Thank you for this comment. I actually disagree with a lot of it, but you clearly know what the bill is talking about.
You have three concerns:
1. That even though the bill tries to specify what kinds of information can be shared under CISPA, the penalties for "over-sharing" with the USG are very fuzzy (you are immunized not just for sharing to the letter of the bill, but also for "good faith" sharing).
2. That the bill does not prevent the USG from retaliating for failing to cooperate with efforts outside the scope of the bill.
3. That the bill could build up US-CERT instead of diffusing authority (and potential conflicts of interest) through DOJ, DOD, and DNI.
I agree with the 1st, but not the 2nd or the 3rd concern. In particular: your 2nd concern militates for another bill, not an amendment to CISPA.
You have three concerns:
1. That even though the bill tries to specify what kinds of information can be shared under CISPA, the penalties for "over-sharing" with the USG are very fuzzy (you are immunized not just for sharing to the letter of the bill, but also for "good faith" sharing).
2. That the bill does not prevent the USG from retaliating for failing to cooperate with efforts outside the scope of the bill.
3. That the bill could build up US-CERT instead of diffusing authority (and potential conflicts of interest) through DOJ, DOD, and DNI.
I agree with the 1st, but not the 2nd or the 3rd concern. In particular: your 2nd concern militates for another bill, not an amendment to CISPA.