A controversial cyber-security bill known as CISPA is once again in the news. The House approved the bill last week, and it now moves to the Senate, but opponents of the measure are not going down without a fight. Today, in fact, hacker collective Anonymous is calling on websites to go dark in protest of CISPA as they did last year against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).

But what is CISPA and why is it creating such a ruckus? Why is it being compared to SOPA and PIPA? Let’s break it down.

What is CISPA? CISPA stands for Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

What does it do? CISPA would allow for voluntary information sharing between private companies and the government in the event of a cyber attack. If the government detects a cyber attack that might take down Facebook or Google, for example, they could notify those companies. At the same time, Facebook or Google could inform the feds if they notice unusual activity on their networks that might suggest a cyber attack.

Sounds OK. What’s the problem? Backers argue that CISPA is necessary to protect the U.S. against cyber attacks from countries like China and Iran. But opponents said that it would allow companies to easily hand over users’ private information to the government thanks to a liability clause. This, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, “essentially means CISPA would override the relevant provisions in all other laws—including privacy laws.”

Is that true? The bill’s sponsors, Reps. Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, say no. But amidst backlash over the vague wording in the bill, the congressmen introduced an amendment that would require the government to anonymize any data it turns over to a private company.

Did that do the trick? Not exactly. The White House has threatened to veto CISPA, in part because it does not require private companies to do the same and anonymize the data they hand over to the government. That would impose an onerous burden on private companies and perhaps deter them from participating in this voluntary program, backers claim.

What type of personal information are we talking about? According to the EFF, “CISPA is written broadly enough to permit your communications service providers to share your emails and text messages with the government, or your cloud storage company could share your stored files.” Bill sponsors, however, argued that CISPA is needed to keep that data safe, pointing to foreign hackers who have hit U.S. companies in an effort to steal information. The ability to share data about incoming cyber attacks as quick as possible could thwart the improper use of that data, they said.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417993,00.asp

Lyle Denniston looks at the issues of Miranda warnings, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tsarnaev’s protections under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, and the public safety exception.

The statements at issue:

“The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda [warnings] if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario.”

– Emily Bazelon, a columnist for Slate.com, in an article on April 19, “Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?” 

“[As of Saturday night] Authorities have not read him his Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Federal law enforcement officials said they plan to use a public safety exception, outlined in a 1984 Supreme Court decision, ‘in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence.’”

– Washington Post story on April 21, by reporters Joel Achenbach and Robert Barnes, “Authorities seek answers in Boston Marathon bombing.”

We checked the Constitution, and…

Some three decades ago, the Supreme Court for the first time gave police and federal agents the authority to avoid giving criminal suspects Miranda warnings about their constitutional rights, when the public safety justified that suspension. That authority, given in the 1984 decision of New York v. Quarles, has since been expanded by lower courts so that, even if a suspect has claimed the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, the questioning can go on if the public safety threat remains.

How long such questioning can continue, and what kinds of questions can be asked, is now the source of considerable uncertainty, as officials have developed interrogation policies they think are necessary in dealing with terrorist incidents. But one thing does remain certain: the Constitution still requires that the police not use outright coercion in order to get answers even to the most pressing questions. If authorities want to use the evidence that they gain by such questioning, that evidence must have been given voluntarily.

In the case of the 19-year-old suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon and other crimes after that, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, there is no doubt that he has some protection under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment against being forced to implicate himself. He is a U.S. citizen, so he has the legal shield of the Constitution. (On April 2, we discussed the rights during terrorism investigations of suspects who are not U.S. citizens; those rights may differ.)

—

Click below for the full article.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/04/constitution-check-are-there-limits-on-questioning-a-bombing-suspect/