Power, Intrusion and More Power

[rushmc 23]

And the loonie left said Bush was bad.

Holly bat shit batman.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Quote

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Yahoo! BuzzInternet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.



The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

I know that if you're paranoid that certainly sounds bad, but . . . it's not out of line at all with current telecommunications law regarding; radio, television, satellite and telephone laws as well as other infrastructure throughout the country.

Considering how the internet is connected and vital to so many things we now take for granted, I think it's fairly appropriate that the government be able to step in to stop attacks on a massive scale. If it ever happens, certainly it will cause disruption on a massive scale, but my guess is that not being able to Facebook for a day or two isn't as bad as having the economy collapse because of some hackers in Russia.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

I know that if you're paranoid that certainly sounds bad, but . . . it's not out of line at all with current telecommunications law regarding; radio, television, satellite and telephone laws as well as other infrastructure throughout the country.

Considering how the internet is connected and vital to so many things we now take for granted, I think it's fairly appropriate that the government be able to step in to stop attacks on a massive scale. If it ever happens, certainly it will cause disruption on a massive scale, but my guess is that not being able to Facebook for a day or two isn't as bad as having the economy collapse because of some hackers in Russia.

ah that's better

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[skymiles 3]

Quote

And the loonie left said Bush was bad.

The loonie left is in the majority now? Sweet!

[quade 4]

Quote

ah that's better

Point is, it needs to be seen in context.

Paranoid people have a tendency to put two and two together and come up with all sorts of crazy things. I have a feeling our buddy Rush thinks Obama is going to take over the interwebs like China. However, the bill isn't crazy at all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[downwardspiral 0]

Oh I saw your point and thought it to be a very good explanation. I simply edited out the demeaning portion of your post.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Point is, it needs to be seen in context.

Didn't matter what the context was when Bush was in office. It all was bad if your mind. But now it's ok? Oh thats right. Since the man has a D in front of his name it's cool.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government

If you are ok with this then, in context, I am paranoid

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Oh I saw your point and thought it to be a very good explanation. I simply edited out the demeaning portion of your post.

Owwww! Talk about a point! That SOB (I am talking about the point made) has barbs on it!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Didn't matter what the context was when Bush was in office. It all was bad if your mind. But now it's ok? Oh thats right. Since the man has a D in front of his name it's cool.

If you really think that, then I don't think you have a clue as to what parts of the 43rd Administration's policies I was for or against because I certainly wasn't against all of them and have repeatedly stated so several times.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

People, don't blame the democrats (or our local Q-man). This is symptomatic of our government on both sides of the aisle (if you think the aisle actually indicates a difference anymore). Most people are suprised, but government nowadays can shut down just about anything, including your mobile phones, radios, homes phones, electricity, water, local road access, all interstate highways, and anyhting else you think you are entitled to. The title of this thread is most accurate, and has nothing to do with party affiliation.

Folks, we traded away freedom for security a long time ago. Do we have either anymore?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*