Showing posts with label Liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberties. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

House cyber bill protects privacy, civil liberties while addressing threat

By Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas) and Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) - 04/18/13 05:00 PM ET

Cyber espionage and warfare pose a grave threat to our nation. Foreign countries such as China and Iran are conducting massive cyber attacks and espionage campaigns on the United States, disrupting our networks and stealing our trade secrets. In both open and classified briefings, we hear far too often about the loss of American companies’ corporate trade secrets and the jobs that go along with them. Although our nation is vulnerable to serious damage from cyber attacks, we do not have to concede this fight, nor should we wait for a crippling incident to act. It is imperative that we safeguard our networks from foreign hackers while still protecting Americans’ privacy and civil liberties.

Today the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence and Sharing Act (CISPA), a bipartisan effort led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger. It addresses these dangerous cyber threats while preserving and prioritizing both privacy and security equally.

Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger made clear from when they first started drafting this bill a year and a half ago that they were open to constructive ideas to improve it. As a result, privacy groups, members of Congress, and a variety of private sector companies and organizations accepted their offer, and CISPA was amended and improved through tightening the bill’s language and definitions, adding privacy protections, and including important oversight mechanisms to ensure that the bill’s authorities are always used properly.

Before it went to the floor, the committee voted unanimously to strike the government’s national security use exception from the legislation to address the concern of privacy groups who were fearful of misuse of information under the guise of national security. There was also an amendment creating a five-year expiration of the legislation to allow for adequate review of provisions in the future. Nevertheless, some continue to misunderstand CISPA, and we urge those with remaining concerns to read this important bill carefully.

Countries such as China, Russia, and Iran have already hacked the networks of American companies holding sensitive information about American customers. Hackers working for organized crime networks in Russia and Eastern Europe are working around the clock to break into networks containing Americans’ private banking information including credit card numbers and other account information. They can steal American corporate trade secrets, such as blueprints for innovative products under development, and competitive bid information for business transactions that could create new American jobs. Hackers working for Chinese Intelligence services have infiltrated American media outlets and think tanks which publish content critical of the Chinese government to determine the identity of our reporters’ sources in order to punish and imprison them. 

As CISPA advances to the Senate, we must not let misplaced fears about the bill’s authorities prevent us from addressing the severe threat posed by advanced, foreign cyber threats.

If it becomes law, CISPA will strengthen our cybersecurity, improve our ability to defend American networks and our sensitive data, and continue to protect our privacy and civil liberties. But all of this is only possible if we successfully dispel the false rumors surrounding CISPA and educate the public about the improvements this bill has undergone since its introduction. We come from two very different political parties and disagree on many issues, but we both believe this bill is critical for our nation and hope to see is become law very soon.

Peters represents California’s 52nd Congressional District. He is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Jenkins represents Kansas’s 2nd congressional district. She is the vice chairwoman of the House Republican Conference and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

View Comments

View the original article here

Thursday, May 17, 2012

The FY 13 NDAA Keeps Terrorists Off U.S. Soil without Compromising Civil Liberties

Guest post from Rep. Louie Gohmert, Rep. Jeff Landry, and Rep. Scott Rigell

This week, the House will fulfill our most important constitutional duty by debating the FY 13 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In accordance with the framer’s intent, this act is the primary check that Congress can apply to the Executive Branch on defense and national security policy.

Last year, constitutional conservatives raised the alarm bell about some provisions in the FY 12 NDAA; provisions that many were concerned would grant President Obama far reaching powers to detain American citizens without trial. The bill ultimately passed, but has become the subject of countless town hall meetings, tweets, and Facebook posts in the months since.

The debate has become so heated that many believe that the NDAA is a bill that deals strictly with detaining terrorists. It is much more than that. Aside from dictating how the military can handle any al Qaeda terrorists they capture, the FY13 NDAA deals with the full scope of national security issues. There is much in it, from a rejection of the Obama administration’s effort to raise health care fees on military retirees; to making sure the President doesn’t trade our missile defenses away to the Russians, that Conservatives can be proud of.

The real question before us is how to adjust the language from last year that has made so many so uncomfortable while still ensuring that we can fight and win the War on Terror. The base bill has already made important steps in the right direction. It includes the Rigell / Landry reassertion of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This language firmly states that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the FY 12 NDAA detainee provisions do not allow for the detention of any person in the United States without the right of redress. Under this provision, all Americans have access to the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The underlying language is being further strengthened by the Gohmert / Landry / Rigell Amendment which further states that no citizens’s constitutional rights will be denied in an Article III court pursuant to the AUMF. The best way to protect our rights is to put simple and clear language in the NDAA that lays those rights out. Between the new language in the base bill and our amendment, we are confident we have done that.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-MA) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) have a competing amendment that simply goes too far. Their bill extends constitutional protections beyond U.S. citizens to any terrorist who is captured in the United States. We share the concerns of legal experts who worry that by granting terrorists greater rights if they are captured in America than if they are captured overseas, we are actually giving terrorists a profound incentive to attack us here at home. The Smith/Amash amendment grants foreign terrorists or foreign soldiers rights our own military do not have in court under the Constitutional Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Our approach is the better alternative. It protects our constitutional rights, but does not extend them to the very men who have been fighting for a decade to tear that great document down.


View the original article here