While (most, not all) Republicans seems to largely embrace and support the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISP) sponsored by congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), Politico provides a ray of hope for those who oppose what rights groups are calling a slick "government surveillance" bill. According to Politico, Democrats don't like the bill for the same reason that rights groups don't like it: it doesn't provide any provision to protect privacy and it contains murky and loose language that violates the Constitution and protects corporations from repercussions by citizens in court.
One major concern among critics is that the bill contains no language to bar the National Security Agency from heading up a new regime in charge of all this information. It was one of many amendments that Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) put forward at yesterday's markup hearing. They were soundly defeated by other members. This amendment was backed by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union. There's also no requirement in the bill that companies strip data of any personally identifiable information they might collect, which was pursued by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).
Schiff and Schakowsky, were the only members to vote "no" yesterday. They promise to bring similar amendments to the full floor of the House next week.
The other good news is the language coming out of the White House following yesterday's markup hearing. While the President's spokesperson didn't say he would outright veto the bill, she did say that bill still needs better privacy protections.
"The administration seeks to build upon the productive dialogue with Chairman Rogers and ranking member Ruppersberger over the last several months, and the administration looks forward to continuing to work with them to ensure that any cybersecurity legislation reflects these principles,” the spokeswoman said – adding that "further, we believe the adopted committee amendments reflect a good-faith effort to incorporate some of the administration’s important substantive concerns, but we do not believe these changes have addressed some outstanding fundamental priorities."