What we must do ...

People and companies before banded together, did some extraordinary things such as darkening their websites, to defeat SOPA (and by extension, PIPA).  At the time, while we were celebrating this victory, I had a gnawing feeling, as did many of my friends, that the evil forces spawning this other draconian monster of a law, would come back with different initials, but essentially the same evil attempt to take our freedom away.

Well, we were right and now we must fight CISPA. What we MUST do is to reach beyond just fighting this legislation and send each and every legislator, those who support it and those who don't, that we are the majority, we vote, we buy cars, shaving cream, shoes, widgets, etc. This is to say we have TREMENDOUS power to help our friends, and even more power to oppose our enemies.

Make no mistake, banding together with others, you have enormous power.

Here is a list of co-sponsors of this piece of crap:
http://pastebin.com/yqtaM4ER

1. Rep. Mark Amodei [R-NV2]
2. Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN6]
3. Rep. Dan Boren [D-OK2]
4. Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]
5. Rep. Ken Calvert [R-CA44]
6. Rep. Ben Chandler [D-KY6]
7. Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX11]
8. Rep. Norman “Norm” Dicks [D-WA6]
9. Rep. John “Phil” Gingrey [R-GA11]
10. Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL4]
11. Rep. Joe Heck [R-NV3]
12. Rep. Peter “Pete” King [R-NY3]
13. Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R-IL11]
14. Rep. James “Jim” Langevin [D-RI2]
15. Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ2]
16. Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX10]
17. Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL1]
18. Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC9]
19. Rep. Devin Nunes [R-CA21]
20. Rep. Mike Pompeo [R-KS4]
21. Rep. Thomas Rooney [R-FL16]
22. Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D-MD2]
23. Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL19]
24. Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE2]
25. Rep. Michael “Mike” Thompson [D-CA1]
26. Rep. Frederick “Fred” Upton [R-MI6]
27. Rep. Greg Walden [R-OR2]
28. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]
29. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ11] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
30. Rep. Robert Latta [R-OH5] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
31. Rep. Patrick McHenry [R-NC10] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
32. Rep. Ben Quayle [R-AZ3] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
33. Rep. Kevin Yoder [R-KS3] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
34. Rep. David “Dave” Camp [R-MI4] (joined Dec 16, 2011)
35. Rep. Timothy Walberg [R-MI7] (joined Dec 16, 2011)
36. Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA14] (joined Dec 20, 2011)
37. Rep. Michael Michaud [D-ME2] (joined Dec 20, 2011)
38. Rep. Mike Coffman [R-CO6] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
39. Rep. Robert “Bob” Goodlatte [R-VA6] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
40. Rep. David McKinley [R-WV1] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
41. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R-WA5] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
42. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL18] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
43. Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK1] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
44. Rep. Randy Forbes [R-VA4] (joined Jan 25, 2012)
45. Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA10] (joined Jan 25, 2012)
46. Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA49] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
47. Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA42] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
48. Rep. Clifford “Cliff” Stearns [R-FL6] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
49. Rep. Tom Cole [R-OK4] (joined Feb 01, 2012)
50. Rep. Michael Turner [R-OH3] (joined Feb 01, 2012)
51. Rep. Mo Brooks [R-AL5] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
52. Rep. John Carter [R-TX31] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
53. Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R-MO4] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
54. Rep. Bill Huizenga [R-MI2] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
55. Rep. Dan Benishek [R-MI1] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
56. Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA10] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
57. Rep. Michael Grimm [R-NY13] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
58. Rep. Brett Guthrie [R-KY2] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
59. Rep. Candice Miller [R-MI10] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
60. Rep. Michael “Mike” Rogers [R-AL3] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
61. Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY4] (joined Feb 14, 2012)
62. Rep. Doc Hastings [R-WA4] (joined Feb 14, 2012)
63. Rep. Leonard Lance [R-NJ7] (joined Feb 14, 2012)
64. Rep. Patrick Meehan [R-PA7] (joined Feb 14, 2012)
65. Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL6] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
66. Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R-CA45] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
67. Rep. John Kline [R-MN2] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
68. Rep. Pete Olson [R-TX22] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
69. Rep. Aaron Schock [R-IL18] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
70. Rep. William “Bill” Shuster [R-PA9] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
71. Rep. Joe Baca [D-CA43] (joined Feb 27, 2012)
72. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R-TN3] (joined Feb 27, 2012)
73. Rep. Phil Roe [R-TN1] (joined Feb 27, 2012)
74. Rep. Leonard Boswell [D-IA3] (joined Feb 28, 2012)
75. Rep. Kristi Noem [R-SD0] (joined Feb 28, 2012)
76. Rep. Rob Wittman [R-VA1] (joined Mar 01, 2012)
77. Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7] (joined Mar 05, 2012)
78. Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL23] (joined Mar 05, 2012)
79. Rep. Randy Hultgren [R-IL14] (joined Mar 05, 2012)
80. Rep. Robert Hurt [R-VA5] (joined Mar 05, 2012)
81. Rep. Rick Crawford [R-AR1] (joined Mar 08, 2012)
82. Rep. Bill Johnson [R-OH6] (joined Mar 08, 2012)
83. Rep. Adrian Smith [R-NE3] (joined Mar 08, 2012)
84. Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU0] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
85. Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ2] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
86. Rep. Rick Larsen [D-WA2] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
87. Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ13] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
88. Rep. Edolphus “Ed” Towns [D-NY10] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
89. Rep. Jim Cooper [D-TN5] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
90. Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA16] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
91. Rep. Mike Ross [D-AR4] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
92. Rep. Jon Runyan [R-NJ3] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
93. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
94. Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA50] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
95. Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D-CA18] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
96. Rep. Jim Costa [D-CA20] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
97. Rep. Morgan Griffith [R-VA9] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
98. Rep. Larry Kissell [D-NC8] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
99. Rep. Mike McIntyre [D-NC7] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
100. Rep. William Owens [D-NY23] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
101. Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN7] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
102. Rep. Steve Scalise [R-LA1] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
103. Rep. Heath Shuler [D-NC11] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
104. Rep. Steve Stivers [R-OH15] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
105. Rep. Addison “Joe” Wilson [R-SC2] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
106. Rep. Rob Woodall [R-GA7] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
     -----------------------------------------
     If any of these people represent you, you need to call, write, email, fax, in short, contact them and let them know that for us, these efforts to abuse those of us using the internet, to try to paint us as criminals, to interfere with our use of the Net, to censor us, to keep secret lists, will NOT be tolerated. We will not only work hard to see that everyone voting for it loses their office, but we will also work hard to make it public information about all companies and people who are our enemies by supporting this attack on the public posing as a bill.
     
     CONGRESS.org is a good place to find who your representatives / senators are and to contact them.

CISPA: Congressional plan to censor Internet concerns critics Continue reading on Examiner.com CISPA: Congressional plan to censor Internet concerns critics - Portland Progressive | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/cispa-congressional-plan-to-censor-internet-concerns-critics#ixzz1rEyGtmwX

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/cispa-congressional-plan-to-censor-internet-concerns-critics "A controversial new bill that would allow for Internet censorhip is quietly moving through Congress. Critics claim H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), constitutes a substantial threat to the Internet as we know it.  

The controversial bill intends “to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.” The bill is being sponsored by Rep. Michael Rogers, a Republican representing Michigan’s 8th district.

Continue reading on Examiner.com CISPA: Congressional plan to censor Internet concerns critics - Portland Progressive | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/cispa-congressional-plan-to-censor-internet-concerns-critics#ixzz1rEyLg4lG"

SOPA Part II: New Cyber Intelligence Bill Threatens To Label Alleged Infringers As National Security Threats

http://blog.experts-exchange.com/ee-tech-news/sopa-pipa-cispa-privacy-national-security/
"If you thought the Stop Online Piracy Act (a.k.a. SOPA) was scary, wait until you get a load of this. It’s called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA. Unlike SOPA, which would have empowered private companies to take preemptive action against sites merely suspected of copyright infringement, this new bill takes it a step further.

