Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Security Politics

US Conservatives Are Trying To Kill Government's Top Cyber Security Agency (politico.com) 267

SonicSpike shares a report from Politico: An agency set up under Donald Trump to protect elections and key U.S. infrastructure from foreign hackers is now fighting off increasingly intense threats from hard-right Republicans who argue it's gone too far and are looking for ways to rein it in. These lawmakers insist work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices and infringes upon free speech rights -- an allegation the agency vehemently denies and the Biden administration is contesting in court. The accusations started in the wake of the 2020 election and are ramping up ahead of 2024, with lawmakers now calling for crippling cuts at the agency. "CISA has blatantly violated the First Amendment and colluded with Big Tech to censor the speech of ordinary Americans," Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which oversees CISA, said in a statement to POLITICO.

The fight over CISA underscores yet another way Trump's election fraud claims are reverberating into 2024. And though the hard right doesn't have enough votes to defund CISA today, the growing backlash against it has supporters worried that a hard-right faction could hobble the agency in the years ahead -- undermining its efforts not just to secure future elections, but also protect key U.S. and federal networks from major hacks. CISA had broad bipartisan support in Congress when lawmakers passed legislation creating the agency in 2018. At the ceremony where Trump signed it into law, he called it "very, very important legislation" to protect the U.S. against both nation-state hackers and cybercriminals. But when Chris Krebs, the then-head of CISA, debunked Trump's 2020 election fraud claims, the president fired him. And since the GOP assumed control of the House in 2022, like-minded Republicans have been ratcheting up their scrutiny of the agency. [...]

Conservatives now argue that activity has become a smokescreen for left-leaning government censorship. In Congress and within the courts, they contend that pressure from federal agencies like CISA led social media companies to limit the spread of information perceived as damaging to Joe Biden's campaign, such as stories relating to Hunter Biden. In a sign of trouble for an agency once boasting strong bipartisan support, 108 Republicans supported the failed push to cut CISA's budget last month -- a near majority within the conference. Backers of the budget cut included a swathe of increasingly influential hard-right lawmakers, like Jordan and James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House Oversight Committee. Those with direct oversight over CISA also backed the vote, such as the chief of the Homeland Security Committee, Mark Green (R-Tenn.), and another panel member, August Pfluger (R-Texas).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Conservatives Are Trying To Kill Government's Top Cyber Security Agency

Comments Filter:
  • by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @05:04AM (#63952035)
    They barely change the goddamn font on their Kremlin talking points sheets.
    • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @05:24AM (#63952075) Homepage Journal

      No, wait, leopard! Not my face!

      • TFA subject is wrong. Conservatives aren't doing this, Trumpers are.

        Conservatives don't cheat on their wives, or mail-order them from eastern Europe.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by quonset ( 4839537 )

      It was never about election integrity. It was only about pushing the big lie to gain power. Nothing more.

      In every single court case, not a single attorney claimed there was fraud in the election. In fact, when asked if they were claiming fraud, all said no.

      • Agreed, the 2020 election is LONG OVER. LEAVE IT.

        If you believe there was fraud, work now to prevent it in the future. If you do not believe that, at least watch for good and honest election reform and support it.

        If you are neither, it would probably not hurt to sit on your hands and let someone else have a chance.

      • Their becoming a minority and they know it. Rather than accept that in democracy that you can lose and should do so gracefully while trying to do better in the future, they are doing whatever it takes to ensure they keep their minority rule. If it means passing laws to entrench unbalanced election districts, or to ignore court orders to fix the districts, then they will do that. If it means outright lying, despite avocating to put up monuments to the ten commandments that forbids lying, they will do that

    • by echo123 ( 1266692 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @05:47AM (#63952123)

      Isn't amazing how lying about something a million times in a loud way convinces so many idiots in a hurry to believe the lie? And now the GOP is once again asking the regulators within our government to give them a free pass, by destroying another [npr.org], Federal Agency [cisa.gov] who works to secure and certify our elections from thieves hell bent on destroying American democracy.

      "We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. [youtube.com]" -DJ Trump.

