CISPA 3.0 Is Back As bill H.R.234 With Obama Support! : Congressman Charles Albert “Dutch” Ruppersberger III Invading Your 4th Amendment Rights By The National Security Agency — Videos
CISPA’s return? Obama seeks access to civilian communication info
Politician Uses Sony Hack Hysteria to Reintroduce CISPA – The Know
CISPA IS BACK (AGAIN) 2015
Despite numerous defeats, CISPA is making the comeback already in 2015. This bill has been introduced as bill H.R.234 — 114th Congress (2015-2016). While experts think it is unlikely the bill will pass into the law, that is no reason not to voice your concerns. One major difference now is that the White House is no longer threatening to veto CISPA and instead is backing it. This is very troublesome and we must act now before it is too late.
Glenn Greenwald Slams NSA Backer Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger Over ABC Interview, Defense Industry Ties
Rep. Ruppersberger Opens Floor Debate on the Rogers/Ruppersberger Cyber Bill – CISPA
Obama Will Veto CISPA
Anonymous new message CISPA it’s back Ops shut down engage
CISPA SOPA 2.0
ALEX JONES – CISPA Another Fascist Takeover of the Internet. EMERGENCY ALERT
CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, is picking up sponsors and it looks like the legislation will make it to the House floor for a vote next week. CISPA emerged from the House Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming vote of 17-1.
The bill, authored by Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican, is supported by Google, the technology company in bed with the CIA and responsible for building the Great Firewall of China. Google is not alone in supporting CISPA. Corporate sponsors include Facebook, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Verizon, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others, according to the House’s Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, long a champion of rights online, has signed on to two coalition letters urging legislators to drop their support for HR 3523. The coalition behind the privacy letter includes dozens of groups, including the ACLU, the American Library Association, the American Policy Center, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and many others, according to the EFF website.
The letter warns: CISPA creates an exception to all privacy laws to permit companies to share our information with each other and with the government in the name of cybersecurity…. CISPA’s ‘information sharing’ regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like internet use history or the content of emails, to any agency in the government including military and intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency or the Department of Defense Cyber Command. Once in government hands, this information can be used for any non-regulatory purpose so long as one significant purpose is for cybersecurity or to protect national security.
CISPA was pushed through following public outrage over SOPA and PIPA, two sneaky attempts to undermine internet freedom earlier this year under the guise of protecting the copyrights of Hollywood and its transnational “entertainment” corporations.
CISPA is far worse than its forerunners. It would amend the the National Security Act of 1947 — legislation that created the national security state and the CIA — and centralize “information sharing” between government agencies, intelligence agencies, and the Pentagon.
Time Techland admits that, according to the Center for Democracy & Technology, CISPA threatens privacy because it “has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies and it supersedes all other privacy laws,” “is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications” and “is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military.”
In short, it is a dream bill designed specifically for the national security surveillance state. CISPA will put a legal facade on behavior the CIA and NSA have engaged in for decades. It is the culmination of years of cyber psyops and attendant propaganda designed convince the public that they must surrender their privacy.
The transfer of “cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military” is especially alarming considering the Pentagon’s aggressive response to supposed cyber attacks. In early 2011, the Pentagon said that cyber attacks constitute acts of war and will be responded to with military action.
It is imperative that you contact your representatives immediately and tell them that you strongly oppose this dangerous legislation and demand they vote against it. If CISPA is allowed to pass next week, it will be a victory for the global elite and their ongoing effort to turn the internet into the largest and most comprehensive surveillance and control mechanism in human history
Rep Mike Rogers Claims that Opponents to CISPA are 14 Year Olds
Gov’t Spying on US Citizens; Big Brother watching you-CISPA-NSA
NSA – STEFAN MOLYNEUX: WE REAP WHAT WE SOW
||This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (June 2011)|
|Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Maryland‘s 2nd district
January 3, 2003
|Preceded by||Bob Ehrlich|
|Born||Charles Albert Ruppersberger III
January 31, 1946
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.
|Alma mater||University of Maryland, College
University of Baltimore
Charles Albert “Dutch” Ruppersberger III (born January 31, 1946) is the U.S. Representative for Maryland’s 2nd congressional district, serving since 2003. He is a member of the Democratic Party and is Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Early life, education and career
Ruppersberger was born in Baltimore, the son of Margaret “Peggy” (née Wilson) and Charles Albert “Al” Ruppersberger, Jr. He is of partGerman descent. Ruppersberger’s legal first name is Dutch, a nickname since childhood. He graduated from Baltimore City College and attended the University of Maryland, College Park, where he played lacrosse. He earned his juris doctor (JD) from the University of Baltimore School of Law.
Ruppersberger began his career as a Baltimore County Assistant State’s Attorney. He was soon promoted to the Chief of the State’s Attorney Office Investigative Division, pursuing organized crime, political corruption, and drug trafficking. He was elected to the Baltimore County Council in 1985 and again in 1989, chosen twice as council chairman. In December 1994 and again in 1998, Ruppersberger was elected Baltimore County Executive.
U.S. House of Representatives
- Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Ranking Member)
Ruppersberger was the first Democratic freshman ever to be appointed to the House Intelligence Committee. He was named to this committee because his district is home to the National Security Agency. Since 2011, he has been this committee’s ranking Democrat. The position places Ruppersberger on the elite “Gang of Eight,” which refers to the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees along with the Senate majority leader, Senate minority leader, House speaker and House minority leader. By law, the president must keep the Gang of Eight informed of the country’s most secret intelligence activities to maintain proper oversight.
Congressman Ruppersberger decided to run for office after a near-fatal car accident while investigating a drug trafficking case. Thanks to the dedication of doctors at the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, Congressman Ruppersberger survived and began campaigning for office to assist Shock Trauma after they saved his life. He remains an active supporter of the hospital, serving as vice chairman of its board of visitors. He also serves on the United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors.
Operation Hero Miles
In one of his first acts in Washington in 2003, Congressman Ruppersberger created the national “Hero Miles” program to enable patriotic Americans to donate their frequent flyer miles to wounded warriors recovering at military or Veterans Administration (VA) medical centers as well as to friends and family visiting them. In 2012, he authored legislation expanding the program to enable Americans to also donate their hotel reward points to military families. Both the “Hero Miles” and “Hotels for Heroes” programs are administered by Fisher House, a nonprofit organization that opens its homes to military families visiting their injured loved ones at hospitals across the country . He won a Charles Dick Medal of Merit in 2004 for this initiative, thus becoming the last Marylander to win this award, which was previously awarded to U.S. Rep. Beverly Byron (1992), State Senator John Astle (1993), U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski (1994), U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (1998) and State Del (now State Comptroller) Peter Franchot (1999).
Congressman Ruppersberger, along with Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, co-sponsored the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, designed to increase intelligence sharing between private cyber security firms and government agencies. More than 60 businesses and trade organizations submitted letters of support including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T, IBM and Intel. Despite several amendments to address privacy concerns, some groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have criticized the act for a lack of civil liberties protections, claiming that it authorizes government surveillance of private communications and allows companies to hand over large amounts of personal information on their clients without a warrant or judicial oversight, and thereby creates a cybersecurity loophole in existing privacy laws, such as the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. CISPA passed the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012. It was reintroduced into the House on February 13, 2013, and passed on April 18, 2013, by a bipartisan vote of 288-127. Ninety-two Democrats supported the bill, many citing significant privacy improvements over the 2012 version. 
