<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
This is merely a formalisation of the existing, and far-reaching,
collaboration between the US gov and US digital/Internet business in
the 'national security' space. In the same way as SOPA or no SOPA,
whether through the intervention of courts or just through executive
decrees or 'requests', a global infrastructure of collaboration between
US gov and US Internet companies is already in place in the area of
global IP enforcement (read economic extraction), and keeps getting
strenghtened. <br>
<br>
We see the clear and unmistakable building of a unipolar power system
anchored in the US, whereby the architecture of the Internet (technical
as well as socio-technical) is being shaped and put into service for
consolidation of political, military, economic, social and cultural
power. Does this have no implications on people's political, economic,
social and cultural rights, individually and collectively? <br>
<br>
What response does the civil society in IG space has to such huge
geo-political/ -economic/ -social/ -cutural tectonics, which is shaping
the power equations of a new world? I am sure it can do better than
just employing its ammunition against an India, Brazil or South Africa
(IBSA) when these countries raise alarm over the unipolar concentration
of power in the information society employing the Internet, and seek a
democratic global platform where these issues can be discussed and if
needed contested. <br>
<br>
Unfortunately, another most significant information society change is
the emergence of a new global middle class, especially in developing
countries, that sees their social and political identity and
constituency as an amalgamated global rich or richness-aspirant class.
This new class is ready to cede political leadership to the US, in
preference to the political establishments in their home countries,
even if they are largely or considerably democratic (at least no less
than the US is). And this emergent class is so powerful in their 'home'
countries that they can influence their political establishments in the
wrong directions, often blinding them to what is manifestly happening
in terms of consolidation of all kinds of power with and in the US, and
the role of Internet, and Internet (non ?) governance in this process. <br>
<br>
Just my two cents of home made theory :).<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 28 April 2012 01:08 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4F9AF5B1.6080202@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div id="article-header">
<div id="main-article-info">
<h1 itemprop="name">Cispa cybersecurity bill passed by House of
Representatives</h1>
<p itemprop="description" id="stand-first" class="stand-first-alone">Republican-controlled
House defies Obama over legislation to prevent electronic attacks on US</p>
</div>
<ul id="content-actions" class="share-links trackable-component"
data-component="comp: r2: Share tools">
<li class="share-links">
<ul>
<li class="third-party-tool full-line facebook"> <span
class="facebook-share"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="facebook-share-btn"
href="http://www.facebook.com/dialog/feed?app_id=180444840287&link=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-passed-senate&display=popup&redirect_uri=http://static-serve.appspot.com/static/facebook-share/callback.html&show_error=false"
data-href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-passed-senate"
data-link-name="Facebook Share"> <span class="facebook-share-icon"></span><span
class="facebook-share-label"></span></a></span><br>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div id="content">
<ul class="article-attributes b4">
<li class="byline">
<div class="contributer-full"> Associated Press in Washington </div>
</li>
<li class="publication"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">guardian.co.uk</a>, <time
datetime="2012-04-27T10:12BST" pubdate="">Friday 27 April 2012 10.12
BST</time> </li>
<li style="display: list-item;" class="history"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="rollover history-link"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-passed-senate#history-link-box">Article
history</a> </li>
</ul>
<div id="article-wrapper">
<div id="main-content-picture"> <br>
<div class="caption">House speaker John Boehner: 'The White House
believes the government ought to control the internet.' Photograph:
Jacquelyn Martin/AP</div>
</div>
<div id="article-body-blocks">
<p>The House of Representatives has ignored objections from Barack
Obama's administration and approved legislation aimed at helping to
thwart electronic attacks on critical US infrastructure and private
companies.</p>
<p>On a bipartisan vote of 248-168, the Republican-controlled House
backed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/cispa"
title="More from guardian.co.uk on Cispa">Cispa</a>), which would
encourage companies and the federal government to share information
collected on the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet"
title="More from guardian.co.uk on Internet">internet</a> to prevent
electronic attacks from cybercriminals, foreign governments and
terrorists.</p>
<p>"This is the last bastion of things we need to do to protect this
country," Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House intelligence
