White House Opposes House Cybersecurity Bill: It ‘Lacks Necessary Protections For Individuals’

The House is expected to vote this week on the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), a new bill — sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) — meant to address cybersecurity threats by improving public-private information sharing capabilities. However, privacy rights groups and activists are criticizing the measure because its vague language could allow private companies to share personal information with government agencies without protections, such as obtaining a warrant.

Last week an Obama administration official denounced any legislation that would “sacrifice the privacy of our citizens in the name of security” but today, the White House signaled out CISPA specifically for criticism, the Guardian reports:

Ahead of the bill coming in front of the House of Representatives alongside three other cybersecurity bills, Alec Ross, a senior adviser for innovation to Hillary Clinton, reiterated the administration’s opposition to the proposals in more explicit language than previous White House statements.

“The Obama administration opposes Cispa,” he told the Guardian. “The president has called for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. There is absolutely a need for comprehensive cybersecurity legislation.

“[But] part of what has been communicated to congressional committees is that we want legislation to come with necessary protections for individuals.”

In addition to criticism from the White House, rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation, launched a campaign last week to raise awareness about CISPA’s lack of privacy protection.

But despite the opposition, Rogers told TPM yesterday that the House will most likely pass the bill. “I feel pretty confident that we’ll close out the bill,” he said. “There is a strong chance that the bill will be passed [by the House this] week.”

Rogers said he is open to making changes to the measure to satisfy its critics but claimed that there are “some people who aren’t interested in having any bill happen.”