FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Verdict on Cyber Information Sharing

by BINOY KAMPMARK

The Congress of the United States is showing again why it remains schizophrenic in its appraisal of rights and obligations – encouraging of various whistleblower protections on the one hand while suggesting at points why they should be prosecuted, and extolling the virtues of an open, free internet while trying to clip the wings of those who use it.  On the one hand, hactivists are to be admired; on the other, they are the bane of a modern political condition, invisible warriors that wreak havoc on computer systems.  The concern, as ever, is what cyber warfare can do to company receipts.

The next battlefront seems to forming around the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which effectively permits the voluntary sharing between private entities and the government in the event of a cyber assault.  The CISPA fan members have been chanting that such measures are necessary given the threats posed by the upstart incursions of China and Iran.  These are dangerous times (aren’t they always?), and privacy should be abridged where necessary, at least if it means a heavier pocket.

CISPA had been moving inexorably through the political process, having been approved in the House and awaiting the eyes of Senators.  Attempts have been made by such hactivist outfits as Anonymous to “go dark” as a protest measure against the bill, something that was done with some success against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).  As always, such benign acronyms are the stuff of seemingly innocuous fluff, concealing the more potent implications of the changes.

They need not have worried too much.  For one thing, the sponsors of the bill – Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) – were already sensing trouble.  For that reason, the congressmen introduced an amendment requiring the government to remove identifying features of any data turned over to a company.  The same, however, cannot be said for private companies when they submit data to the government.  With such incongruous burdens, companies may well be reluctant to participate.

Then came that uncomfortable blurring, at least for privacy advocates, between civilian and military roles, unsurprising perhaps given the vast and rapid privatisation of American security.

The statement on April 16 from the White House – that President Obama would veto CISPA in its current form – put another obstacle before supporters of the bill.  Not that the President should be taken as being an opponent of privacy abridgments – where he deems it necessary, a bit of surrendering might be in order. He would just prefer it if bipartisan support for such a measure could be obtained.

 

The ever suspicious Electronic Frontier Foundation has suggested that the bill was drafted in an expansive way, “to permit your communications service providers to share your emails and text messages with your government, or your cloud storage company could share your stored files.” It would also provide immunity from suit for companies all too willing to pass on information.  Those countering this argument feel that it is precisely a bill such as CISPA that will keep such information safe from the marauding hackers of ill-intent.

 

The companies that have been keen to back CISPA have been pouring money into the campaign with the enthusiasm, even desperation, of a drunken sailor.  The Sunlight Foundation noted that pro-CISAP businesses forked out amounts 140 times that of anti-CISPA interests.  Maplight (Apr 4), in examining tech companies keen to defeat the bill, found that a mere $17,000 was forthcoming, mostly from employees of such companies as Craigslist.  For activism director of the EFF Rainey Reitman, the attraction for CISPA for companies lies in the liability protections.

 

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, made it clear that the bill would be unlikely to pass in its current form given protections for privacy that were “insufficient”.  Another representative of the Senate, as reported in the U.S. News of the World (Apr 25) claimed that something of a scrap was on, with senators “divvying up the issues and the key provisions everyone agrees would need to be handled if we’re going to strengthen cybersecurity.  The result will be separate bills from separate pens.

 

Some kind of armour may well be needed, but the line between defensive armour and offensive weaponry is something that legislators have not always heeded.  The Press Secretary for Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told Mashable (Apr 25) that the senator and her colleagues were “currently drafting a bipartisan information sharing bill and will proceed as soon as we come to an agreement.”

 

Michelle Richardson of the American Civil Liberties Union is, for the time being, jubilant.  “I think [the bill] is dead for now.”  Not merely was it controversial, it would have been too expensive.  But that is hardly any reason to suppose that drafters are going to be idle their efforts to add more fat to the hulk that is the American security state.  American companies are, it is felt, fighting a war against virtual warriors of the net.  And since any U.S. Congress tends to be the parliament of business, a bill favouring their stance is not out of the question.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail