CISPA Veto Threatened By White House

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday threatened to veto a House bill designed to defend critical U.S. industries and corporate networks from electronic attacks by foreign governments, cybercriminals and terrorist groups, arguing the measure falls short in protecting civil liberties.

"Cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive," the administration said in a statement issued just as proponents of the bill made their case for the legislation at a House hearing.

The administration complained that the House bill, which has bipartisan support, would allow sharing of information with the government without requiring industry and the government to minimize and protect personal information.

The statement said that if the bill were presented to the president in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.

The House is schedule to begin work on the bill on Thursday, with a final vote on Friday. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the panel's top Democrat, Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, announced changes to the bill on Tuesday to allay concerns of some lawmakers. Republicans said they expect the measure to pass despite the opposition of some lawmakers.

The administration backs a bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, that would give Homeland Security the authority to set security standards. That bill remains stalled in the Senate.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said Wednesday he hoped House passage of the bill would pressure the Democratic-controlled Senate to move on its legislation.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Martampa]

03:59 PM on 04/27/2012

The big question of the day - Will Obama cave as usual?

[Revrant]

12:53 AM on 04/27/2012

"which has bipartisan support"

I wish you clogs in the media would stop saying this, it's almost entirely Democrats opposing it and the Democrats who aren't are the big corp RIAA/MIAA toadies.

[oldsquare]

11:51 AM on 04/26/2012

Good, bad or otherwise, I can guarantee there is big money in it for someone, business or group....

[J0E1]

10:20 AM on 04/26/2012

If he is threatening to VETO the bill, it means the bill doesn't give him enough power as president.  Take NDAA for example.  Everyone was led to believe Obamas "VETO threats" were due to the clause that allowed indefinite detention of American Citizens.  In fact, it was the exact opposite.  He threatened to VETO unless the clause protecting American Citizens was REMOVED.  Here is a quote from Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee:

“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,”

...and John Woods of Change . org:

“Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. Obama has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment,” writes Wood.

[oldsquare]

11:43 AM on 04/26/2012

Have you slept with the light on for the past three years?

[Wayne Caswell]

09:03 AM on 04/26/2012

The threat of cyber attacks is great enough that this is a good debate to have, and I'm glad consumers are weighing in, but it seems to be moving too quickly. I'd like to see a comparison of the House bill and stalled Senate bill, an analysis of the issues, and options for maintaining privacy while guarding security.

[Midnight Son]

07:42 AM on 04/26/2012

"The administration backs a bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, that would give Homeland Security the authority to set security standards."

LOL! So, obviously, the concern is truly about our civil liberties and privacy, given DHS' stellar record in those areas. ;)

[leftcoastjoe]

12:48 AM on 04/26/2012

We've all seen this game before. Obama issues a veto threat, Obama caves, Obama signs a meaningless signing statement. Remember the NDAA!

[RobertFromMN]

03:33 AM on 04/26/2012

The pretense of reluctance and sober concern is supposed to count for something!

Yes, that's sarcasm.

[leftcoastjoe]

02:09 PM on 04/26/2012

I'm sick of all this hand wringing...just enough to enable Obama loyalists' DENIAL! I guess you could say I fell for Obama in 2008 but the fact that people were that emotionally invested in him that they are blind to the the truth of his actions in office...yeah, I can't not face reality.

[WilliamTheV]

04:31 AM on 04/26/2012

The NDAA was a "must pass" bill. It sets the budget for the entire DoD and miltary, to veto that bill would be to defund the military and DoD, which no president would let happen.

[J0E1]

10:14 AM on 04/26/2012

Yea ok.  Obama threatened to veto the bill UNTIL he was given full power to indefinitely detain American Citizens for being a "terrorists". 

Despite reports that Obama is planning to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, Senator Carl Levin has revealed it was the administration itself that lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.


“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

[leftcoastjoe]

02:03 PM on 04/26/2012

It was a game of chicken and the President blinked (assuming he did not want the NDAA provisions).

[codwix]

12:02 AM on 04/26/2012

obama is called the devil, however
mitt romney will protect us - just like george w bush did

[JohnRoss1968X]

11:36 PM on 04/25/2012

Perhaps he is just saying he will VETO it so the people against it wont put up as much of a fight against it. Then poof he signs it saying how much he would rather not sign it but that he had to.
I voted for Obama, but I do not trust him as far as I could throw him.

[ResearchtheFacts]

10:49 PM on 04/25/2012

Those 800,000 signatures on just one petition alone has him questioning it.