Barred from a third term as County Executive, Ruppersberger opted to run for Congress in 2002 after 2nd District Congressman Bob Ehrlich made what turned out to be a successful run forgovernor. The Maryland General Assembly significantly altered the 2nd by shifting most of its share of Harford County to the 1st and 6th Districts. In its place, the legislature added a heavily Democratic portion of Baltimore City that had previously been in the 1st District. This turned the 2nd from a swing district into a strongly Democratic district. It was an open secret that the district was drawn for Ruppersberger; local media called the new district “the Dutch district.” An August 2011 editorial by The Washington Post describes the 2nd district as “curlicue territories strung together by impossibly delicate tendrils of land” and “a crazy-quilt confection drawn for the express purpose of ousting the incumbent at the time, Rep. (and later Gov.) Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, and installing C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, a Democrat who still holds the job.” He defeated Republican opponent Helen Delich Bentley, who had represented the 2nd district from 1985 to 1995, with 55 percent of the vote. Ruppersberger has never faced another contest even that close and has been reelected five times. On April 10, 2013, the Baltimore Sun reported that Ruppersberger was considering a run for governor of Maryland in 2014. In January of 2014, Ruppersberger announced that he would not run for Governor, but instead would seek reelection to the House of Representatives.
|1994||Baltimore County Executive||General||Charles Albert Ruppersberger, III||Democratic||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A|
|1998||Baltimore County Executive||General||Charles Albert Ruppersberger, III||Democratic||166,482||70.47||John J. Bishop||Republican||69,449||29.4|
|2002||Maryland’s 2nd congressional district||General||Charles Albert Ruppersberger, III||Democratic||105,718||54.16||Helen Delich Bentley||Republican||88,954||45.57|
|2004||Maryland’s 2nd congressional district||General||Charles Albert Ruppersberger, III||Democratic||164,751||66.62||Jane Brooks||Republican||75,812||30.66|
|2006||Maryland’s 2nd congressional district||General||Charles Albert Ruppersberger, III||Democratic||135,818||69.21||Jimmy Mathis||Republican||60,195||30.68|
|2008||Maryland’s 2nd congressional district||General||Charles Albert Ruppersberger, III||Democratic||198,578||71.9||Richard Pryce Matthews||Republican||68,561||24.8|
|2010||Maryland’s 2nd congressional district||General||Charles Albert Ruppersberger, III||Democratic||134,133||64.21||Marcelo Cardarelli||Republican||69,523||33.28|
|2012||Maryland’s 2nd congressional district||General||Charles Albert Ruppersberger, III||Democratic||194,088||65.6||Nancy C. Jacobs||Republican||92,071||31.1|
Ruppersberger married his high school sweetheart in 1971 and has two grown children, Cory and Jill, and three grandchildren.
- “dutch ruppersberger”. Freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com. Retrieved 2014-08-13.
- “Ruppersberger Receives Medal For ‘Operation Hero Miles'”. WBAL-TV. Retrieved 17 August 2011.
- “House to take up cybersecurity bill with revisions”. Reuters. April 11, 2012.
- “H.R. 624 – Letters of Support | The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence”. Intelligence.house.gov. Retrieved 2014-08-13.
- “CISPA is Back: FAQ on What it is and Why it’s Still Dangerous | Electronic Frontier Foundation”. Eff.org. 2013-02-25. Retrieved 2014-08-13.
- [dead link]
- “Maryland Democrats redraw the congressional district map”. The Washington Post. 20 August 2011. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
- “Ruppersberger considering run for Governor”. The Baltimore Sun. 10 April 2013. Retrieved 11 April 2013.
- “Congressman Ruppersberger Decides Against Run For Governor”. http://www.wbal.com. 22 January 2014. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
- Biography (2011-10-25). “Biography – Congressman Ruppersberger”. Dutch.house.gov. Retrieved 2011-11-20.
- Dutch Ruppersberger at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
- Congressional Quarterly Voting and Elections Collection.
