House Passes CISPA CyberSecurity – Ignores Measure To Protect 4th Amendment

The Republican led U.S. House of Representatives passed CISPA on Thursday with a majority of the major problems still intact. However, they wouldn't even allow debate on an amendment put forward by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) which would have made a provision for obtaining a warrant before any kind of spying into private data could be done.

Grayson's one-sentence amendment would have required the National Security Agency, the FBI, Homeland Security and other agencies to secure a "warrant obtained in accordance with the Fourth Amendment" before searching a database for evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

CNET reports,

Grayson complained this morning on Twitter that House Republicans "wouldn't even allow debate on requiring a warrant before a search."

That's a reference to a vote this week by the House Rules committee that rejected a series of privacy-protective amendments, meaning they could not be proposed and debated during today's floor proceedings. Another amendment (PDF) that was rejected would have ensured that companies' privacy promises -- including their terms of use and privacy policies -- remained valid and legally enforceable in the future.

CISPA is controversial because it overrules all existing federal and state laws by saying "notwithstanding any other provision of law," including privacy policies and wiretap laws, companies may share cybersecurity-related information "with any other entity, including the federal government." It would not, however, require them to do so.

That language has alarmed dozens of advocacy groups, including the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders, which sent a letter (PDF) to Congress last month opposing CISPA. It says: "CISPA's information-sharing regime allows the transfer of vast amounts of data, including sensitive information like Internet records or the content of e-mails, to any agency in the government." President Obama this week threatened to veto CISPA.

Well we can't believe the words that come out of Barack Obama's mouth. After all, he said the same thing about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and look how easy that was for him to sign, even though it included the indefinite detention sections, which clearly violate the U.S. Constitution.

In the letter to Congress from advocacy groups they argue that the bill allows for collection of potentially sensitive such as Internet records and contents of emails which could then be used "without meaningful oversight for purposes unrelated to cybersecurity."  

The House Intelligence committee contends that any claim that "this legislation creates a wide-ranging government surveillance program" is untrue.

Madison Ruppert points out another amendment that was not passed. "Another amendment similarly shot down was proposed by Rep. Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican. This would have ensured the privacy policies and terms of use of companies remained both valid and legally enforceable in the future."

According to Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), "The government could use this information to investigate gun shows" and even football games or other events where "serious bodily harm" might take place. Because of the ambiguous language in CISPA it would allow federal agencies to "go on fishing expeditions for electronic devices," Polis said.

One has to wonder, especially in light of the latest bombings and the fact that the two suspects were all over YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, why things can not be obtained apart from CISPA, which is a gross violation of the Constitution.

Let's hope the Senate will act on this the way they did on gun control earlier this week and kill it. Contact your Senators and let them know that you do not approve of violations of the Constitution in order to "provide security" of any kind and that this legislation allows the Federal government to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print pagePDF pageEmail page



  • James N Sheila Baull

    treasonists working for greater treason from the top down

  • Bill Black

    Republicans?NO way, RHINOS who are gonna not be there next time an they should be hunted down and executed for violating the oath they took and violating the rights of the citizens in this country!

  • keepyourpower

    Now Obama will hear about what you have said against him, and he will either drone you or have you disappear with NDAA. Lovely country we live in. You all need to read this month's Whistleblower magazine. It tells you just what Obama has done to us mentally! The month before is about the Police State in the USA. Both are eye opening magazines!

    Remember...if you have a smart must take your battery out of your phone, or you leave your phone available for the powers that be to listen in to all your conversations, where ever you are...even if your phone is off.

  • keepyourpower

    I want to know which Republican Congressmen/women voted for CISPA!

  • R Denice Brown

    RINO Republicans...just as bad as the freaking Liberal Democrats.

  • Herman L. McCloud

    I totally agree with "David Horton" (below) whom is right on when he stated We can't even
    get rid of the Illiegal immeigrants in the white house, which is very much true, Just look at what kind and type of supposidly leader we have in office "obama" a person whom if confronted and challenged by the opposition and then reverts to the magic of and the power of his god-almighty pen and signs onto effect whatever bill he desires at the moment and this is nothing less than a tactful response from a dictator whom practices this method in socialist and communist countries within the world communities. We as responsible american people
    must wake up and take notice of the destruction of our government, laws, morality and our
    spiritual faith from within our country by a man of conquest to overpower our government
    and create a government of his own through a socialistic and a communistic form of
    government, As obama has previously and publically stated would create an even playing
    ground within the world community, And for the idiots out there whom don't know what that means is that we would be more even in technologys and arm's of destruction with those
    whom are commited to murdering the american people for no other reason than being an
    ameriocan, This is NOT a presidentual leader But IS a Dictator, Get rid of obama and we
    get rid of our biggest problem.

  • J J

    I constantly feel that our elected officials are doing too much action and too little talk!! They don't consider the consequences (intended or unintended) of their actions. They are in a rush, all of the time, to get some stupid, thoughtless, unread legislations passed!! Congress needs to take more recesses and do less!!! They don't need to do everything for the people that elected them - they need to encourage self reliance and independence.

  • Lloyd Revalee

    The fact that those idiots approved this bill means little to the American people. Until such time as the Fourth Amendment to OUR CONSTITUTION is changed, or abolished, the bill is unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable. It will not be binding upon citizens, and they have every right to resist those attempting to enforce it. The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

    It is beginning to become quite clear that many of our officials, those we have hired to uphold, defend, and protect our Constitution and the rights of the people, are attempting to take total control over our lives. The oath the took upon being seated in office means nothing to them, and we should replace them with those who place the interest of the country and its people, over their self interests.

    • Tim

      I remember when most right-wing sites including Pam Geller's blog were shilling for the Patriot Act back when Bush was in office and tarring those against it as traitors to the country.
      I think it's wrong too, I'm just wondering where these people went and what their response to it is now that the government might be using the same act to spy on them.

  • Lucky3511

    Boehner has now joined the demoncrap & Obama in the required moves to tear up the Constitution of the United States. The history books can say that republic of USA lasted from 1776 to 2013, When it was replaced in defiance of the peoples wishes by the Dis-United Socialist States of America. God Bless America and protect her people from the Enemies of USA namely Obama, the Demoncrap crew and the RINOs led by the traitor Boehner.

  • Alfred C Maurer

    It is bizarre to me that the otherwise statist Democrats opposed this bill while the supposedly limited government Republicans supported it.

    Individual liberties ought to be something all sides can agree on.

    • Tim

      It got voted on again a few months ago. From the looks of it, it only got 3 votes against.

  • Marine223


  • Marine223

    IF there's ANY truth to this, it would be THE ONLY good thing Grayson has EVER done! If he'd committ Suicide it would be his best move!He's a POS top to bottom!

  • Jeff Brodhead

    Worthless, Dumbass House Repubs!
    They put me on the same side of issues, as Democraps AND THAT PISSES ME OFF!

  • Douglas

    When COngress passes law it is passing law for one of two jurisdictions. One jurisdiction is for those areas over which it has exclusive 100% jurisdiction, and the other which is specifically limited in its nature, is for those items mentioned in Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution that deal 'within' any of the Union States. When CONgress passes any law which is directed at The People within the Union States it must be in compliance, conform with, and can ONLY apply within that authority specified in Art. 1, Sec. 8. If it is not, it is NOT LAW which applies to most Citizens. Also, if the Second Amendment were to be repealed by CONgress, in actuality it would have NO affect upon most American Citizens. The Second Amendment, nor any of the other nine give, grant, or bestow any right or privilege from the government to the Citizen. The Amendments merely confirm the Rights mentioned therein, and also those Rights not mentioned as per Articles Nine and Ten, which are fundamental God-given Rights which existed prior to government. They are not dependent upon the Constitution as they already existed prior to it. The Constitution merely verifies those Rights exist and are GUARANTEED NOT to be infringed upon.

    "...When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, it is at once understood that they are not created or conferred by the constitution, but that the constitution only guaranties that they shall not be impaired by the state,
    or the United States, as the case may be."
    Confirmed by USSC in United States v. Cruikshank, 25
    F. Cas. 707 (C.C.D. La. 1874) (No. 14,897), aff'd, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

    One-hundred and forty-seven years ago the Supreme Court decided Ex
    parte Milligan. The case, one of the first to be heard by the Court after the
    close of the Civil War, and issues a strong argument against the idea that the
    government can depart from the principles of the Constitution when it wills.

    The Court declared, "The Constitution of the United States is a law for
    rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of
    its protection all classes of men, AT ALL TIMES AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of
    man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great
    exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism
    ..." (emphasis added)

    Do you get it? The court ruled that it is NEVER permissible to depart from
    the Constitution or any of its Amendments - for it is "law for rulers and people
    equally in war and in peace."

    So, what does Ex parte Milligan mean for today's so-called "debate" on the
    Second Amendment, or any of the others? It means there is, in fact, no debate whatsoever - it means that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and that each of the others say what they mean and mean what they say.

    The USSC clearly states the Supreme Law of the Land is to be abided by with the meaning of words used at the time of its construction. It is NOT a living document, but
    in Article V it gives the manner necessary to make changes, if wanted by The People.
    Edicts, proclamations, executive orders, letters, legislative or judicial actions that put conditions or otherwise change the meanings in The Constitution are VOID, and the same as "no law at all" [Search: 16th Am Jur 2.d Section 177, [New 256] because none of them are in conformance with Article V.

    “In the construction of the Constitution, we must look to the history of
    the times,and examine the state of things existing when it was framed and
    adopted. (2 Wheat 354; 6 Wheat 416;4 Peters 431-2) to ascertain the old law, the
    mischief and the remedy.” ~ Rhode Island v Massachusetts, 37 US 657

    “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power
    and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the
    limitations imposed by the Constitution.” ~ Reid v Covert 354 US 1, 5-6

    “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not
    alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” ~ South Carolina
    v US (1905), 199 US 437, 448

    Sorry Mr. Morgan. Just doesn't matter if the 2nd stands or falls, with regards to The Peoples Rights IF PEOPLE WILL BECOME EDUCATED AND STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS BY REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION OF VOID LAW. By the way, your last and perhaps most important vote against tyranny is on the jury for juries can cancel bad law. Juries killed prohibition.

  • pupster40

    Definitely time for term limits.