In a purported effort “[t]o provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes,” CISPA threatens to take the targets of failed bills SOPA and PIPA and, instead of bypassing due process as would have been the case under that pair of bills, allow them to be labeled as threats to national security. That is, instead of having a site that allegedly infringes on another’s copyright protections shut down without filing so much as a court complaint, this bill would allow the clandestine intelligence apparatus of the U.S. to turn its traditionally external gaze inward.
This is done by the amendment that CISPA would make to the National Security Act of 1947 by—and this is according to the Congressional Research Service’s official summary of the bill—“add[ing] provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.”
The primary term of concern is “cyber threat intelligence” and its disconcertingly broad meaning. Borrowing again from the CRS’s official summary, the following explanation is given regarding CISPA’s definition of this term (emphasis added):

Defines “cyber threat intelligence” as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from: (1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

From SOPA To CISPA

Quite predictably, the provisions emphasized above are of particular concern to those of us interested in maintaining a clear legal protection of personal privacy. By establishing a basis for a relationship between the National Security Agency (NSA) and private entities, the act would leave the door open for the type of due process violations that led Internet activists to organize the historic SOPA Blackout Day protest just a few months ago. What makes this piece of legislation particularly ominous, however, is the fact that it allows all of this information gathering and sharing to be done covertly.
The use of such sweeping language to define the bill’s key terms leaves the lion’s share of CISPA’s power to the discretion of an agency so secretive that even Congress has a difficult time getting answers without being blocked by a state secrets claim. As such, a potential interpretation of the bill could not only bring the entire globe within the purview of NSA surveillance—subjecting any and all personal online communications or activity to potential monitoring—but, according to Raw Story senior editor Stephen Webster, could also lead to “NSA wiretapping [of] publications like The New York Times, The Guardian and Wikileaks in the likely event that they obtain classified, secret or otherwise inconvenient information on governments or corporations.”
Webster goes on to inform us that companies including AT&T, Microsoft, Facebook, Intel, and others have already publicly expressed their support for CISPA. Meanwhile, despite being originally introduced all the way back in November, CISPA still hasn’t quite entered the public discourse, which serves to explain the current lack of public outrage to a bill the poses to make SOPA and PIPA pale in comparison."

Thanks to NDAA and Other Laws..You May Now Be A Serf

http://www.businessinsider.com/thanks-to-ndaa-and-other-laws-you-may-now-be-a-serf-2012-4
"
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA, signed into law by Hope/Change enthusiast Barack Obama on December 31, 2011, potentially ends right to due process and habeas corpus for US citizens. You can now be detained by military forces and imprisoned, without trial or charges, for as long as the government deems necessary.
The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, or Trespass Bill, signed into law by Barack Obama on March 9, 2012, "potentially makes peaceable protest anywhere in the U.S. a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison." Nice. More specifically, peaceful protest within proximity to those protected by the Secret Service, including presidential candidates and the President, may be a federal felony now. So much for that First Amendment, huh? (Source.)
The Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011, or H.R. 1981, is the brainchild of SOPA author Rep. Lamar Smith. The bill, according to VentureBeat and others, "would alter U.S. code Chapter 18 section 2703 'Required Disclosure of Customer Communications or Records' so that all Internet service providers would need to store your IP address for at least 12 months, along with any highly sensitive personal information such as credit card data." Keep in mind, this would be used on ALL Americans who use the Internet, including you and I. Just in case, you know, we are harming children. Police state surveillance: it's all for the kids!
Quite creepily, Canada's equally privacy-destroying bill (which faced widespread scorn from Canadian citizens), was called the "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act." A prominent digital critic described the bill like so: "Now, every single Canadian citizen is walking around with an electronic prisoner's bracelet."
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, has been called quite similar to SOPA -- apparently a Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) homepage petition, Reddit blackout, and Wikipedia blackout weren't enough to send a message to Congress that Americans aren't OK with massive Big Brother intrusion into the free, global Internet.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation claims "[CISPA] would let companies spy on users and share private information with the federal government and other companies with near-total immunity from civil and criminal liability. It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws." Again: nice. Great work, Congressional fascists. Don't worry about that whole Bill of Rights thing.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order, or NDRP, was released by Barack Obama's administration on March 16, 2012 -- it received very little broadcast media attention. According to a columnist at The Washington Times, "It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction…
In short, the order gives Mr. Obama the ability to impose martial law. He now possesses the potential powers of a dictator. The order is a direct assault on individual liberties, private property rights and the rule of law. It is blatantly unconstitutional."
The Enemy Expatriation Act, if passed and signed into law, could "let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States. The law itself is rather brief, but in just a few words it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/thanks-to-ndaa-and-other-laws-you-may-now-be-a-serf-2012-4#ixzz1rEr17iY9"