- Maryland Archives, Baltimore County elections, 1998
- Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger official U.S. House site
- Dutch Ruppersberger for Congress
- Dutch Ruppersberger at DMOZ
- Biography at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
- Profile at Project Vote Smart
- Financial information (federal office) at the Federal Election Commission
- Legislation sponsored at The Library of Congress
- Profile at SourceWatch
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
||This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. The specific problem is: Need to organize old information by date and add to recent developments on 2015 bill.. (January 2015)|
|Long title||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 Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA H.R. 3523 (112th Congress), H.R. 624 (113th Congress), H.R. 234 (114th Congress)) is a proposed law in the United States which would allow for the sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies. The stated aim of the bill is to help the U.S. government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyberattacks.
The legislation was introduced on November 30, 2011, by Representative Michael Rogers (R–MI) and 111 co-sponsors. It was passed in the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012, but was not passed by the U.S. Senate. President Barack Obama‘s advisers have argued that the bill lacks confidentiality and civil liberties safeguards, and the White House said he would veto it.
In February 2013 the House reintroduced the bill and it passed in the United States House of Representatives on April 18, 2013,but stalled and has not been voted upon by the Senate. On July 10, 2014 a similar bill, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act(CISA), was introduced in the Senate.
In January 2015 the House reintroduced the bill again. The bill currently has been Referred to the Committee on Intelligence to see if it will come to the House for a vote.
CISPA has been criticized by advocates of Internet privacy and civil liberties, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, Free Press, Fight for the Future, and Avaaz.org, as well as various conservative and libertariangroups including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, TechFreedom, FreedomWorks, Americans for Limited Government, Liberty Coalition, and the American Conservative Union. Those groups argue CISPA contains too few limits on how and when the government may monitor a private individual’s Internet browsing information. Additionally, they fear that such new powers could be used to spy on the general public rather than to pursue malicious hackers. CISPA had garnered favor from corporations and lobbying groups such as Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, IBM, Apple Inc. and the United States Chamber of Commerce, which look on it as a simple and effective means of sharing important cyber threat information with the government.
Some critics saw wording included in CISPA as a second attempt to protect intellectual property after the Stop Online Piracy Act was taken off the table by Congress after it met opposition. Intellectual property theft was initially listed in the bill as a possible cause for sharing Web traffic information with the government, though it was removed in subsequent drafts.
CISPA is an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, which does not currently contain provisions pertaining to cybercrime. It adds provisions to the Act describing 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 either “efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network”. In addition, CISPA requires the Director of National Intelligence to establish procedures to allow intelligence community elements to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and encourage the sharing of such intelligence.
In an April 16, 2012, press release, the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence announced the approval of several amendments to CISPA, including the addition of a new provision “to permit federal lawsuits against the government for any violation of restrictions placed on the government’s use of voluntarily shared information, including the important privacy and civil liberties protections contained in the bill,” the inclusion of an anti-tasking provision to “explicitly prohibit the government from conditioning its sharing of cyber threat intelligence on the sharing of private sector information with the government”, and the prevention of the government from using the information for “any other lawful purpose unless the government already has a significant cybersecurity or national security purpose in using the information”. Relevant provisions were also clarified to “focus on the fact that the bill is designed to protect against unauthorized access to networks or systems, including unauthorized access aimed at stealing private or government information”. In addition, already collected cyberthreat data can also be used to investigate “the imminent threat of bodily harm to an individual” or “the exploitation of a minor,” bringing the bill into line with existing law codified by thePatriot Act and the PROTECT Our Children Act in which these two conditions already allow for protected entities to share data voluntarily with the United States government, law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Bill sponsors Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, the chairman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, said on April 25, 2012, that the Obama administration’s opposition is mostly based on the lack of critical infrastructure regulation, something outside of the jurisdiction of the Intelligence committee; they have also since introduced a package of amendments to the legislation that, “address nearly every single one of the criticisms leveled by the Administration, particularly those regarding privacy and civil liberties of Americans”.
Due to the opposition the bill has experienced, the co-sponsors are planning to amend the bill to address many of the concerns of its opponents—including limiting its scope to a narrower definition of cyber-threats, and stating that the “theft of intellectual property” refers to the theft of research and development. In addition, there will now be penalties if private companies or the government uses data from CISPA for purposes “unrelated to cyberthreats”.
