“Committed to keep urging the House to pass the Strengthening American Cybersecurity Act, which requires critical-infrastructure operators to report major cyberattacks and ransom payments to the federal government.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
CHAMPIONED is upheld. Source 1 (Peters's official Senate newsroom, PRIMARY) was fetched and fully verified verbatim: the headline "Peters Landmark Provision Requiring Critical Infrastructure to Report Cyber-Attacks Signed into Law as Part of Funding Bill" appears exactly, Peters is named as author of the provision ("authored by U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI), Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee"), and the reporting requirement plus both the 72-hour and 24-hour timeframes appear verbatim. This alone documents the champion-level outcome: Peters authored the provision and it was signed into law, which exceeds the promise's stated commitment merely to "keep urging the House to pass" it. Source 3 (Infosecurity Magazine, REPUTABLE_SECONDARY) was fetched and verified: it confirms Senate passage and the 72h/24h reporting requirements for critical infrastructure operators (it labels Peters a "co-author," a minor nuance versus "lead author" but not a contradiction). Source 2 (CISA CIRCIA page, PRIMARY) returned HTTP 403 (bot-block, not a dead link); I could not fetch the exact quote directly, but an independent WebSearch confirmed the page is live on cisa.gov and its content matches the cited quote (report covered cyber incidents within 72 hours of reasonable belief; ransom payments within 24 hours), so the quote is corroborated and not fabricated. No fabrication and no material overstatement of the evidence; the outcome is accurate.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.