CISPA...another evil bill

MOVE OVER SOPA...CISPA is INTERNET ENEMY NUMBER ONE ~

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/watch-out-washington-cispa-replaces-sopa-as-internets-enemy-no-1/
"
The Internet has a new enemy. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA), also known as H.R. 3523, is a “cybersecurity” bill in the House of Representatives. CISPA is quickly gaining traction as “the new SOPA,” the infamous anti-piracy bill that was forced to crawl back into its hole after thousands of websites and millions of Web users protested with a massive, high-profile “blackout.” While CISPA does not focus primarily on intellectual property (though that’s in there, too), critics say the problems with the bill run just as deep. But what is CISPA, really, and will its presence on Congress’ agenda cause the same type of online revolt that SOPA and PIPA did?

What is CISPA?

Unveiled to the House by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD) late last year, CISPA is described as a “cybersecurity” bill. It proposes to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to allow for greater sharing of “cyber threat intelligence” between the U.S. government and the private sector, or between private companies. The bill defines “cyber threat intelligence” as any information pertaining to vulnerabilities of, or threats to, networks or systems owned and operated by the U.S. government, or U.S. companies; or efforts to “degrade, disrupt, or destroy” such systems or networks; or the theft or “misappropriation” of any private or government information, including intellectual property.
CISPA also removes any liability from private companies who collect and share qualified information with the federal government, or with each other. Finally, it directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to conduct annual reviews of the sharing and use of the collected information by the U.S. government.
Read the full text of CISPA here, or the full official summary at the bottom of this page.

Who supports CISPA?

The bill currently has a whopping 106 co-sponsors in the House — more than twice the number SOPA ever had. Also unlike SOPA, CISPA has explicit support from some of the technology industry’s biggest players, including Internet service providers like AT&T and Verizon, Web companies like Facebook, and hardware companies like IBM and Intel.
See the full list of CISPA co-sponsors here. See a complete list of companies and groups that support CISPA here.

What CISPA supporters say it will do

According to Rep. Rogers, CISPA will help U.S. companies defend themselves “from advanced cyber threats, without imposing any new federal regulations or unfunded private sector mandate.” It will also create “new private sector jobs for cybersecurity professionals,” and protect “the thousands of jobs created by the American intellectual property that Chinese hackers are trying to steal every day.”
In a statement, Rep. Ruppersberger pushed his reasons for proposing the legislation, saying, “Without important, immediate changes to American cybersecurity policy, I believe our country will continue to be at risk for a catastrophic attack to our nation’s vital networks — networks that power our homes, provide our clean water or maintain the other critical services we use every day.  This small but important piece of legislation is a decisive first step to tackle the cyber threats we face.”
Private companies like the bill because it removes some of the regulations that prevent them from sharing cyber threat information, or make it harder to do so. In short, they believe the bill will do exactly what its supporters in the House say it will do — help better protect them from cyber attacks.

What CISPA opponents are worried about

As with SOPA and PIPA, the first main concern about CISPA is its “broad language,” which critics fear allows the legislation to be interpreted in ways that could infringe on our civil liberties. The Center for Democracy and Technology sums up the problems with CISPA this way:

    •    The bill has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies notwithstanding privacy and other laws;
    •    The bill is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications as a result of this sharing;
    •    It is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military;
    •    Once the information is shared with the government, it wouldn’t have to be used for cybesecurity, but could instead be used for any purpose that is not specifically prohibited.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) adds that CISPA’s definition of “cybersecurity” is so broad that “it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would ‘degrade the network.’” Moreover, the inclusion of “intellectual property” means that companies and the government would have “new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement.”
Furthermore, critics warn that CISPA gives private companies the ability to collect and share information about their customers or users with immunity — meaning we cannot sue them for doing so, and they cannot be charged with any crimes.
According to the EFF, CISPA “effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.”
“There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes.’” the EFF continues. “That means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop cybersecurity threats.”

Is the Internet freaking out like it did over SOPA/PIPA?

