Internet An earlier version of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act was killed in the House of Represeitves last April. The act, which would allow the U.S. government and certain technology companies to share Internet traffic information, was killed because of protests by Internet activists and the threat of a presidential veto.

Now, Rolling Stone is reporting that two lawmakers, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and congressman Dutch Ruppersberger, have reintroduced the bill. They claim it is needed to combat national security concerns.

After recent Chinese hacking attacks on The New York Times and the Washington Post, Ruppersberger says that CISPA is necessary to fight ongoing cyber-security threats. “People ask me all the time, ‘What keeps you up at night?’ And I say, ‘Spicy Mexican food, weapons of mass destruction and cyber attacks,’” he said. “We have a serious problem. We’re trying to fix this problem.”

Rogers says the nation needs to take a stronger stance on cyber-security. “The senior leadership in the intelligence community said that they think we can stop 90 percent of our problems just by sharing classified cyber threat information,” he said.

If passed, the CISPA would null current privacy laws and give the government permission to access tweets, private emails and Facebook messages.

Are you prepared to give up your online rights in the name of national security? How important are Internet privacy laws to you?

  • Misshightower

    You already are……

  • Wong Chia Chi

    No. I’m not willing to give up my privacy for national security. What’s next my civil rights? Sorry but eff that.

  • Lady Ngo

    I have a hard time believing that the gov’t doesn’t already have access to (or at least ways of accessing) that info now so…

  • Trisha

    I believe the government has access to everything including looking directly into our homes. So I know they have access to social media.

  • AnGe

    The only way to legitimize infringing upon the rights of citizens is create some kind of panic or highlight some urgent terror just around the corner.

    No I’m not interested in loosing my already incredibly limited and superficial rights to privacy.

  • london via africa

    Lets not let our governments use scare tactics to frighten us into giving up our liberties, It’s the oldest trick in the book.
    “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety,” word to Benjamin Franklin!

  • Val

    We only have the illusion of privacy as it is, so we need to stop the government from encroaching even further into our private lives.

Latest Stories

10 Questions No One Will Ask Ex-Boxing Champ Kassim Ouma After Assaulting a Man Who Came On To Him


10 Things We Can Learn From Olivia Pope On “Scandal”


Struggling To Tell Black People Apart? Watch David Alan Grier Hilariously Break It Down


Carol’s Daughter Files For Bankruptcy

More in internet, privacy rights
Are Google’s Search Algorithms Racist? MIT Researcher Thinks So