During his State of the Union address, Obama highlighted two issues where he would work with the Republican Congress which should have raised red flags for progressives: trade and cybersecurity.
Yesterday and today, the House of Representatives took up legislation on the latter issue passing two bills described by civil libertarian groups as surveillance bills in disguise.
Yesterday, the House passed the Protecting Cyber Networks Act 307 to 116. 202 Republicans and 105 Democrats voted for it. 37 Republicans and 79 Democrats voted against it.
Earlier this week, a coalition of civil liberties groups and security experts wrote to Congress urging members to oppose the bill.
Here is what PCNA would do:
Authorize companies to significantly expand monitoring of their users’ online activities, and permit sharing of vaguely defined “cyber threat indicators” without adequate privacy protections prior to sharing.Require federal entities to automatically disseminate to the NSA all cyber threat indicators they receive, including personal information about individuals.
Authorize overbroad law enforcement uses that go far outside the scope of cybersecurity
Authorize companies to deploy invasive countermeasures, euphemistically called “defensive measures”
Here’s the Electronic Frontier Foundation further explaining why CISA (the Senate bill) and PCNA (the House bill) are bad for civil liberties:
The two bills are part of a slew of cybersecurity bills that have been introduced in Congress this year that are ostensibly intended to facilitate more information sharing about computer security threats from the private sector to the government. But the bills aren’t about “information sharing.” They’re about surveillance. The bill’s vague definition and broad legal immunity for new spying powers will facilitate a potentially enormous amount of unrelated personal information to government agencies like the NSA.The bills’ immunity provisions could even increase the militarization of the internet by encouraging companies to conduct computer network exfiltration attacks on adversary’s computers.
To make matters worse, companies are granted broad legal immunity leaving them free to share the information without being concerned about what it might be used for. And as one of the letters points out: “CISA allows everyday police to use the information to investigate crimes that have nothing to do with cybersecurity, such as robbery, arson, and carjacking.”
The MA delegation split on the bill.
Four of them voted for it: Richard Neal (MA-01), Joe Kennedy (MA-04), Seth Moulton (MA-06), and Bill Keating (MA-09).
Five of them voted against it: Jim McGovern (MA-02), Niki Tsongas (MA-03), Katherine Clark (MA-05), Stephen Lynch (MA-07), and Mike Capuano (MA-08).
Today, the House took up the National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015.
This bill is similar to the one passed yesterday:
The second bill, which recently advanced out of the Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote, is similar to the cyber-networks bill, but it would use the Department of Homeland Security as an intermediary for sharing the electronic information. In return, companies would get protection from civil suits brought by consumers who think the information sharing violates privacy laws.
Today’s bill passed 355 to 63. 220 Republicans and and 135 Democrats voted for it. 44 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted against it.
The MA delegation voted largely the same way as they did yesterday, with one exception: Stephen Lynch went from a supporter of civil liberties to an opponent.
Neal, Kennedy, Moulton, and Keating voted twice to erode privacy rights.
McGovern, Tsongas, Clark, and Capuano voted twice to defend them.
Adapted from two posts from the Daily Kos (one and two)
“these reps voted to strengthen our protections against terrorists”
Not saying I actually have an opinion on this without some research, but if our delegation is split on this issue, and 75% of the Dems are for it, the right path can’t be that clear cut
Nearly fifteen years after 9/11, we apparently still haven’t learned our lesson about destroying our civil liberties in the guise of “protections against terrorists”. Let’s be sure we protect against pink elephants as well.
This is a reprise of the venerable “indulgences racket” that played such a large role in creating what we now today as the “Protestant” religious tradition. The Catholic church, at the time, sold “indulgences”. Here’s how the racket worked:
Parishioner: Father, bad things have happened to me, I fear I’m being punished for something.
Priest: My son, you are being punished for your sins. For a small price, you may be forgiven. Your punishment will stop.
Time passes…
Parishioner: Father, bad things are still happening even though I did what you said.
