[rpedroso]

Because CISPA's definition of a "cybersecurity" threat is too broad. One of the vague terms it employs is "unauthorized access" -- a term we have seen abused recently in the cases of Aaron Swartz and Weev.

My fear is that, like the PATRIOT act, CISPA will grant overly-broad powers to intelligence agencies that will be employed for general surveillance. My view is that any law that curtails liberty should do so minimally. I don't oppose fighting cybersecurity threats, but the bill needs work still.

For anyone curious, the ACLU has several blog posts breaking down the problems with CISPA: http://www.aclu.org/search/cispa?show_aff=1

[tptacek]

You just made an argument that is directly contradicted by the text of the bill.

    ‘(B) EXCLUSION.— Such term does not 
    23 include information pertaining to efforts to gain 
    24 unauthorized access to a system or network of 
    25 a government or private entity that solely in
    1 volve violations of consumer terms of service or 
    2 consumer licensing agreements and do not oth-
    3 erwise constitute unauthorized access.

[declan]

Except that Aaron Swartz was not charged with unauthorized access "solely" because of his violation of a TOU or EULA.

Mind you, I'm not saying the previous poster's claim is the best argument against CISPA, but that your claim of "directly contradicted" is false.

[tptacek]

No, I was responding to the "unauthorized access" point in the parent comment. Since you can't be charged with a crime under CISPA at all, I'm not sure how your comment isn't a non sequitur.

[trhtrsh]

You can be charged with a crime under existing law, and CISPA can be used to collect evidence for that charge.