Not yet — but it’s starting to. After TechDirt’s Mike Masnick — a widely followed and trusted source on matters of laws regarding technology, intellectual property, and how they might affect our civil rights — posted an article telling readers to “forget SOPA, you should be worried about this cybersecurity bill” earlier this week, concerned Web users have started to take notice. On Reddit, a community that is largely responsible for the push-back against SOPA/PIPA, an increasing number of posts (some accurate, some not) have popped up regarding the potential dangers of CISPA. Anonymous has also started to get in on the action, having released a “dox” on Rep. Rogers, and a video condemning the bill, earlier this week.

Will CISPA pass?

Nobody can say for sure, but at the moment, its passage looks likely. CISPA breezed through the House Intelligence Committee on December 1, 2011, with a bipartisan vote of 17-1. Also, as mentioned, the bill has broad support in the House, with 106 co-sponsors, 10 of whom are committee chairmen.
As with any piece of legislation, however, nothing is certain until the president signs the bill. And if the Internet community rises up in the same way it did against SOPA and PIPA, then you will certainly see support for CISPA crumble in Congress (it is an election year, after all). That said, whether or not the Internet will react with such force remains a big “if.”"

TEXAS CO-SPONSORS OF CISPA

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26] /
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX11] / 
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX10] (LOTSA MICHAELS) /
Rep. John Carter [R-TX31] (joined Feb 07, 2012) /
Rep. Pete Olson [R-TX22] (joined Feb 16, 2012) /

If you are represented by any of the above, please write them and let them know you will work to vote out of office ANYONE who continues sponsoring or co-sponsoring CISPA or any related bills.

FULL TEXT OF CISPA, ALSO KNOWN AS HR 3523

H.R.3523 -- Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)


HR 3523 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3523

To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 30, 2011

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for himself, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. UPTON, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. BOREN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. NUNES, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. HECK, Mr. DICKS, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. TERRY, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. AMODEI, and Mr. POMPEO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select)

A BILL

To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING.

(a) In General- Title XI of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 442 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING

`Sec. 1104. (a) Intelligence Community Sharing of Cyber Threat Intelligence With Private Sector-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence.

`(2) SHARING AND USE OF CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE- The procedures established under paragraph (1) shall provide that classified cyber threat intelligence may only be--

`(A) shared by an element of the intelligence community with--

`(i) certified entities; or

`(ii) a person with an appropriate security clearance to receive such cyber threat intelligence;

`(B) shared consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States; and

`(C) used by a certified entity in a manner which protects such cyber threat intelligence from unauthorized disclosure.

`(3) SECURITY CLEARANCE APPROVALS- The Director of National Intelligence shall issue guidelines providing that the head of an element of the intelligence community may, as the head of such element considers necessary to carry out this subsection--

`(A) grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to an employee or officer of a certified entity;

`(B) grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to a certified entity and approval to use appropriate facilities; and

`(C) expedite the security clearance process for a person or entity as the head of such element considers necessary, consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States.

`(4) NO RIGHT OR BENEFIT- The provision of information to a private-sector entity under this subsection shall not create a right or benefit to similar information by such entity or any other private-sector entity.

`(b) Private Sector Use of Cybersecurity Systems and Sharing of Cyber Threat Information-

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDERS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cybersecurity provider, with the express consent of a protected entity for which such cybersecurity provider is providing goods or services for cybersecurity purposes, may, for cybersecurity purposes--

`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity; and

`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government.

`(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes--

`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and

`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.

`(2) USE AND PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--

`(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including, if requested, appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;

`(B) may not be used by an entity to gain an unfair competitive advantage to the detriment of the protected entity or the self-protected entity authorizing the sharing of information; and

`(C) if shared with the Federal Government--

`(i) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code;

`(ii) shall be considered proprietary information and shall not be disclosed to an entity outside of the Federal Government except as authorized by the entity sharing such information; and

`(iii) shall not be used by the Federal Government for regulatory purposes.

`(3) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY- No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith--

`(A) for using cybersecurity systems or sharing information in accordance with this section; or

`(B) for not acting on information obtained or shared in accordance with this section.