committee, said after more than five hours of debate.</p>
<p>More than 10 years after the September 11 terror attacks in 2001,
proponents cast the bill as an initial step to deal with an evolving
threat of the internet age. The information-sharing would be voluntary
to avoid imposing new regulations on businesses, an imperative for
Republicans.</p>
<p>The legislation would allow the government to relay cyber threat
information to a company to prevent attacks from Russia or China. In
the private sector, corporations could alert the government and provide
data that could stop an attack intended to disrupt the country's water
supply or take down the banking system.</p>
<h2><br>
</h2>
<p>The <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration"
title="More from guardian.co.uk on Obama administration">Obama
administration</a> has threatened a veto of the House bill, preferring
a Senate measure that would give the homeland security department the
primary role in overseeing domestic cybersecurity and the authority to
set security standards. That Senate bill remains stalled.</p>
<p>The Republican House speaker, John Boehner, said the
administration's approach was misguided.</p>
<p>"The White House believes the government ought to control the
internet, government ought to set standards and government ought to
take care of everything that's needed for cybersecurity," Boehner told
reporters at his weekly news conference. "They're in a camp all by
themselves."</p>
<p>Faced with widespread <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/privacy"
title="More
from guardian.co.uk on Privacy">privacy</a>
concerns, Rogers and Republican CA "Dutch" Ruppersberger , the
intelligence panel's top Democrat, pulled together an amendment that
limits the government's use of threat information to five specific
purposes: cybersecurity; investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity
crimes; protection of individuals from death or serious bodily harm;
protection of minors from child pornography; and the protection of
national security.</p>
<p>The House passed the amendment by 410 votes to three.</p>
<p>The White House, along with a coalition of liberal and
conservative groups and lawmakers, strongly opposed the measure,
complaining that Americans' privacy could be violated. They argued that
companies could share an employee's personal information with the
government, data that could end up in the hands of officials from the
National Security Agency or the defence department. They also
challenged the bill's liability waiver for private companies that
disclose information, complaining it was too broad.</p>
<p>"Once in government hands, this information can be used for
undefined 'national security' purposes unrelated to cybersecurity," a
coalition that included the American Civil Liberties Union and former
conservative Republican representative Bob Barr, lawmakers said on
Thursday.</p>
<p>Echoing those concerns were several Republicans and Democrats who
warned of potential government spying on its citizens with the help of
employers.</p>
<p>"In an effort to foster information sharing, this bill would erode
the privacy protections of every single American using the internet. It
would create a 'wild west' of information sharing," said Bennie
Thompson of Mississippi, the leading Democrat on the House homeland
security committee.</p>
<p>Republican representative Joe Barton said: "Until we protect the
privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem."</p>
<p>Countering criticism of Big Brother run amok, proponents argued
that the bill does not allow the government to monitor private
networks, read private emails or close a website. It urges companies
that share data to remove personal information.</p>
<p>"There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill,"
Rogers said.</p>
<p>Among the amendments the House approved was one by Republican
Justin Amash that put certain personal information off limits: library,
medical and gun sale records, tax returns and education documents.</p>
<p>"I don't know why the government would want to snoop through
library records or tax returns to counter the cybersecurity threat,"
Amash said.</p>
<p>The House approved his amendment by 415-0.</p>
<p>Trumping any privacy concerns were the national security argument,
always powerful in an election year, and Republicans' political desire
to complete a bill that would then force the Democratic-led Senate to
act.</p>
<p>The Obama administration backs a Senate bill sponsored by senators
Joe Lieberman, an Independent, and Republican Susan Collins, that gives
homeland security the authority to establish security standards.</p>
<p>However, that legislation faces opposition from senior Senate
Republicans.</p>
<p>Arizona senator John McCain, the leading Republican on the Senate
armed services committee, said during a hearing last month that the
homeland security department was "probably the most inefficient
bureaucracy that I have ever encountered" and was ill-equipped to
determine how best to secure the nation's essential infrastructure.
McCain has introduced a competing bill.</p>
<p>• This article was amended on Friday 27 April to correct a mistake
in the headline. It originally said the bill had been passed by the
Senate. This has been corrected.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>