However, Sharan Bradford Franklin, of the Constitution Project states, “Although we appreciate the Intelligence Committee’s efforts to improve the bill and willingness to engage in a dialogue with privacy advocates, the changes in its most current draft do not come close to addressing the civil liberties threats posed by the bill, and some of the proposals would actually make CISPA worse. Therefore, Congress should not pass CISPA”.
Rainey Reitman, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation states, “To date, the authors of the bill have been unresponsive to these criticisms, offering amendments that are largely cosmetic. Dismissing the grave concerns about how this bill could undermine the core privacy rights of everyday Internet users, Rep. Mike Rogers characterized the growing protests against CISPA as ‘turbulence’ and vowed to push for a floor vote without radical changes.”
Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology states, “The authors of CISPA have made some positive changes recently. Unfortunately, none of the changes gets to the heart of the privacy concerns that Internet users and advocacy groups have expressed.”
In April 2012, the Office of Management and Budget of the Executive Office of the President of the United States released a statement strongly opposing the current bill and recommending to veto it.
On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA.
On February 13, 2013, United States Representative Mike Rogers reintroduced the CISPA bill in the 113th Congress as H.R. 624.
House voting counts
House vote on April 26, 2012 passing CISPA Affiliation Yes votes No votes Did not vote Democratic 42 140 8 Republican 206 28 7 Total 248 168 15
House vote on April 18, 2013 passing CISPA Affiliation Yes votes No votes Did not vote Democratic 92 98 11 Republican 196 29 6 Total 288 127 17
CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, IBM, Intel, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon. Google has not taken a public position on the bill but has shown previous support for it, and now says they support the idea but believe the bill needs some work. Leading Google, Yahoo, andMicrosoft executives are also on the executive council of TechNet, a tech trade group which sent a letter supporting CISPA in April 2013.
- Former Representative Ron Paul (R–TX) has publicly opposed the bill calling it “Big Brother writ large.”
- 36 groups currently oppose CISPA with an addition of 6 groups as of April 21. The Electronic Frontier Foundation lists a growing list of opposition as well as a list of security experts, academics, and engineers in opposition of the bill. They also published the statement Don’t Let Congress Use “Cybersecurity” Fears to Erode Digital Rights.
- Opposition to CISPA includes more than 840,000 online petitioners who have signed global civic organization Avaaz.org’s petition to members of the US Congress entitled “Save the Internet from the US”. Avaaz also has a petition to Facebook, Microsoft, and IBM entitled “The end of Internet privacy”, signed by more than 840,000 people.
- The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) published a statement titled “Cybersecurity’s 7-Step Plan for Internet Freedom”. The CDT openly opposes the Mike Rogers bill based on these 7-step criteria. The CDT has also openly supported a competing bill in the house sponsored by Representative Dan Lungren (R–CA) that has yet to be reported by the committee.
- The Constitution Project (TCP) “believes cybersecurity legislation currently pending before Congress possess major risks to civil liberties that must be addressed before any bill is enacted into law.”
- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also issued a statement opposing the bill stating, “The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act would create a cybersecurity exception to all privacy laws and allow companies to share the private and personal data they hold on their American customers with the government for cybersecurity purposes.” As the statement continues, “Beyond the potential for massive data collection authorization, the bill would provide no meaningful oversight of, or accountability for, the use of these new information-sharing authorities.”
- The Sunlight Foundation states, “The new cybersecurity bill, CISPA, or HR 3523, is terrible on transparency. The bill proposes broad new information collection and sharing powers (which many other organizations are covering at length). Even as the bill proposes those powers, it proposes to limit public oversight of this work.”
- Cenk Uygur, from Current TV, opposed the bill highlighted one of Mike Rogers’ speech about the bill to the business community. He also attempted to summarize the bill to his audience.
- Demand Progress opposes CISPA, stating “The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, would obliterate any semblance of online privacy in the United States.”