`(4) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION- The submission of information under this subsection to the Federal Government shall not satisfy or affect any requirement under any other provision of law for a person or entity to provide information to the Federal Government.

`(c) Report on Information Sharing- The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board established under section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) shall annually submit to Congress a report in unclassified form containing--

`(1) a review of the sharing and use of information by the Federal Government under this section and the procedures and guidelines established or issued by the Director of National Intelligence under subsection (a); and

`(2) any recommendations of the Board for improvements or modifications to such authorities to address privacy and civil liberties concerns.

`(d) Federal Preemption- This section supersedes any statute of a State or political subdivision of a State that restricts or otherwise expressly regulates an activity authorized under subsection (b).

`(e) Savings Clause- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any other authority to use a cybersecurity system or to identify, obtain, or share cyber threat intelligence or cyber threat information.

`(f) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) CERTIFIED ENTITY- The term `certified entity' means a protected entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity provider that--

`(A) possesses or is eligible to obtain a security clearance, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence; and

`(B) is able to demonstrate to the Director of National Intelligence that such provider or such entity can appropriately protect classified cyber threat intelligence.

`(2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence' means information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from--

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(3) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDER- The term `cybersecurity provider' means a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes.

`(4) CYBERSECURITY PURPOSE- The term `cybersecurity purpose' means the purpose of ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguarding, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from--

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(5) CYBERSECURITY SYSTEM- The term `cybersecurity system' means a system designed or employed to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguard, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from--

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(6) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION- The term `cyber threat information' means information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from--

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(7) PROTECTED ENTITY- The term `protected entity' means an entity, other than an individual, that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for goods or services to be used for cybersecurity purposes.

`(8) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITY- The term `self-protected entity' means an entity, other than an individual, that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself.'.

(b) Procedures and Guidelines- The Director of National Intelligence shall--

(1) not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, establish procedures under paragraph (1) of section 1104(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this section, and issue guidelines under paragraph (3) of such section 1104(a); and

(2) following the establishment of such procedures and the issuance of such guidelines, expeditiously distribute such procedures and such guidelines to appropriate Federal Government and private-sector entities.

(c) Initial Report- The first report required to be submitted under subsection (c) of section 1104 of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall be submitted not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Table of Contents Amendment- The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`Sec. 1104. Cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.'.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CISPA

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523
Great information at the above link on CISPA

