from the Government…
The Senate intends to pass a new warrantless surveillance bill granting government broad new authorities for collecting your personal information from private businesses, and it’s up to you and me to stop them.
On Wednesday the Senate may hold its first vote on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA), S. 754.
Promoted as a “much-needed” “cybersecurity” bill, Congress devised a new way for intelligence agencies to collect your emails and sensitive data.
The bill “encourages” private companies like Google, Facebook, and Yahoo to monitor their networks and share “cyber threat indicators” broadly with agencies like the FBI, NSA, and CIA.
Worse yet, the bill allows the government to share and use your information for reasons completely unrelated to cybersecurity!
And on top of all that, this bill grants companies immunity to ensure they give the government as much information as possible…
Without having to make any effort to redact your sensitive information.
Let that sink in for a moment…
The same government that can’t protect its own data on 22.1 million federal employees, contractors, and their families and friends wants private businesses to share your personal information freely with them.
And if (more likely, when) your information is misused either by government agencies, private businesses, or both, you will be unable to hold anyone accountable.
Guffaw, you and I can both see this isn’t going to end well.
CISA is justified as necessary to stop hackers…
But sharing your Google searches and emails with Homeland Security will not stop hackers.
In fact, nothing in this bill would stop any of the cyber-attacks publicized in the press this year.
When it comes down to it, this is nothing more than a new warrantless surveillance bill.
Congress should be rolling back intelligence agencies’ surveillance powers, not granting new ones.
Recently, the President of the American Library Association, Sari Feldman, spoke out against the bill saying,
“When librarians oppose a bill with ‘information sharing’ in its name you can be sure that the bill is decidedly more than advertised.”
Businesses like Twitter, Yelp, Facebook, and Google all oppose this bill.
You only need to look at who is sponsoring this bill to realize it isn’t for your benefit or mine.
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Richard Burr (R-NC), two of the biggest surveillance state proponents in the Senate, are working diligently to ram this legislation through.
And that makes the first potential vote on Wednesday crucial.
Per standing Senate rules, the Senate needs 60 votes to proceed on the bill.
Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), have all vocally opposed this legislation.
But it’s going to take an outpouring of opposition from grassroots Americans like you to stop this warrantless surveillance bill from passing the Senate.
These petitions let your senators know you see right through the thin façade of “cybersecurity” and recognize this bill for what it is – a new warrantless surveillance bill.
At a time when Congress needs to do more to rein in the intelligence agencies to protect your privacy, many senators are trying to expand the surveillance state.
Let them know you’ll have nothing of it.
Please take action today, then forward this email to your friends and family and ask them to sign their emergency “Stop the Surveillance State!” Fax Petitions as well.
Public pressure matters. And if you remain silent, don’t look to blame others later for your lost liberties.
It’s time the American people stand up and say, “Enough is enough!”
Director of Legislation
P.S. After you’ve signed your emergency “Stop the Surveillance State!” Fax Petitions, please consider making a generous contribution to Campaign for Liberty to help defray the cost of this program to fight back against this new warrantless surveillance bill.
Because of Campaign For Liberty’s tax-exempt status under IRC Sec. 501(C)(4) and its state and federal legislative activities, contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions (IRC § 170) or as business deductions (IRC § 162(e)(1)).www.CampaignForLiberty.org
This came my way, and I thought it worth sharing! – Guffaw