- Competitive Enterprise Institute joins with TechFreedom, FreedomWorks, Americans for Limited Government, Liberty Coalition, Al Cardenas, and American Conservative Union to write a letter to Congress. Competitive Enterprise Institute states, “Despite the bill’s noble intentions, however, it risks unduly expanding federal power, undermining freedom of contract, and harming U.S. competitiveness in the technology sector.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute lists 6 problems within the bill itself and how to fix those problems.
- Reporters Without Borders states, “Reporters Without Borders is deeply concerned with the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (CISPA), the cyber security bill now before the US Congress. In the name of the war on cyber crime, it would allow the government and private companies to deploy draconian measures to monitor, even censor, the Web. It might even be used to close down sites that publish classified files or information.”
- testPAC opposes CISPA stating “CISPA would effectively take the door off the hinge of every household in America, but lacks the tools necessary to distinguish whether there is a criminal hiding in the attic. Why surrender the core of our privacy for the sake of corporate and governmental convenience?”
- Mozilla, the makers of the Firefox Web-Browser, opposes CISPA stating, “While we wholeheartedly support a more secure Internet, CISPA has a broad and alarming reach that goes far beyond Internet security.”
- The Association for Computing Machinery believes that “More effective information sharing in support of cybersecurity is a laudable goal, but CISPA is seriously flawed in its approach to PII. Better approaches to information sharing are certainly possible if privacy goals are also considered.”
- IGDA, the International Game Developers Association is against this bill, urging Congress and the President to reject it saying, in part, “The version of CISPA which just emerged from the House Intelligence Committee does not address the privacy failings in the previous version, which the White House wisely rejected. The bill still retains its dangerously over-broad language, still lacks civilian control, still lacks judicial oversight, and still lacks clear limits on government monitoring of our Internet browsing information. The House should vote against it.”
- The Libertarian Party protested it by blacking out much of their Facebook, and encouraged others to follow suit.
Week of action
Dubbed the “Stop Cyber Spying Week”, starting on April 16, 2012, many civil liberties groups and advocates raised the awareness of CISPA (through a Twitter campaign with the hash-tags #CISPA and #CongressTMI,) including, but not limited to, the Constitution Project, American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology,Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, Reporters Without Borders, Sunlight Foundation, and TechFreedom.
Prior attempts for U.S. cybersecurity bills
Since legislation must pass the House and the Senate within the same Congress, anything introduced during the 112th or earlier Congresses has to pass both chambers again.
- S. 2151 (Secure IT), introduced by Senator John McCain (R–AZ) on March 1, 2012.
- S. 2105 (Cybersecurity Act), reported by committee on February 15, 2012. Sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I–CT). Failing to gain enough support for passage, the bill, entitled “Cybersecurity Act of 2012”, was reintroduced on July 19, 2012 in a revised form which omitted federal imposition of security standards on IP providers, as well as including stronger privacy and civil liberties protections.
House of Representatives
- H.R. 3674 (Precise Act), reported by committee April 18, 2012 by Representative Dan Lungren (R–CA). The bill changed as “Lungren dropped many of the critical infrastructure and DHS provisions” due to the house.
- H.R. 4257 Federal Information Security Amendment Act of 2012, reported by committee April 18, 2012 by Representative Darrell Issa (R–CA).
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.|
- Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
- Chinese intelligence operations in the United States
- Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
- Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002
- Freedom of information laws by country
- Intellectual Property Attache Act
- National Security Agency
- United States Department of Homeland Security
- “HR 3523 as reported to the House Rules Committee”.
- “H.R. 3523”. Library of Congress. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
- “Current Status of CISPA”. GovTrack. Retrieved April 18,2012.
- “FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 192”. Retrieved April 26, 2012.
- “Cyber-security bill Cispa passes US House”. BBC News. April 26, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2012.