[karim1]

12:20 AM on 05/08/2012

Where is this petition? Secondly, I think President Obama has a serious concern that this could cause a massive, anti-government sentiment, if they enact the CISPA legislation. This is also election time, and this would potentially work against him during the election cycle. The House voted it through, and its ironic that the TEA party congressmen voted in favor of this, and this gives the government more authoritarian powers, and yet TEA party is supposedly against "expanding government." The establishment republicans should have never embraced this culture of politicians. www.firebrandcentral.com

[Candid Centrist]

09:04 PM on 04/25/2012

Obama is a very smart individual, but an arrogant git to keep voicing that Congress is a hindrance to his "vision for America."

I honestly believed that Obama was no advocate of NDAA 2012 when he tried to veto it, even though he signed it in secret on New Years Eve (while everyone was obviously otherwise occupied.)

This "opposition" to C.I.S.P.A. is another opportunity for him to veto a Bill when he knows his veto won't hold, so that he comes out looking like the "good guy" like he did pinning his "discontent" onto the end of NDAA 2012.

Fool me once, shame on you
fool me twice, shame on me.

[emily00011]

12:14 AM on 04/26/2012

who are you going to vote for? No matter who is elected, it will get worse, it's only a matter of how fast. Do you think mccain would have done better? Do you think mitt is interested in protecting your liberty? The only ones in the whole elected govt who are even making a whisper about this are two dem senators.
This goes beyond parties, that's only a distraction. Nothing will change until the people together demand their liberties. That won't happen, division is the new normal.

[firewired]

12:23 AM on 04/26/2012

Sadly, I tend to agree. But there really IS an alternative, one that will be on each State's ballots. Check out this growing organization....what they are doing appeals a lot to me as an Independent. Go to www.americanselect.org for some great information!

[Candid Centrist]

12:52 AM on 04/26/2012

If you read the local papers where conventions are being held (state-by-state) you'd see that Ron Paul is gaining enormous support from delegates (though sadly probably not enough.)

I'm voting for Ron Paul because I'm voting for the best candidate for America - not because the media tells me I have to vote for Obama or Romney. While they argue left vs right, Ron Paul argues up vs down. If CISPA is passed, it's been nice knowing half the internet, as it will be monitored or shut down.

Ron Paul 2012

[Rick Eriksen]

08:50 PM on 04/25/2012

I do not think it really matters anymore...UDC 2013...everything will be there so that the NSA who is not authorized to collect all of this will collect it…several stories on all of this, NSA whistle blowers telling it all, just goggle it and think Orwell…

[Claudia King]

08:49 PM on 04/25/2012

Is Obama Admin. questioning this bill because it has true concerns (even though it has no qualms with yanking civil liberties in other areas, including assassination of any foreign person they choose/any American citizen, without even a fig-leaf of due process), or because Obama needs computer savvy youth and techie voter support in an election year?

[wozzeck57]

08:54 PM on 04/25/2012

So you're saying this is a good bill??

[Claudia King]

02:23 AM on 04/26/2012

No, I am asking if OBAMA really dislikes it or is again making a political calculus.

[annyp]

08:57 PM on 04/25/2012

Something like Stand Your Ground laws, that gives a person the right of judge, jury and executioner?

[Claudia King]

10:23 AM on 04/26/2012

Why would you assume I supported Stand Your Ground laws (I do not) or CISPA (I do not) from my statement? I merely asked whether commenting folks here knew whether Obama was threatening veto of CISPA because he truly has civil liberties qualms (since to has acted in a manner that says he has little problem abolishing our constitution's civil liberties with respect to the issue of arrest for protest and assassination for whatever he and future presidents decide without benefit of process - Google Christopher Hedges lawsuit re the matter) justifies an Executive decision), or whether, with respect to CISPA, he is laregely making a political calculus.

[Jordan Kratz]

08:46 PM on 04/25/2012

CISPA is not a good Bill.It is another broad-based bludgeon written by Non-Technical Politicians.There are so many loopholes in it you can compare this to a slice of Swiss Cheese.
Do you really want a Database created with your Private Info ? CISPA does !!!!
It will be Voted on within 48 hours.If you do not understand it or know what it is you will find many informative Websites to explain it.
Both of the Domains I run are down with a nice big Protest Page to Welcome any Visitors until it is decided.I can almost bet that no TV Station or Big Corporation News have done a report on it where you live.There was a similar block of info in January with SOPA/PIPA.Search your State News and see what I mean.

[ashabot]

08:40 PM on 04/25/2012

CISPA epitomizes Big Government. Naturally Republicans crafted it and are pushing it. They love "free markets" but hate free thought.

[Lunamoth]

08:59 PM on 04/25/2012

Fanned for great comparitive, Ash. And is that 'Conservatives' in the bio?

[ashabot]

09:27 PM on 04/25/2012

Thanks, Lunamoth. I appreciate the heads up.