Representation 101

On April 19, 2013 I wrote my U.S. Representative, Jo Bonner (R) a letter containing questions about CISPA (H.R. 624). I generally expect to recieve a form letter in return for my thoughts, but this time I got something a little better. I read over the bill after it had flown through the House, and while it was still on a few American minds. My questions were based on the following:

Page 10 - line 5-24

"Federal Government in accordance with subsection (b)-
(A) for cyber security purposes;
(B) for the investigation and prosecution of cyber security crimes
(C) for the protection of individuals from the danger of death or serious bodily harm and the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving such danger of death or serious bodily harm;
(D) for the protection of minors from child pornography, any risk of sexual exploitation, and serious threats to the physical safety of minors, including kidnapping and trafficking and the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving child pornography, any risk of sexual exploitation, and serious threats to the physical safety of minors, including kidnapping and trafficking, and any crime referred to in Section 2258A(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code; or to protect the national security of the United States.

I wasn't sure of the correlation between national security and kiddie porn. Although seperate, they are equally serious issues. I wanted no more than clarification so I could better understand, and then pass it on to anyone else who has concerns for personal privacy. The reply I recieved was only half related to my questions, but politically speaking it was perfect. It falls perfectly in line with how we are actually represented.  You can decide...

Dear Mr. Ojanpera:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).  I understand your concern and I am glad you have taken the time to write. 

 Intrusion into the computer networks of American companies and government agencies, theft of intellectual property, and threats to critical infrastructure from non-state actors as well as states like China and Iran represent real and growing threats to American prosperity and national security.  To protect American networks against cyber espionage and cyber-attack, CISPA allows for the voluntary sharing of intelligence on cyber threats and vulnerabilities between government agencies and private industry.  CISPA establishes no new surveillance authorities and requires that the executive branch develop minimization standards to scrub any personally identifiable information (PII) from threat information shared under this act. 

 I supported CISPA when it came before the House because I believe it is important to provide our intelligence and law enforcement communities, along with the private sector, the appropriate tools to guard against cyber espionage and cyber-attacks on American networks and critical infrastructure.  Having passed the House, CISPA awaits consideration in the Senate. 

 I take seriously the concerns some opponents of this legislation have voiced over its effect on privacy and civil liberties.  I believe CISPA contains the appropriate safeguards against the sharing of PII, and the appropriate civil liberties protections, to address many of these concerns.  I will remember your thoughts if related legislation comes before the full House in the 113th Congress. 

 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have concerns about this or any other issue.  With kind regards, I am EMAIL.BEGINHIDE.MERGE

 Sincerely,

Jo Bonner

Member of Congress

If I were of the talking point mentality, the one where "China" and "Iran" made my yankee blood boil, I may have been satisfied. The problem is that I read this letter critically, defining every word. Now I have a few more items that are mucking up the facts. We are not only protecting the government and the private sector from kiddie porn, we are now being protected from international cyber threats, with an option to "scrub" any personal information. Since there is no "new surveillance authorities", I have to assume that these "authorities" have already been covered. Reference Title II of the Patriot Act. If you prefer not to download the document, Title II covers all types of surveillance.

Once again I am left with the feeling that our representation is mostly a ruse. In the case Rep. Bonner, he wants to hear what the opposition has to say, but he knows that it is really too late for any reversal in the government's ability to act as big brother. My advice is to err on the side of caution in your daily communications to avoid any federal intervention. They can see and hear indiscriminately. Welcome to the occupation.