anti-piracy legislation. You can read my original letter here, and the responses of each Senator in the links above.

Sources (I didn’t want to put hyperlinks in correspondence with representatives):
The White House and House Leadership Opposed to SOPA and other similar legislation
How PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks the Internet

– Letter to Inhofe–

Dear Senator Inhofe,

Thank you for responding to my letter regarding SOPA and other anti-piracy legislation (PIPA, PROTECT IP). In your letter, however, you failed to specify your position on such legislation, stating only that you were “monitoring” it and seemed to hold no obvious opinion or position. You did, however, include several of the serious criticisms of such anti-piracy legislation (specifically PROTECT IP) with no counter-argument against those criticisms. Given that, is it safe to say that you oppose such legislation? Or are you undecided on the matter, as your response indicated?

Already Republican leadership in the House is showing signs of opposition towards SOPA, PIPA, and PROTECT IP such as Congressmen Issa and Cantor, who have vowed to hold the legislation in the House and not let it continue for the time being. Now the White House is also opposed to such legislation. If both Majority Leader Cantor, along with the House Republicans, and the Obama White House oppose this and similar legislation, it may very well be one of the most truly bipartisan agreements I’ve seen in years. Can we count on you to stand with your fellow Republicans in the House in opposing this legislation?

Thank you for your time.

-          Jay Hansen

Your first response: http://inthereddest.com/?p=406
My original letter: http://inthereddest.com/?p=355

–Letter to Coburn–

Dear Senator Coburn

Thank you for responding to my letter regarding SOPA and other anti-piracy legislation (PIPA, PROTECT IP). On top of that, allow me to thank you for your promptness in responding to letters; of all my representatives in Washington you have continually been the speediest to reply by far.

Despite recent changes, I am still opposed to all existing forms of anti-piracy legislation in Congress today. I fear that too much power is given to the entertainment industry and large media-based businesses. These industries have access to resources and funding that smaller online businesses don’t, which already gives them an advantage when it comes to fighting piracy of their copyrighted materials online and carrying out litigations against offending websites. Websites like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, and countless others are already legally bound to remove copyrighted material if requested by the owner, and at least some already have pre-established filters that prevent blatant uploading of copyrighted material such as music. I would know; one time I accidentally uploaded a video to YouTube, forgetting that I had an original, copyrighted song in full as part of it. Because of that, the uploading process at YouTube prevented the audio of my video from being uploaded entirely, without someone having to “request” it be taken down. Many tools and legal processes are already available for copyright owners to protect their work online, while at the same time the current string of anti-piracy legislation could endanger freedom of speech by expanding the definition of an offending or “rogue” website, while also making it much easier to shut down or block such websites entirely. On top of that, the offending website can still be accessed when blocked by way of an IP address, which a “lifestyle” hacker that downloads pirated material on a daily basis will be fully knowledgeable and capable of doing, while the average internet user is not, meaning this legislation does nothing to stop those most likely to download pirated content, while punishing the ordinary internet user that is much less likely to do so, if ever. Online businesses and websites would be held accountable for the misdeeds of every single one of their clients and users, which is just not reasonable given the size of the internet community. For bigger businesses with the resources available, such as those of the entertainment industry, it would be extremely easy to shut down a smaller website (even if temporarily) for a very minor infraction that may not even be the fault of the site owner. This gives an unfair advantage to long-established businesses to stop competition online before it can even get the chance to develop. You may be of the opinion that businesses wouldn’t use this legislation for questionable or unethical purposes or business tactics, but businesses are neither good nor bad; they will do what they deem is necessary to be the most profitable business in the market. Already these same industries tried to stop the creation of the world’s first VCR and MP3 players for fear of their material being pirated. Today, these same companies scan the web regularly looking for their material, and demand it be taken down when found, even if in something as simple as the background of a child’s dance video, or someone signing one of their copyrighted songs on a video sharing website like YouTube. Given this undeniable history of the industry, it’s downright naive to think that companies won’t exploit SOPA, PIPA, PROTECT IP, and other anti-piracy legislation.

So in conclusion, SOPA and other anti-piracy legislation will give more power to the already powerful entertainment industry that has exploited copyright laws in the past for personal gain and consequently hurt freedom of speech, even though they are already fully, legally capable of having their copyrighted content removed from most websites upon request or legal suite. It does little to stop the serious, extremely tech-savvy material pirates on the internet while punishing the average internet user. It unreasonably holds online businesses and websites accountable for every misdeed of every one of their clients and users. This bill and others do all of this in the name of the entertainment industry selling a few more movies and songs, despite the fact that the entertainment industry brings in much less profit when compared to the profits and benefits to our economy and society as those provided by a free and equal internet, to which SOPA would put an end.

Already Republican leadership in the House is showing signs of opposition towards SOPA, PIPA, and PROTECT IP such as Congressmen Issa and Cantor, , who have vowed to hold the legislation in the House and not let it continue for the time being. Now the White House is also opposed to such legislation. If both Majority Leader Cantor, along with the House Republicans, and the Obama White House oppose this and similar legislation, it may very well be one of the most truly bipartisan agreements I’ve seen in years. Can we count on you to stand with your fellow Republicans in the House in opposing this legislation?

I apologize for the length of my letter, and thank you for your time.

-          Jay Hansen

Your initial response: http://inthereddest.com/?p=387
My original letter: http://inthereddest.com/?p=355