Cybersecurity bill passes despite concerns about personal data protection
April 26th, 2012
07:37 PM ET

Cybersecurity bill passes despite concerns about personal data protection

By Deirdre Walsh

Ignoring a veto threat from the White House, the House passed legislation Thursday designed to protect communications networks from cyberattacks.

The vote was 248-168.

But even as the House bill moves forward, privacy concerns about granting government agencies access to personal information transmitted on the Internet could prove to be a major obstacle to any new cybersecurity law.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Michigan and a former FBI agent, said he spent the last year working on the bill because the national security risk to the United States posed by cyberattacks is one, "we are just not prepared to handle."

"We needed to stop the Chinese government from stealing our stuff. We needed to stop the Russians from what they're doing to our networks and people's personal information data and resources," Rogers said on the House floor on Thursday. "We needed to prepare for countries like

Iran and North Korea so that they don't do something catastrophic to our networks here in America and cause us real harm to real people."

The House bill, called the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, was drafted by Rogers and the committee's top Democrat, Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger.  It sets up a voluntary system for private companies to share information about any threats or attacks on their networks with U.S. national security agencies. It also gives some liability protections to those companies in return for cooperating with the government.

While the Obama administration and many congressional Democrats agree the United States needs to respond to cyberthreats, they and many outside civil liberties advocates say the House bill fails to sufficiently guard personal information.  They worry the new rules allowing Internet companies to share information with the National Security Agency could give unfettered access by the intelligence community to data about any individual surfing the Web or sending e-mail.

In its statement opposing the bill and promising a veto, the administration on Wednesday said, "Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive."

In a reference to the George Orwell book that described a society in which government was eavesdropping on its citizens, Rep Hank Johnson, D-Georgia, said during Thursday's debate, "I know it's 2012 but it still feels like 1984 in the House today."

But House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, argued the administration's insistence on specific standards and broader limitations on how much personal information can be shared goes too far.

"The White House believes the government ought to control the Internet; the government ought to set standards and the government ought to take care of everything that's needed for cybersecurity. They're in a camp all by themselves," Boehner said

Proponents of the House bill said they addressed the concerns about privacy raised by many outside groups by adding provisions to narrow how government agencies can use any personal information, limiting it mainly to prosecuting crimes and preserving national security.

Some of those changes helped dampen an outside lobbying effort to defeat the bill. While the American Civil Liberties Union rallied against the measure, another group concerned about protecting privacy rights, the Center for Democracy and Technology, agreed the process needed to move forward.

California Democratic Rep Adam Schiff said he was disappointed his move to limit the transfer of personal information was not allowed a vote on Thursday. He said people want to be secure online, but "they have no idea their information is being collected in this cybernetwork, and that information is not necessary to protect ourselves from a cyberthreat. We want to minimize that."

Schiff said companies have the capability to limit the transfer of this information, "but they would rather not have the obligation to do it."
Ruppersberger said requiring private companies to strip out all personal information was a "nonstarter" with congressional Republicans and the Internet providers who would be the ones giving the intelligence community access to their networks.

Conceding there's a split among Democrats on the bill mainly because of the privacy concerns, Ruppersberger said the fight targeted the bipartisan House bill because "we're the only game in town."  Still, 42 Democrats voted for the measure.  Although there is a bipartisan Senate proposal offered by independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins that the White House prefers, that version has not been scheduled for a vote.

Ruppersberger said the compromise bill wasn't perfect, but said, "The most important thing is to move forward." He warned the only thing standing in the way of protecting communications networks for businesses and individuals was inaction by Congress.

Post by:
Filed under: Congress • Cybersecurity
soundoff (301 Responses)
  1. sdorttuii plmnr

    Hello.This article was really fascinating, particularly because I was browsing for thoughts on this subject last Friday.

    June 26, 2015 at 3:20 am | Reply
  2. Deepa

    Considerably, this post is really the sewetest on this notable topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your incoming updates. Saying thanks will not just be sufficient, for the phenomenal clarity in your writing. I will directly grab your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Admirable work and much success in your business dealings! Please excuse my poor English as it is not my first tongue.

    June 28, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Reply
  3. Self Storage

    I have been browsing on-line more than three hours lately, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It's pretty worth sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content material as you probably did, the web will be much more useful than ever before.

    June 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Reply
  4. hediye

    I do accept as true with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They're very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very quick for newbies. May you please prolong them a little from subsequent time? Thank you for the post.

    May 2, 2012 at 7:46 am | Reply
  5. fast food photographers

    We're a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your site offered us with useful info to work on. You've performed a formidable process and our whole group shall be thankful to you.

    May 2, 2012 at 12:47 am | Reply
  6. seo us

    hi!,I like your writing so a lot! proportion we communicate more approximately your post on AOL? I need an expert in this house to resolve my problem. Maybe that is you! Having a look forward to look you.

    April 30, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Reply
  7. Light Rail Tattler

    The problem with this legislation is it allows businesses to communicate perceived threats toh one another and blacklist individuals without liability.
    Corrupt corporations like Siemens can bribe U.S. politicians and get away with it by corporate and governmental blacklisting.
    It the federal government and corporations seek computer security they should study PayPal.
    This legislation will allow businesses to blacklist anyone including competition.
    There were two security conferences in Denver regarding computer security.
    I spoke to a number of experts in their field; some military and some corporate.
    There were bad people in attendance as well as spies.
    The spies stayed at the Marriott Tech Center.
    One of those spies I gave my email address to who promised to email sensitive information to me; instead changed by remote control the master password on my computer and corrupted my encrypted key.
    The spy knew who I was and I knew it and played along.
    The spy ruined my computer by remote control.
    The President of the United States should veto this fascist legislation.

    April 29, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Reply
  8. Gloria

    I remember when the internet first kicked off and all the promises it gave to us for freedom. It was a very 'uncivilized' world of electrons interchange and there was no way it could become what it said it would. Business would want to control it, government would want to control it and along with it...we are all controlled vey easily by fewer and fewer people. It is what it is and there is no turning back. There is no reason for every building, public and rivate, not to have cameras in every room. There is no reason for every communication not to be monitored. There is no reason not to take EVERY precaution necessary to keep us all relatively safe. Safety, like freedom has a cost. One cannot have one without the other. Fear is perhaps the most costly and becasue of fear, our great grandchildren will never know liberty or freedom like our parents had and as we already have lost. What a way to build a world...based on fear.

    April 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Reply
  9. JohnnyTalks2

    Here we go again, the outright propaganda and rhetoric that Business can act and operate like the government for the people. There are people who really believe that kind of talk. I just want to throw in a reminder. We have seen at least three revolutions and government topple overs because the business of business does not handle government functions for the people very well. Governments can not sustain aiding the select few at the expense of ignoring the many. These are the kind of (business minded only) people you want in office???

    April 28, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Reply
  10. Bob Loblaw

    America doesn't run on Dunkin'...

    America runs on fear.

    April 28, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.