CISA Security Bill Passes Senate With Privacy Flaws Unfixed | WIRED

 

As far as I can tell the bill is universally derided by the tech community (with the exception of Facebook) as well as privacy advocates as it will vastly open up what information can be collected and expand which government agencies can access it. It's support is narrowed down to Wall St. Despite that, it's managed to go mostly unnoticed and cruised to passage in the Senate. The House will take it up now. Maybe there's still hope it will be scuttled or vetoed.

 

Here's the roll call vote. Worth looking at who voted which way. A bipartisan effort and a bipartisan opposition. Republican presidential candidates were MIA, though I expect only Paul would have voted against.

 

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

CISA Security Bill Passes Senate With Privacy Flaws Unfixed | WIRED

 

As far as I can tell the bill is universally derided by the tech community (with the exception of Facebook) as well as privacy advocates as it will vastly open up what information can be collected and expand which government agencies can access it. It's support is narrowed down to Wall St. Despite that, it's managed to go mostly unnoticed and cruised to passage in the Senate. The House will take it up now. Maybe there's still hope it will be scuttled or vetoed.

 

Here's the roll call vote. Worth looking at who voted which way. A bipartisan effort and a bipartisan opposition. Republican presidential candidates were MIA, though I expect only Paul would have voted against.

 

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

 

This is troubling to me.

To expand on the above - with advances in technology, seems to me like there would be a secure and accurate way to submit a vote.

Wouldn't they all (except Paul) be for it? I would assume.

 

Not sure why they would dodge the vote but, status quo I guess.

If I'm understanding it correctly the personal information is stripped out before the data is sent? If so and this works to reduce the cyber threats by sharing information among different agencies, what is the downside? What would be needed to make it a good bill?

We just want to talk Mr. Dean.

If I'm understanding it correctly the personal information is stripped out before the data is sent? If so and this works to reduce the cyber threats by sharing information among different agencies, what is the downside? What would be needed to make it a good bill?

 

Wyden's amendment that would require personal information to be stripped out was defeated. I think that's what led to a lot of people saying "why do you need that if this law isn't simply about expanding surveillance?"

To expand on the above - with advances in technology, seems to me like there would be a secure and accurate way to submit a vote.

You would think so in this day and age...but if there were the Chinese would just hack and pass a vote to scuttle our Navy.

Wouldn't they all (except Paul) be for it? I would assume.

 

Not sure why they would dodge the vote but, status quo I guess.

Probably out of town campaigning and their 4 votes wouldn't have impacted the results in anyway.

Edit.

Wyden's amendment that would require personal information to be stripped out was defeated. I think that's what led to a lot of people saying "why do you need that if this law isn't simply about expanding surveillance?"

 

Thanks, I misunderstood. Can't imagine the reasoning for not stripping out personal information.

Thanks, I misunderstood. Can't imagine the reasoning for not stripping out personal information.

 

I'm sure you can take great comfort in knowing that Dianne Feinstein "bent over backwards" to accommodate privacy concerns. :lol2: