comScore
Uncategorized Friday, April 13th 2012 at 1:55 pm

Why Facebook Was Anti-SOPA, But Is Pro-CISPA

When SOPA was rolling through Congress, there was a lot of loud protest not only by webizens, but also by many Internet behemoths like Wikipedia, Reddit, and even Google. When it comes to CISPA, on the other hand, expect no such help. It might surprise you to know that Facebook, which was rather quietly anti-SOPA during the blackouts, is actually pro-CISPA. And even though that might surprise you, it shouldn’t. Why? Because it makes total sense.

It bears repeating that CISPA is as much of a threat to the Internet as SOPA was, but that the threat is distinctly different. When it comes to individuals like you or me, both bills are bad news. SOPA stood to take away our favorite content hosting sites, social hangouts, and forums for user generated content. Naturally, the sites themselves — and their associated business people — were concerned about this as well. In contrast, CISPA presents a serious privacy breach to individuals, but from a site’s perspective, especially a social networking site’s perspective, it could actually be a boon, or at least a non-issue.

It pretty much comes down to this: Under CISPA, you wouldn’t be able to sue a site for giving up your information to the government. If you’re a site that doesn’t particularly care about your users’ privacy (read: Facebook), this is great. Whether or not Facebook, or any other site with information about you, is going to share your info with the government doesn’t really factor into it at all. For just about any site, CISPA means that something that is used to create lawsuits against them (even just potentially), no longer creates lawsuits against them. Convenient, right? This is a feature, not a bug.

If you remember point number three in our little CISPA primer, you know that one of the bill’s problems is its overzealous protection information sharing. CISPA makes all sharers of cybersecurity information exempt from both federal and civil suits considering that CISPA supersedes all information privacy laws. If you were Facebook, wouldn’t you want to be protected from federal and civil suits whenever you can be? Especially when you are sharing information with the government, a touchy thing that you probably already do? Of course you would.

And what if you’re a site that doesn’t have a bunch of user information that the government is likely to want, or aren’t too keen on giving away info unless you are legally forced to? CISPA isn’t going to hurt you, exactly. I mean, it might hurt you, the owner of a site, as an individual, but it isn’t going to impede your site’s business. At worst, it’s free insurance against something that probably won’t happen, but might. Not much to get fired up about, is there? Supporting SOPA was a bad business move for online businesses. Supporting CISPA is a good one, or at least one that doesn’t matter. For now.

The only way it’ll become a bad decision is if individuals start acting up. Hopefully, some of those individuals will be ones at the helm of Internet giants, but unlike last time, it’s not as much of a default position to assume. If you’d like to be one of those individuals who is acting up, there are a few things you can do. Demand Progress has a handy “annoy Facebook about CISPA” action kit. You can also follow the @houseintelcomm Twitter account, something of a mascot for the pro-CISPA camp. It’s bound to help you keep things in mind and stay upset. There’s only so much you can do, but this time around it’s extra important that you do it since help from the big guys is a bit less certain.

(h/t Boing Boing, image via Demand Progress)

Required reading

Filed Under |
  • Jack Bond

    You know what. I disagree. CISPA isn’t a threat at all. There’s nothing wrong with allowing the government to cordially request information from a company. When they start forcing out info, I’ll get worried.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687991878 Dave Diem Martinez

    Jack, I assume you follow: “if you’re not doing anything wrong, why not let them in?”. However, individuals must be allowed their freedom without intrusion, and CISPA and the precursors are both inherently violate ones freedoms by assuming guilt first. And requiring ISP’s monitor transmissions based on assumptions is both an unnecessary heavy load on ISP businesses and wrong for privacy.

    Long story short, if you believe that Jack, you’re only going to notice the government microscope up your backside when you try to sit down. I would far rather side with the EFF on this issue, as time and again the government has not proven trustworthy (e.g. circumventing FISA courts for wiretap approval).

  • fail

     I would normally be with you on that but since these days if the government comes knocking companies are to willing to give up information

  • http://my-debt.co.uk/ Garnet Vest

    The only way it’ll become a bad decision is if individuals start acting up.

  • Fishy

    Or if the gov’t change their minds on what counts as ‘acting up’. Once you give your freedoms away, you’re never getting them back from any future gov’t.

  • Dkeesey

    No accountability means no correcting “mistakes”. What happens when someone identifies you as “suspect” or “enemy”, by “mistake”, because you were pissed off or didn’t agree with someone in power in an email or online rant? 
    You will self-censor your behavior but you will not know exactly what makes you a target. Self-censorship is not Freedom! 

  • Dkeesey

    Sometimes the government is run by competent people acting in good faith. But sometimes “purists” get elected in, and begin to look for criteria that they can use to do a “Purge” of “Communists”, “White Supremacists”, “Muslims”, “Illegals”, “Sex Criminals”, or any other label that can be used to make people not question guilt or innocence.