- “CISPA Cybersecurity Bill, Reborn: 6 Key Facts”, Mathew J. Schwartz, Information Week, February 14, 2013
- “FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 117”. Retrieved April 18, 2013
- Smith, Gerry (April 25, 2013). “Senate Won’t Vote On CISPA, Deals Blow To Controversial Cyber Bill”. Huffington Post. Retrieved April 26, 2013.
- “Controversial Cybersecurity Bill Known As CISA Advances Out Of Senate Committee”, Gregory S. McNeal,Forbes, July 9, 2014.
- Knibbs, Kate (January 14, 2015). “The New CISPA Bill Is Literally Exactly the Same as the Last One”. Gizmodo. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
- Masnick, Mike (April 2, 2012). “Forget SOPA, You Should Be Worried About This Cybersecurity Bill”. Techdirt. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
- 5 Reasons the CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Should Be Tossed Time Techland, By Matt Peckham
- Hayley Tsukayama (April 27, 2012). “CISPA: Who’s for it, who’s against it and how it could affect you”. Washington Post. Retrieved May 1, 2012.
- Morgan Little (April 9, 2012). “CISPA legislation seen by many as SOPA 2.0”. Los Angeles Times. RetrievedApril 30, 2012.
- “House Cybersecurity Bill Backs Off On IP Theft Provisions”. Retrieved April 18, 2012.
- H.R. 3523 Discussion Draft – U.S. House of Representatives – November 29, 2011
- “CRS report on CISPA”. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved April 5, 2012.
- “Discussion Draft HR 3523”. United States House Select Committee on Intelligence. Retrieved April 17, 2012.
- “PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (2008; 110th Congress S. 1738) – GovTrack.us”. GovTrack.us.
- Albanesius, Chloe. “White House Threatens to Veto CISPA”. PC Magazine.
- New CISPA amendments expected – but the fight will go on – Digitaltrends.com – April 10, 2012
- CISPA and SOPA like ‘apples and oranges,’ say chief co-sponsors – Digitaltrends.com – April 10, 2012
- “CISPA Lacks Protections for Individual Rights”. USNews. Retrieved April 18, 2012.
- “CISPA Is Dangerously Vague”. USNews. RetrievedApril 18, 2012.
- “CISPA Not the Right Way to Achieve Cybersecurity”. USNews. Retrieved April 18, 2012.
- Statement of Administration Policy – H.R. 3523 – Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act – Office of Management and Budget, April 25, 2012.
- Smith, Gerry (April 25, 2013). “Senate Won’t Vote On CISPA, Deals Blow To Controversial Cyber Bill”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- “FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 192”. clerk.house.gov. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
- “FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 117”. clerk.house.gov. Retrieved April 18, 2013.
- “H.R. 3523 – Letters of Support”. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Retrieved April 26, 2012.
- “CISPA supporters list: 800+ companies that could help Uncle Sam snag your data”. Digital Trends. RetrievedApril 12, 2012.
- Brendan Sasso (April 23, 2012). “Google acknowledges lobbying on cybersecurity bill CISPA”. Hillicon Valley. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
- “US House of Representatives passes CISPA cybersecurity bill”. Rt.com. April 18, 2013. Retrieved April 23, 2013.
- Moyer, Edward (13 April 2013). “Google, Yahoo, Microsoft execs back CISPA through trade group”. CNET News.
- Smith, Dave (12 April 2013). “CISPA 2013: Google, Apple Top Massive List Of Supporters Favoring The Controversial Cybersecurity Bill”. International Business Times.
- “Opposition grows to CISPA ‘Big Brother’ cybersecurity bill”. CNET. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
- Rushe, Dominic (April 23, 2012). “Ron Paul says Cispa cyberterrorism bill would create ‘Big Brother’ culture”. London: GuardianUK. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
- “CISPA is the new SOPA”. The Hill. Retrieved April 23,2012.
- “CISPA is Big Brother’s Friend”. The New American. Retrieved April 5, 2013.
- “Letter To Congress”. Privacy Lives. Retrieved April 23,2012.
