|
|
Tom Marino on Technology |
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill will cripple National Public Radio, public radio stations, and programming that is vital to over 27 million Americans. We are now voting to deny the public access to one of our Nation's most credible sources of news coverage. This bill does not save a penny. This legislation does not serve any fiscal purpose, but it does serve an ugly ideological one. This legislation is not about reforming NPR. It is about punishing NPR. It is vindictive, it is mean-spirited, it is going to hit the smallest stations in rural areas particularly hard. Public radio is indispensable for access to news that's hard to get, especially where broadband service is limited.
Congressional Summary:Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA (in the Senate, Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act or the PROTECT IP Act, or PIPA) :
OnTheIssues Notes: SOPA and PIPA, proponents claim, would better protect electronic copyright ("IP", or Intellectual Property). Opponents argue that SOPA and PIPA would censor the Internet. Internet users and entrepreneurs oppose the two bills; google.com and wikipedia.com held a "blackout" on Jan. 18, 2012 in protest. An alternative bill, the OPEN Act was proposed on Jan. 18 to protect intellectual property without censorship; internet businesses prefer the OPEN Act while the music and movie industries prefer SOPA and PIPA.
Congressional Summary:The Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act (or PRECISE Act): NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY AUTHORITY: To protect Federal systems and critical infrastructure information systems and to prepare the Nation to respond to acts of cyberterrorism, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall--
Committee Discussion (Josh Smith in National Journal, & BankInfoSecurity.com, Feb. 1, 2012):Sponsor Dan Lundgren says the bill addresses cyber-risks "in the least disruptive manner." Some proposals in the Senate, for example, would give the DHS authority to regulate, rather than simply designate critical infrastructure. Lungren adds, "Preserving the status quo of voluntary action, are no longer acceptable."
The legislation would establish the National Information Sharing Organization, or NISO, that would facilitate the exchange of vital cyber-threat information. Karen Evans, Pres. Bush's CIO, questions the need for NISO: "Creating another organization seems like it will slow down process not necessarily enhance it."
Opponent's Comments (bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com, Feb. 2, 2012):[NISO is a] "public-private organization". America has plenty of them, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why would the government need to get involved with corporations' cyber-protection? Sharing info is well and good, but this new cyber-security organization will begin to take control of cyber-security, after appropriating billions for research. What will this research comprise of? Bringing in experts and companies; then carbon-copying their tactics and making them mandatory; instead of letting the market pick the best tactics.