Priest: My son, you must not have bought enough. This week, we’re having a special …
Like the torture we committed during our “war on terror”, there is precious little evidence that our explosion of surveillance has done anything to lessen our risk. What it has done is shred our privacy.
As far as I’m concerned, the observation that “75% of Dems” are for this travesty says more about their courage in the face of panic and hysteria than it does about the “right” path. In my view, the learning is that political cowardice today is, sadly, bipartisan.
…that Americans are panicked. It would seem politically OK for the pendulum to swing back the other direction a bit.
and if you happened to watch this PBS Frontline this week it appears even if we are intercepting terrorist communications going back and forth from the US, we often don’t know what to do with it.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365470951/
https://stopcyberspying.com/
So, here we have Seth Moulton voting to show us that he is not a civil libertarian. He’s also voted to weaken Dodd-Frank.
How much are going to take from this guy before we realize that he is a DINO and we need to run an opponent against him in the primary?
at this point you have to start to wonder.
The authentic handle of our blog regular is jconway, not j-a-m-e-s-c-o-n-w-a-y.
Here is my Manchester cadence:
https://youtu.be/HHcOl97Wvmg
on Bloomberg’s Congressman and surveillance.
The downrate is as nuts as Dunkin Donuts’
artificial hazelnut coffee flavor.
Around Moulton’s district, a Democratic State Committee SEAt
is up for grabs. We must support someone who will discharge
Seth Moulton from our United States Congress.
Bloomberg’s boy beat two opponents during their last primary,
including the incumbent.
jconway and jamesconway are not the same person, I think you’re mistaken. I assume he has reasons for wanting to change his nic, and for the downrate, as well. I doubt that either one is “nuts.”
A) Name Change
I know some of you offline, I want to come back to MA to work in policy/politics, and I’ve been pretty honest about my full name for awhile, just noticed I could change it so I made the change. It only appears on ratings and some comments though.
B) The downrate
I think charging primary challenges over a few bad votes is a bad strategy, and like I’ve argued extensively in the past-Seth is the best Democrat we can get in that district. It’s a hot air fly off the handle emotional response that is neither reality based or productive for a broader progressive agenda. I also note that Kennedy has been voting poorly on civil liberty issues for years now and no one has proposed a primary challenger there. And that Clark has a mixed record as a state senator and is now a fabulous Congresswoman. People can evolve and change, ideally via dialogue and meeting halfway.
Even Lynch has lurched leftward a bit now that he realized Southie is changing and his old base is dying off, and that he is unviable statewide with his old record. We can make it clear to Seth that he won’t get our money, volunteer time, or support for higher office over these votes. A primary challenge is nuts for that district, though I encourage blue watch to run and see how many votes he or she gets.
I’ll simply say I respect bluewatch and usually agree, and we even agree on this issue, I am certainly not defending these votes, but we argued over whether a primary challenge was practical in the 6th in this exchange in an earlier thread. I think that specific question is a distracting one, particularly when we have a President and likely future nominee also committed to continuing these policies as well as a Patriot Act extension vote coming up that we have an opportunity to lobby our delegation-those on the right side and especially those on the wrong side of this particular vote, to vote the right way there.
And because I don’t, I’m in no position to argue with you about the value of a primary challenge there.
But I am next door to Richie Neal’s district. I’ve had him in my house doing fundraising. And he’s effectively untouchable because of his seniority in the House — he’s in a useful position, and he brings home the dollars — but even so, I’d support a challenge in a heartbeat if I thought there were anyone who could spook him enough to get him to pay attention on issues like this one. It’s not like we’re in danger of losing the district to a Republican, and universal surveillance ought to be unacceptable to all of us, dammit. It’s one of a smallish handful of issues I consider fundamental, and while I wouldn’t argue for challenging incumbents over nonfundamentals, or over small disagreements, in safe Dem districts I have trouble seeing the argument for shrugging votes like this one off.
(But then, there are areas where I’m still an idealist. It’s a good thing I don’t live in 04: I’d probably change my name to Cromwell, and spend the rest of my life trying to unseat Joe Kennedy, whose qualifications for that seat appear to consist almost entirely of his lineage. Winning? A secondary concern! No bishops, no king, it’s a matter of principle!)