- “Free Market Coalition: Amend CISPA to Preserve Freedom, Prevent Gov’t Overreach”. CEI. RetrievedApril 23, 2012.
- “Voices of Opposition Against CISPA”. EFF. RetrievedApril 23, 2012.
- “An Open Letter From Security Experts, Academics and Engineers to the U.S. Congress: Stop Bad Cybersecurity Bills”. EFF. Retrieved April 23, 2012.
- “Don’t Let Congress Use “Cybersecurity” Fears to Erode Digital Rights”. EFF. Retrieved April 7, 2012.
- “Save the Internet from the US”. Avaaz. RetrievedApril 19, 2012.
- “The end of Internet privacy”. Avaaz. Retrieved April 19,2012.
- “Cybersecurity’s 7-Step Plan for Internet Freedom”. CDT. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
- “Lungren Cybersecurity Bill Takes Careful, Balanced Approach”. CDT. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
- “H.R. 3674: PRECISE Act of 2011”. GovTrack.us. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
- “ISSUE ALERT: Cybersecurity Bills Pending in U.S. House Threaten Privacy Rights and Civil Liberties”. TCP. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
- “ACLU Opposition to H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011”. ACLU. RetrievedApril 13, 2012.
- “CISPA is Terrible for Transparency”. Sunlight Foundation. Retrieved April 14, 2012.
- “Ron Paul is right about CISPA: It must be stopped”. Current TV. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- “CISPA Is The New SOPA: Help Kill It”. Demand Progress. Retrieved April 14, 2012.
- “Letter to Rogers and Ruppersburger”. CEI. RetrievedApril 23, 2012.
- “Draconian cyber security bill could lead to Internet surveillance and censorship”. RWB. Retrieved April 15,2012.
- “Legislative Agenda”. PopVox. Retrieved April 18, 2012.
- “Mozilla breaks ranks with Silicon Valley, comes out against CISPA”. The Hill. Retrieved May 3, 2012.
- “Letter in regards to CISPA”. ACM. Retrieved June 6,2012.
- “Letter in regards to CISPA”. Retrieved April 17, 2013.
- “Cover Photos”. Libertarian Party’s Page. Facebook. 22 April 2013.
- “Kicking off “Stop Cyber Spying Week””. ACLU. RetrievedApril 16, 2012.
- “Stop Cyber Spying Week Launches to Protest CISPA”. EFF. Retrieved April 16, 2012.
- “Week of Action On CISPA Preceding “Cybersecurity Week” in the House”. CDT. Retrieved April 16, 2012.
- “Save The Internet”. Free Press. Retrieved April 16,2012.
- “Internet Advocacy Coalition Announces Twitter Campaign to Fight Privacy-Invasive Bill (CISPA”. En.rsf.org. RetrievedApril 22, 2013.
- “Everything Anonymous”. AnonNews.org. RetrievedApril 22, 2013.
- “S. 2151: SECURE IT”. GovTrack.us. Retrieved April 13,2012.
- “S. 2105: Cybersecurity Act of 2012”. GovTrack.us. Retrieved April 13, 2012.
- Eric Chabrow (July 19, 2012). “Senators Purge Regulations from Cybersecurity Bill: Obama Calls for Passage of Revised Cybersecurity Act of 2012”. gov info security. RetrievedJuly 20, 2012.
- “H.R. 3674: PRECISE Act of 2011”. GovTrack.us. Retrieved April 13, 2012.
- “House Homeland Security Panel Fights to Stay in Cybersecurity Debate”. nationaljournal. Retrieved April 20,2012.
- “Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2012”. GovTrack.us. Retrieved April 18, 2012.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act.|
- H.R. 624 at Congress.gov
- H.R. 624 at GovTrack
- H.R. 624 at OpenCongress
- Newman, Jared (13 April 2012). “CISPA Monitoring Bill: Just the Facts”. PC World/TechHive. IDG. Retrieved 22 June 2013.