Huh? JSTOR, and MIT, and law enforcement thought -- and indeed the DoJ spent over a year prosecuting the idea -- that a CFAA 'cybersecurity crime' had been comm

Huh? JSTOR, and MIT, and law enforcement thought -- and indeed the DoJ spent over a year prosecuting the idea -- that a CFAA 'cybersecurity crime' had been committed. Such alleged crimes are specifically what CISPA covers. None of the 13 counts the DoJ charged (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartz...) relied on any "consumer terms of service" or "consumer license agreement" violation, so the exception you've quoted is irrelevant. (Also, there's no chance law enforcement would be advancing your strict short-leash interpretation of that exception, in actual practice. They'd try for an expansive idea of what 'cybersecurity crimes' are happening, and wait for the courts to maybe later snap them back. That amounts in most cases to a 'free look', because those whose information is 'shared' will usually never know unless prosecuted.) Of course, even without CISPA, these parties were able to share information just fine. And if say law enforcement had wanted other Boston ISPs or cellular networks to reveal if they'd ever seen any similar traffic, CISPA would have allowed them to assert a 'good faith' interest in investigating an ongoing CFAA 'cybersecurity crime', and request more potential evidence from usage logs and customer accounts. All through immunized 'sharing', rather than formal subpoenas. You've made the claim: "[CISPA is] specifically restricted from applying to Aaron Swartz-style ToS violations, or, for that matter, to intellectual property misappropriation". As documented above, the Swartz case wasn't about ToS violations, so CISPA would be used to collect evidence against alleged future Swartz-like activities. And I've asked for where CISPA specifically excludes IP crimes; you've not provided any reference to related bill text or expert interpretation. Maybe it exists; you haven't provided it when requested. Where did you get that idea? Until I see that, forgive me for not accepting your repetitive assertions about what CISPA is really "about", when the available bill text and trusted legal experts suggest otherwise.