A bipartisan group of House members introduced a bill on Wednesday to repeal cybersecurity legislation passed by Congress last month as part of the annual omnibus package, insisting that language amounts to an “anti-privacy law” that would have had difficulty passing on its own.
“Most representatives are probably unaware they even voted on this legislation,” said the bill’s chief author, Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. “It’s the worst anti-privacy law since the USA PATRIOT Act, and we should repeal it as soon as possible.”
Co-sponsors of the legislation include Democrats John Conyers of Michigan, Zoe Lofgren of California and Jared Polis of Colorado, and Republicans Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Ted Poe of Texas.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2578762
In his statement, Amash complained that the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 “facilitates unconstitutional, warrantless surveillance” and “grants immunity from liability to companies that share employees’ or users’ private information with the government or other companies.”
The legislation provides immunity to companies that share such information in the event of a cybersecurity threat. However, they are directed to make an effort to omit personally identifiable information, and to restrict the information that is shared to aggregated sets of data.
Though Amash points out that the final version of the legislation passed as part of the 2,009-page spending package rushed through Congress last month, an earlier version of the legislation passed the Senate 74-21 in October. Two versions of the legislation passed the House in April, each with support from more than 300 of the chamber’s 435 members.
#CISA, worst anti-privacy bill since #PatriotAct, passes as part of terrible #omnibus. Here’s how your rep voted => https://t.co/9Z6d2nGlwY
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) December 18, 2015
#CISA allows federal govt to mine your personal data—including content of communications—from private companies without liability. #StopCISA
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) December 15, 2015
Amash has been vocal in his opposition throughout the process, stressing a view that the legislation is going to allow the federal government to mine personal data, “including content of communications,” free of liability.
The proposal for repeal will serve as a counterbalance to legislation proposed by security hawks on the other end of the spectrum. The “Liberty Through Strength Act II,” co-sponsored most notably by presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., would return more power to the National Security Agency to engage in surveillance on its own. Proponents suggest that asking companies to do so voluntarily could drastically impede the ability of the intelligence community to conduct quick investigations.
The issue became a point of contention between Rubio and fellow presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during the fifth presidential debate in December when candidates discussed the USA Freedom Act passed last year. That legislation largely shifted the locus of responsibility for data collection from the NSA to the private sector.
Cruz pointed out that while the old data collection effort covered “20 to 30 percent of phone numbers,” the new system “covers nearly 100 percent.” Rubio responded that the debate wasn’t “the place to discuss classified information,” though he added, “I promise you the next time there is an attack on this country, the first thing people are going to ask is why didn’t we know about it.”
There was at least one unclassified answer that Rubio could have provided, which was the general concern that data collection can be performed more efficiently by the federal government than by allowing the private sector to act as an intermediary.
Related Story: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2579038
With Amash’s proposal accentuating the divide between privacy and security hawks this week, Rubio may have an opportunity to articulate his line of attack with greater clarity at the debate scheduled for Thursday evening.
