Ben Quayle Defends Internet Security Bill Known as "CISPA," but Promises Amendment Proposal Over Privacy Concerns

internet high five.jpg
endlesspicdump.com
After the bills known as "SOPA" and "PIPA" were shelved amid some mass protests from online communities, there's a new bill in Congress that has the Internet riled up -- the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or "CISPA."

The bill has been referred to numerous times as being "worse than SOPA," although that's more of an opinion than anything else.

While SOPA was supposed to mainly target intellectual property on the Internet, CISPA allows private companies to share information with the government in the name of perceived "cyber threats."

Congressmen representing all parts of the country have been quizzed on their stance of CISPA, and even the White House has released a statement on the bill, saying "the Administration strongly opposes [the bill] in its current form."

Two of the bill's 112 co-sponsors are gentlemen from Arizona, Congressmen Trent Franks and Ben Quayle.

Quayle was one of the co-sponsors to SOPA -- before withdrawing his name due to the bill's possible "unintended consequences" amid the Internet uproar -- so we reached out to his office to check out the thought process on CISPA.

We asked for Quayle's stance on the matter -- aside from being a co-sponsor -- and to respond to the privacy concerns, specifically a statement released by libertarian-leaning Congressman Ron Paul.

"Every day, our nation faces cyber attacks that target American intellectual property, personal information and critical national security networks," Quayle says. "These attacks harm American competitiveness and destroy jobs. Even worse, foreign hacking puts every individual's personal information at risk. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act enables private companies to voluntarily share information on breaches of cyber security with the goal of protecting vital cyber-infrastructure and personal information."

Those are Quayle's perceived intentions of the legislation, but he's not blind to the fact that messin' with the Internet isn't something that folks with keyboards have been taking too kindly to.

Therefore, Quayle says he's offering up an amendment to the bill so it can still serve its intended purpose, and address the concerns that have already been brought up.

"In order to further protect privacy rights, I will offer an amendment that tightens limitations on how the government can use the information it collects," Quayle says. "If the government violates this limitation, the bill provides for government liability for actual damages, costs and attorney's fees in a federal court lawsuit. The government can only use cyber threat information for a limited number of purposes related to cyber security and national security.  These provisions together ensure sound privacy protections and necessary cyber security protections for American companies and individuals."

Will this earn a truce between Congress, trying to address "cyber attacks," and the online community, which basically wants the Internet to be a libertarian's wet dream? Maybe, but maybe not. At least Quayle's addressed concerns over these controversial pieces of legislation.

Elsewhere, Congressmen Raul Grijalva and David Schweikert have publicly stated their opposition to CISPA.

Click here to read up on the details of CISPA.

My Voice Nation Help
9 comments
Peter Rafferty
Peter Rafferty

Internet security and cyber crime is a big deal, but this is definitely not the way to go about targeting it. I agree with Not Surprised, there needs to be other options other than bills investigated.

Suzanne Noel
Suzanne Noel

Quayle voted for NDAA 2012, Schweikert didn't.

internet in my area
internet in my area

If you are using the internet service so that need to take internet security. These are sharing little suggestion to know about the cyber security protection matter. The management can only use cyber risk information for a limited number of reasons related to cyber safety and nationalized security.

RetiredArmy
RetiredArmy

Hmm... The collusion of private industry and government to control, suppress, and exploit. I wonder where I have read  about that in Americas history? Oh that's right didn't we fight a big war to stop that form of government in the 1940's?

Just curious that's all.

Oh, and you read your script so well Ben, keep up the good work. /s

Not Surprised
Not Surprised

Sounds to me that pandoras box was opened with the Patriot's Act (not saying there weren't/aren't reasons that it passed).

Now that one law was passed that allowed "the government," to bypass the judiciary/warrants in dealing with potential crimes in one area, they want to do it again in another area of crime. 

Their justification, national security.  Look, I'm not saying cyber crimes aren't a serious issue, it is.  And we're going to have to deal with it.

But we do need to be very concerned about side stepping the judiciary, our founding fathers designed our government with a judiciary for a reason, and it's just as relavent today, if not more so, because of the privacy issues the internet carries. 

My question to Quayle and these lawmakers, what other solutions are you exploring other than bills to sidestep the judiciary/warrants?  And if you're not exploring other solutions, why not?

And I'm sorry, Quayle "amendment" sucks.  Don't worry, if we, the government, overstep, or do something wrong, you can always sue us later?  That's crap.

The lawyers will like it.

We're talking about people's personal information, lives, companies could potentially be devastated, but don't worry, you can always sue later?

Albert
Albert

What ever happened to following and upholding and defending the Constitution? How could introducing and passing any legislation like this not be considered treason Shall NOT be Infringed or Violated do you not comprehend. YOU CAN"T MAKE A LAW THAT VIOLATES ANY PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. More Unconstitutional legislation that takes the back door instead of asking the people if they approve. 

 Again the Bill of Rights came after the Articles of the Constitution, and should supersede anything granted or allowed prior to it's passing.

Albert
Albert

Ahhhh.. after the word treason there should be a period......And then it was supposed to read as: And what part of...

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...