Earlier this year we told you about 2 bills in Congress that were supposed to crack down on Internet piracy but went well beyond that.

As a result of public outcry, those bills known as SOPA AND PIPA were shelved.

But it didn’t take long for them to come back in the form of a new bill. The question now, what does this new bill known as CISPA mean for your privacy?

Check out the video below.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is a proposed law in the United States which would allow for the sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and certain technology and manufacturing companies. The stated aim of the bill is to help the U.S government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyberattack.^[1]

CISPA has been criticized by advocates of Internet privacy and civil liberties, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Avaaz.org. Those groups argue CISPA contains too few limits on how and when the government may monitor a private individual’s Internet browsing information. Additionally, they fear that such new powers could be used to spy on the general public rather than to pursue malicious hackers.^[2][3] CISPA has garnered favor from corporations and lobbying groups such as Microsoft, Facebook and the United States Chamber of Commerce, which look on it as a simple and effective means of sharing important cyber threat information with the government.^[4]

Some critics saw CISPA as a second attempt at strengthening digital piracy laws after the anti-piracy Stop Online Piracy Act became deeply unpopular.^[5] Intellectual property theft was initially listed in the bill as a possible cause for sharing Web traffic information with the government, though it was removed in subsequent drafts.^[6]

The legislation was introduced on November 30, 2011 by U.S. Representative Michael Rogers (R-MI) and 111 co-sponsors.^[7][8] It was passed in the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012.^[9] President Obama‘s advisers have argued that the bill lacks confidentiality and civil liberties safeguards and they advise the president to veto it.^[10]