On the recordApril 23, 2015
I support this amendment to make an important change to a definition in the act and the law. A strength of this bill acknowledged by some in the privacy community are the limitations that the bill places on the authorizations for sharing and network monitoring. These activities can only be carried out for a ``cybersecurity purpose.'' Among other things, this limitation is intended to ensure that information is not shared for surveillance or law enforcement purposes and the authorization for network monitoring is not exploited by an overzealous employer who wants to track his employees' every move on the Internet. However, because of the broadness of a term within the definition of ``cybersecurity purpose,'' it came to light that the language could be interpreted far more expansively than intended. I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), who is now offering the amendment, for tightening up the definition of ``incident'' in this bill and the underlying law. We use our smartphones, tablets, and computers for all manner of things, from setting up doctor appointments to buying groceries or ordering books. It is important that, even as we seek to bolster cybersecurity, we do not lose sight of the need to protect the privacy interest of ordinary Americans. That is why I support the Ratcliffe amendment.…