      • Why is everyone posting in Borat voice?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        You either trust people to make their own decisions or you don't. You don't get to filter and curate the information available to voters AND claim that democracy is all-important.
        • by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @08:46AM (#63952615) Homepage

          I loves me a false dichotomy.

          Anyhow, nobody is preventing anybody from making decisions. There is, as there should be, a concerted effort to ensure the information they have available to them isn't factually incorrect, particularly information made available for malicious intent. To suggest otherwise is to deny why nation states and bad faith actors engage in disinformation in the first place: it changes the decisions people make.

          Saying "people will figure out what's true or not if everything is out there" isn't true in theory (all truth builds upon other truths, there needs to be stable ground to build upon) or in practice (as evidenced by bad actors knowing and acting on it).

          • This is an age where ignorance is celebrated and education is downplayed, is it no wonder that ignorance has become a major political force?

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by rickb928 ( 945187 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @09:30AM (#63952767) Homepage Journal

        "lying about something a million times "

        Trump colluded with Russia.
        The Steele Dossier was genuine.
        Russia offered bounties to kill US Soldiers in Afghanistan.
        Trump called Neo-Nazis 'fine people'.
        Trump recommended drinking bleach to cure Covid.
        Trump overfed koi in Japan (ha, caught you there!).
        Trump had tear gas used to clear protestors for a bible photo op.
        The publicized contents of Hunter Biden's laptop were Russian disinformation.
        The 2020 elections were not fraudulent because the courts found no major (or minor) fraud.
        The January 6th demonstrations were an insurrection intended to overthrown the government.
        Trump tired to grab the steering wheel of the Presidential limousine from an Secret Service agent.
        Border Patrol agents whipped border crossers from horseback.
        The plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer was a creation of far-right activists.
        Trump mocked a reporters' disability.

        Mock me, mod me down, unfriend/make enemy of me, but please, if you would, do me the service or refuting any of these with facts. Source, not mere citations, would be necessary for the latter.

        • The 2020 elections were not fraudulent because the courts found no major (or minor) fraud.

          This is asking everyone else to prove a negative for you. You are making the claim of "election fraudulent" so it's on you to to bring some evidence. If your evidence doesn't hold up in a court of law, or like Giualiani, you talk a real big game to the media but simper in front of a judge [nytimes.com] then maybe your evidence is not as strong as you think it is.

          Or let's ask Trump's Chief of Staff how secure the election was when lying actually has consequences:

          https://abcnews.go.com/US/chie... [go.com]

          But, as described to ABC

          • For the theory to hold up, we are expected to believe the President of the United States had all this evidence and gave it to the FBI, who said, no, we will ignore this solid evidence, hee hee.

            The President, then, instead of addressing the nation to explain and present this evidence, expressed butthurt and conspiracy inside the agency he controls to ignore this mountain of solid evidence.

            Well, you see where these lies are going.

  • by nevermindme ( 912672 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @05:16AM (#63952049)
    I remember the patriot act days on this site, lets see if post-millennials have the same points as neo-cons to tell their peers to just rest easy under the boot.
  • That I can't say here. Something like, "##&& @*&&#*!!! Go $$%^ your %*&^(*$ self. I almost never use this word to describe people, but "idiots." Short sighted blankity blanks.
  • Ya know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @05:30AM (#63952091)

    to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices

    If you consider it a personal attack that lies are countered, you might want to reevaluate your stance.

  • Getting into the debunking business and trying to control citizens "spreading" foreign propaganda (who determines thay they didn't came up with it themselves?) is always going to skirt first amendment issues and political influencing. It was stupid mission creep.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @07:57AM (#63952425) Homepage Journal

      Depends how it is done.

      For example, clearly labelling the origin of social media accounts is simply providing the viewer with more information so that they can make an informed choice. If the account uses a Moscow IP address and only posts during Moscow business hours, most people would probably think that the "James. L. Patriot" persona posting non-stop "we should defund Ukraine" memes is inauthentic.

      Of course, such information should be independently vetted. That's how democracy works, we have many layers of checks and balances. Within government, the press, the judicial system, freedom of speech etc.