CO-SPONSORS OF CISPA

HERE'S THE TOADIES CO-SPONSORING THIS BILL...THE PEOPLE WE NEED TO VOTE THE HELL OUT !
Cosponsors:
show cosponsors (106)
Rep. Mark Amodei [R-NV2]
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN6]
Rep. Dan Boren [D-OK2]
Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R-CA44]
Rep. Ben Chandler [D-KY6]
Rep. Michael Conaway [R-TX11]
Rep. Norman “Norm” Dicks [D-WA6]
Rep. John “Phil” Gingrey [R-GA11]
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL4]
Rep. Joe Heck [R-NV3]
Rep. Peter “Pete” King [R-NY3]
Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R-IL11]
Rep. James “Jim” Langevin [D-RI2]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ2]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX10]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL1]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC9]
Rep. Devin Nunes [R-CA21]
Rep. Mike Pompeo [R-KS4]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R-FL16]
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D-MD2]
Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL19]
Rep. Lee Terry [R-NE2]
Rep. Michael “Mike” Thompson [D-CA1]
Rep. Frederick “Fred” Upton [R-MI6]
Rep. Greg Walden [R-OR2]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R-NJ11] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
Rep. Robert Latta [R-OH5] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R-NC10] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
Rep. Ben Quayle [R-AZ3] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
Rep. Kevin Yoder [R-KS3] (joined Dec 08, 2011)
Rep. David “Dave” Camp [R-MI4] (joined Dec 16, 2011)
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R-MI7] (joined Dec 16, 2011)
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA14] (joined Dec 20, 2011)
Rep. Michael Michaud [D-ME2] (joined Dec 20, 2011)
Rep. Mike Coffman [R-CO6] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
Rep. Robert “Bob” Goodlatte [R-VA6] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
Rep. David McKinley [R-WV1] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R-WA5] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL18] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
Rep. John Sullivan [R-OK1] (joined Jan 18, 2012)
Rep. Randy Forbes [R-VA4] (joined Jan 25, 2012)
Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA10] (joined Jan 25, 2012)
Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA49] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA42] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
Rep. Clifford “Cliff” Stearns [R-FL6] (joined Jan 31, 2012)
Rep. Tom Cole [R-OK4] (joined Feb 01, 2012)
Rep. Michael Turner [R-OH3] (joined Feb 01, 2012)
Rep. Mo Brooks [R-AL5] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
Rep. John Carter [R-TX31] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R-MO4] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
Rep. Bill Huizenga [R-MI2] (joined Feb 07, 2012)
Rep. Dan Benishek [R-MI1] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA10] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
Rep. Michael Grimm [R-NY13] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R-KY2] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
Rep. Candice Miller [R-MI10] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
Rep. Michael “Mike” Rogers [R-AL3] (joined Feb 13, 2012)
Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY4] (joined Feb 14, 2012)
Rep. Doc Hastings [R-WA4] (joined Feb 14, 2012)
Rep. Leonard Lance [R-NJ7] (joined Feb 14, 2012)
Rep. Patrick Meehan [R-PA7] (joined Feb 14, 2012)
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL6] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R-CA45] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
Rep. John Kline [R-MN2] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
Rep. Pete Olson [R-TX22] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
Rep. Aaron Schock [R-IL18] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
Rep. William “Bill” Shuster [R-PA9] (joined Feb 16, 2012)
Rep. Joe Baca [D-CA43] (joined Feb 27, 2012)
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R-TN3] (joined Feb 27, 2012)
Rep. Phil Roe [R-TN1] (joined Feb 27, 2012)
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D-IA3] (joined Feb 28, 2012)
Rep. Kristi Noem [R-SD0] (joined Feb 28, 2012)
Rep. Rob Wittman [R-VA1] (joined Mar 01, 2012)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7] (joined Mar 05, 2012)
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL23] (joined Mar 05, 2012)
Rep. Randy Hultgren [R-IL14] (joined Mar 05, 2012)
Rep. Robert Hurt [R-VA5] (joined Mar 05, 2012)
Rep. Rick Crawford [R-AR1] (joined Mar 08, 2012)
Rep. Bill Johnson [R-OH6] (joined Mar 08, 2012)
Rep. Adrian Smith [R-NE3] (joined Mar 08, 2012)
Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU0] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ2] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
Rep. Rick Larsen [D-WA2] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ13] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
Rep. Edolphus “Ed” Towns [D-NY10] (joined Mar 19, 2012)
Rep. Jim Cooper [D-TN5] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA16] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
Rep. Mike Ross [D-AR4] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
Rep. Jon Runyan [R-NJ3] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R-CA50] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D-CA18] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Jim Costa [D-CA20] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R-VA9] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Larry Kissell [D-NC8] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D-NC7] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. William Owens [D-NY23] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Collin Peterson [D-MN7] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Steve Scalise [R-LA1] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Heath Shuler [D-NC11] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Steve Stivers [R-OH15] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Addison “Joe” Wilson [R-SC2] (joined Mar 29, 2012)
Rep. Rob Woodall [R-GA7] (joined Mar 29, 2012)

Move over Sopa and Pipa

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/322396 
Move over SOPA and PIPA , here comes CISPA

CISPA is worse than SOPA

http://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-bill-sopa-internet-175/"An onrush of condemnation and criticism kept the SOPA and PIPA acts from passing earlier this year, but US lawmakers have already authored another authoritarian bill that could give them free reign to creep the Web in the name of cybersecurity.

As congressmen in Washington consider how to handle the ongoing issue of cyberattacks, some legislators have lent their support to a new act that, if passed, would let the government pry into the personal correspondence of anyone of their choosing.

H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short), has been created under the guise of being a necessary implement in America’s war against cyberattacks. But the vague verbiage contained within the pages of the paper could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties. Critics have already come after CISPA for the capabilities that it will give to seemingly any federal entity that claims it is threatened by online interactions, but unlike the Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect IP Acts that were discarded on the Capitol Building floor after incredibly successful online campaigns to crush them, widespread recognition of what the latest would-be law will do has yet to surface to the same degree.

Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT that Congress is currently considering a number of cybersecurity bills that could eventually be voted into law, but for the group that largely advocates an open Internet, she warns that provisions within CISPA are reason to worry over what the realities could be if it ends up on the desk of President Barack Obama. So far CISPA has been introduced, referred and reported by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and expects to go before a vote in the first half of Congress within the coming weeks.

“We have a number of concerns with something like this bill that creates sort of a vast hole in the privacy law to allow government to receive these kinds of information,” explains Burman, who acknowledges that the bill, as written, allows the US government to involve itself into any online correspondence, current exemptions notwithstanding, if it believes there is reason to suspect cyber crime. As with other authoritarian attempts at censorship that have come through Congress in recent times, of course, the wording within the CISPA allows for the government to interpret the law in such a number of degrees that any online communication or interaction could be suspect and thus unknowingly monitored.

In a press release penned last month by the CDT, the group warned then that CISPA allows Internet Service Providers to “funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls.

The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient,” reads the warning.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, another online advocacy group, has also sharply condemned CISPA for what it means for the future of the Internet. “It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity'’ exemption to all existing laws,” explains the EFF, who add in a statement of their own that “There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes.’”

What does that mean? Both the EFF and CDT say an awfully lot. Some of the biggest corporations in the country, including service providers such as Google, Facebook, Twitter or AT&T, could copy confidential information and send them off to the Pentagon if pressured, as long as the government believes they have reason to suspect wrongdoing. In a summation of their own, the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, explains that “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” either “a system or network of a government or private entity” is reason enough for Washington to reach in and read any online communiqué of their choice.

The authors of CISPA say the bill has been made “To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities,” but not before noting that the legislation could be used “and for other purposes,” as well — which, of course, are not defined.

“Cyber security, when done right and done narrowly, could benefit everyone,” Burman tells RT. “But it needs to be done in an incremental way with an arrow approach, and the heavy hand that lawmakers are taking with these current bills . . . it brings real serious concerns.”

So far CISPA has garnered support from over 100 representatives in the House who are favoring this cybersecurity legislation without taking into considerations what it could do to the everyday user of the Internet. And while the backlash created by opponents of SOPA and PIPA has not materialized to the same degree yet, Burman warns Congress that it could be only a matter of time before concerned Americans step up to have their say."

Video about CISPA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rVV5tFCuqo&feature=player_embedded
Video about CISPA

CISPA worse than SOPA and PIPA

http://www.mobilemag.com/2012/04/04/cispa-bill-even-worse-than-sopapipa/
"The good news is that SOPA and PIPA haven’t come to pass, but the bad news is that they could be followed by a bill that is even more invasive and could violate even more of your civil liberties. It’s called CISPA and it stands for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. In short, it allows the government to request all kinds of information of Internet service providers and web hosts about its users.

Private companies are “encouraged” to “monitor” for “cyber threat” information happening on their networks, even if they have no real reason to do so. As Kendall Burman from the Center for Democracy and Technology explains in the video below, the breadth of the bill is remarkably broad, covering just about any kind of Internet activity at all. It doesn’t even really say what “government” can demand this kind of information, leaving it very vague and wide-reaching.

Ironically, even GOP candidate Rick Santorum went out to say that the Internet is “not a free zone,” and that regulations have to be in place to prevent an “anything goes” environment online. So much for small government. Following the Supreme Court ruling that allows getting strip searched for even the most minor of offenses, CISPA could allow the strip-searching of your online habits too… even without any kind of offense at all."

WE MUST STOP CISPA ...NOW !

We worked tirelessly to defeat SOPA and PIPA..now we have another attempt to attack our liberties and freedoms again ending in "PA"..this time, CISPA. What is CISPA ?Read about it.

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-portland/cispa-congressional-plan-to-censor-internet-concerns-critics

"A controversial new bill that would allow for Internet censorhip is quietly moving through Congress. Critics claim H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), constitutes a substantial threat to the Internet as we know it.

The controversial bill intends “to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.” The bill is being sponsored by Rep. Michael Rogers, a Republican representing Michigan’s 8th district.
According to a press release issued last week, the bill already has over a 100 congressional co-sponsors. Yet the bill is only now beginning to appear on the public radar."