On Thursday, the House of Representatives approved a rules vote that will allow a full vote on Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) to take place, likely on Friday.

House Democrats have started to voice their opposition after Wednesday’s strong statement from the White House against the controversial bill that aims to expand information sharing between corporations and the federal government in the name of improving national security. Also on Wednesday, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) reversed its earlier position, announcing that it "must oppose CISPA."

"This bill in its current form… is an unprecedented, sweeping piece of legislation that would waive every single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who previously has spoken out against SOPA and PIPA, said on the House floor.

Republicans, meanwhile, argued that the bill’s recent revisions (known as the Rogers amendments) take into account adequate privacy restrictions and are largely in favor of the bill’s passage.

"The bill includes significant safeguards to protect personal and private information," Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.) said Thursday. "It significantly limits the federal government's use of that information that the private companies voluntarily provide, including the government's authority to search data."

Also on Thursday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) published an extensive legal analysis after having reviewed the Rogers amendments, concluding that they are "not nearly enough."

The EFF notes, for example, that the language definitions of some of the legal and technical terms remain overly broad. For example, CISPA currently defines a "cybersecurity system," as something that is designed to protect a "system or network."

"The definition could mean anything—a Local Area Network, a Wide Area Network, a microchip, a website, online service, or a DVD," wrote Rainey Reitman, the EFF’s activism director, on Thursday.

"It might easily be stretched to be a catch-all term with no meaning. For example, it is unclear whether DRM on a DVD constitutes a ‘cybersecurity system.’ And such a ‘cybersecurity system’ is defined to protect a system or network from ‘efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy’—language that is similarly too broad. Degrading a network could be construed to mean using a privacy-enhancing technology like Tor, or a P2P protocol, or simply downloading too many files."

Our favorite revision so far?

As Reitman notes: "[Rogers] changed the phrase ‘for using cybersecurity systems or sharing information in accordance with this section’ to ‘for using cybersecurity systems to identify or obtain cyber threat information or for sharing such information.’ Basically, he didn’t fix it at all."