      The alternative is far worse. Election campaigns run from Moscow and Beijing. Don't think that just because they happen to support your guy this time that it's okay.

  • Yeah, sure... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @07:03AM (#63952247)

    These lawmakers insist work by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to combat online disinformation during elections singles out conservative voices

    Also in the news, burglars complain that police singles them out for arrest.

    If your bullshit get called out for being bullshit, it may be that someone is out to get you... but the far more likely reason is that it's bullshit.

  • Shame it won't go anywhere because establishment (R)s only exist to be the Washington Generals of the regime.
  • Paul is correct that it should have had absolutely no dealings with big tech on the elections issues, especially with Meta, Twitter, etc. which aren't even remotely justifiable under the agency's mandate to protect critical infrastructure. It is the job the Intelligence Community and federal law enforcement to hunt for FARA violators, 50 cent army trolls, etc. not CISA or the NSA (folks, CISA is the purely civilian, DHS counterpart of the defensive side of the NSA).

    The agency was supposed to be laser focuse

    • Agreed. I also find it interesting watching the response to this topic that there seems to be a general lack of awareness that a federal court agreed that CISA exceeded their charter by working with third parties to suppress first amendment protections.
  • I don't think an American squabbling about this on /. will accomplish as much as writing to a political representative and demanding a reply to hear what they intend to do; and I do think it's a dichotomy and not a false dichotomy; there's an opportunity cost in how one spends one time, attention and thoughts.

    If nothing else you'll have a measure of how useful or not your current representative is. You'll be working with evidence instead of something repeated on the internet so often it'll be treated as a "

  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @09:40AM (#63952803)

    https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]

    The order bars CISA and top agency officials including director Jen Easterly from taking steps to “coerce or significantly encourage” tech companies to take down or curtail the spread of social media posts.

    SCOTUS will take up this case in 2024.

    The Conservatives don't want CISA regulating online speech. It's not their job and it's not the government's job.

  • but can we stop calling right wing extremists "conservative"? The word conservative means something. It means cautious. Extremists on the right wing borrow that word to paint over their, well, extremism. These are not people that want to return to some mythic past even. They'll cheerfully make drastic changes to society to fit in with their immediate goals.

    I don't mind language being used a little loosely in context, but when it's openly dishonest like this it has to stop.
  • Let's say that there was a law that punished someone for consciously telling a lie. The punishment for which should scale with the lie. You would have to be accused, go to court and be found guilty, just like with any other law, but this sort of thing would severely limit the idiots who seem to think that lies are protected speech.

    • by kackle ( 910159 )
      +1 I'd like us to try that. It could be removed from the books if it turns into a train wreck. Then again, we can't seem to remove any legislation...
  • by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @11:05AM (#63953055) Journal

    This article is from Politico, a publication that is solidly on the Left, and therefore it is filled with click-bait terms such as "hard right" and breathless warnings about dreaded "conservatives". None of that is relevant here. CISA was caught with its hands completely in the cookie jar by jawboning private sector media companies to censor protected speech. The people whose voices were silenced took them to court, and won an injunction. That injunction was narrowed in an appeal, and then stayed by the Supreme Court.

    If the government wins this case, it will be a dark, dark day for freedom of expression. It's an important case that has zero to do with Left or Right, and everything to do with places like /. being able to tell the government to take a hike if it wants to.

    • by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @11:10AM (#63953075) Journal

      Forgot to add: Read this: The Westminster Declaration [westminste...ration.org]. This is a statement from the international community about the exact same kinds of illegal and unethical suppression of speech being tried the world over. The problems with CISA are not an isolated case. Many democracies are trying to suppress speech, exactly like China does.

    • by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      Do you have a more balanced article on it? Like, I'm really curious what the government wanted to censor, and what threat it made against the media companies. All I have found are articles where states complained that the government was coercing companies, but no actual examples are given in any of the articles. I am really sick of articles that don't actually say what happened. And when I click links that say "the preliminary injection ordered by the judge" I don't get a link to the injunction, I get a

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -- Albert Einstein

Working...