A Cromwell won’t be beating a Kennedy in Massachusetts any time before the Second Coming, though I will agree with the sentiment that while Massachusetts has finally learned to fight the bishops when they are wrong, it’s high time we hold our local kings to the same standard.
It’s no doubt a quirk of neurology, but I genuinely cannot understand why the hell anyone would vote for some guy just because he’s inherited a scrap of some other guy’s DNA. I know it’s a thing; I know people all over the globe have felt this was a perfectly reasonable way of choosing political authorities time out of mind. But that doesn’t mean I understand why anyone who has a choice would put up with it, in the face of a dynastic candidate who clearly isn’t the best choice on any other metric.
…at least on the Dem side as he pretty much cleared the field. Granted that may have been the last name talking too. I would say though, that in addition to genes and name, families like the Kennedys also inherit what they feel is a duty to serve the public. You don’t have to vote for them of course, but family connections should neither automatically qualify nor disqualify someone for elective office.
By announcing his candidacy, as I recall, even though there was nothing in particular to recommend him beyond his name. There was at least one other candidate, if I’m remembering correctly, who did have something by way of a track record and more progressive positions, but he was out the instant Kennedy declared.
He has as much right as anyone else to run, of course. But this sense of duty — well, in the absence of evidence that he doesn’t want the job and is making a sacrifice in forcing himself to do it anyway, I’m afraid it looks more like a sense of entitlement, or perhaps merely an unthinking assumption that by virtue of being who he is, he must automatically be the most qualified person for the office.
Would never vote for a Cromwell, period. And I do live in the district.
The Cromwells are staff. Like any other staff who are highly motivated, and not exactly voter magnets themselves.
His regime turned to military dictatorship and led to the idea that maybe the Stuarts weren’t so bad (and ultimately more tolerant) after all.
Whig historiography would’ve been discredited by now if America didn’t have this dangerous love affair with Locke. But that is a discussion for another day, perhaps over a pint, where you can toast to the Windsor usurper and I’ll toast the king over the water 😉
It may have to be a pint of soda since I don’t drink, but I in fact once participated in a debate at Georgetown at the invitation of a friend, “RESOLVED that this House will not accepted Hanoverian impostors.” I argued for Parliament’s right to alter the succession, though tend to be sympathetic to legitimist claims. I’m also glad you brought up Locke. In HS debate I was frustrated by judges worshiping him. It seemed that whoever most strongly invoked Locke consistently shut down and won the debate. We’re probably hijacking the thread at this point though.
The Glorious Revolution not occurring, or the Battle of the Boyne going the other way, would’ve had dramatic ramifications on the whole of world history. Irish Catholics were an integral part of the Stuart base of support and likely Irish nationalism would not have occurred to the same degree if at all, there would have been religious liberty (for Christians anyway) about a century before Victoria. Would that have led to Burke staying Catholic or Disraeli staying Jewish? Would Maryland or Pennsylvania been as strongly settled by dissenters?
Peaceful relations with France would’ve been a given, and a dramatic shift from actual 18th century history. No Queen Anne’s War or War of Spanish Succession-and thus, no French and Indian War. Without any of those incidents occurring, it is far less likely an indebted Britain taxes the colonists leading to their revolt or that we take the Northwest Territory from France. France would also be significantly less indebted so their Revolution is less likely. That means no Napoleon. Harder to extrapolate further than that, but surprised there’s been no book on the subject.
I just can’t resist for this topic. Were you an APDA debater in college? It was really awkward to read about Ted Cruz as a debater this week, with all the flack he is getting for one of his sex jokes, I strongly hope nobody remember what crazy positions I advocated for when I was on the circuit.
I started parliamentary debate freshman year at GWU , but didn’t stick with it. The aforementioned G-Town debate was organized by another friend of the friend who invited me who is a straight-up unapologetic Jacobite.
I meant it purely for the anti-royalist association, not as an endorsement of the Roundheads (Right, but Repulsive, as 1066 And All That reminds us; and not even all that right).