CISPA vote means companies can't promise to protect privacy
Proposed amendment to CISPA says Internet companies' promises to protect customer privacy were legally enforceable. But then Republicans vote it down.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other Internet companies and e-mail providers will be prohibited from making legally binding promises to protect your privacy, thanks to a vote this afternoon in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The vote came after Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who's the committee's influential chairman, urged his colleagues to vote against the amendment (PDF). All of the committee's eight GOP members voted against the amendment, and all the Democrats supported it. (See CNET's .)
It also came hours after a CISPA. A House floor debate is scheduled to begin tomorrow, which now will not include a vote on the amendment.from the Obama administration, citing privacy and other concerns about
"We're disappointed that such a commonsense reform won't even get a vote," Will Adams, a spokesman for Rep. Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican who co-sponsored the amendment, told CNET this evening. "When Americans sign up for service with their phone company or their Internet provider they should be entitled to the privacy protections that the companies promise them. Giving companies legal cover to break their contracts with consumers is bad policy and a disservice to the American people."
Otherwise, Polis said, CISPA means Internet and other companies will be "completely exonerated from any risk of liability" if they open their databases with confidential customer information to the feds and even private-sector firms.
The amendment was only six lines long. It would have altered the latest version of CISPA (PDF) by saying the legislation does not authorize a company "to breach a contract with any other party," including a terms of service agreement.
If it had been adopted during the floor debate, it would have allowed e-mail providers, social networks, and other companies to pledge not to share customers' confidential information with the National Security Agency, Homeland Security, or any other organization under CISPA -- and made that pledge legally enforceable in court.
That language has alarmed dozens of advocacy groups, including the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders, which sent a letter (PDF) to Congress last month opposing CISPA. It says: "CISPA's information sharing regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like Internet records or the content of e-mails, to any agency in the government."
A representative for House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), CISPA's primary author, did not immediately respond to questions from CNET this afternoon.
Other amendments that were approved for discussion during the floor debate include one (PDF) that restricts when federal agencies may vacuum up library records, firearm-sales records, educational records, and medical records. Another (PDF) says CISPA will not authorize the NSA or any other spy agencies "to target a United States person for surveillance."
A reprise of 2012?
Last year, a similar coalition mounted an attempt to defeat CISPA. It failed: despite a presidential veto threat and opposition from Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and many of the same critics who offered amendments this week, the House of Representatives approved the measure by a largely party line vote of 248-168. The bill did not, however, receive a vote in the Senate because of wrangling over a Democratic-backed bill with , and it never became law.
A House committeelast week without four key sought by opponents that would have curbed the National Security Agency's ability to collect confidential data.
CISPA's advocates say it's needed to encourage companies to share more information with the federal government, and to a lesser extent among themselves. A "Myth v. Fact" paper (PDF) prepared by the House Intelligence committee says any claim that "this legislation creates a wide-ranging government surveillance program" is a myth.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who voted against the bill during last week's House Intelligence meeting, said at the time he was "disappointed" that his proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by his colleagues.
"It is not too much to ask that companies make sure they aren't sending private information about their customers, their clients, and their employees to intelligence agencies," Schiff said.
Unlike last year's signed on as supporters., in which Internet users and civil liberties groups allied with technology companies against Hollywood, no broad alliance exists this time. Companies including AT&T, Comcast, EMC, IBM, Intel, McAfee, Oracle, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon have instead
There are some exceptions. As CNET, Facebook has been one of the few companies to rescind its support. Microsoft has . Google has not taken a public position.