Reply With Quote
it's all your fault. thanks for nothing.
WTF? Hardcore liberals have to LOOOOVE this one.
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Internet 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 from an national economic and national secuity perspective."
Kneepad-wearing Obamabots to post supporting comments in 3....2.....1
it's all your fault. thanks for nothing.
I agree it's too vague. I'm a bit more in favor of the "second parallel internet" for high security purposes, but I don't know at what stage that idea is right now.
Are we "free" to not allow this to happen?
Oh wait...we, anymore, don't know what's good for ourselves.
Sounds good to me.
Al Gore invented it, so now he's going to take it back. All part of the "master" plan.
You mean get us all addicted, then take it away, and give it back for control?
Face it. The democrats want to be your authoritarian cradle to grave parent.
yeah we are free to raise are voices in town meetings only for cops to knock on our doors at midnight
it is about time the american people protest and take control of washington dc
pirate voices?
Which town hall voice raiser had his/her door knocked on by the cops at midnight?
Names, please.
Hooray for populism that isn't!
Are we willing to give up our jobs, our standards, our comittments to our families?
It's what so many others do for the ability to collect government assistance. They don't have to give up anyting they already haven't to continue to receive. On the other hand...are people willing to give up those things to change the system?
There's a second parallel-type internet in the works, I believe. Can't talk about it much, and I'm low level anyways, but I've seen them try to get around this vulnerability.
The original bill though is completely asinine. Cross out the "non-governmental" part and I MIGHT... MIGHT side with it. As it reads now, the bill is a lazy shortcut, granting the President an extreme new power because the White House is a) too lazy/cheap to spend the money to fix their holes, or b) scaremongering. I guess there could be a c) worried about the economic drain of an internet-wide virus, but frankly that would affect all countries, and it's stupid to think anyone could save "American" internet with this bill.
Do you understand the meaning of the term "representative"?
LMAO
That's a new one WC. Create a strawman, then work a NEW strawman off the one you just created. Is there a term for that?
I've just heard Richard Clarke talk about it a couple of times.
If there was a big enough emergency to where something needed to be done... I'd think private companies would do something on their own accord. No need for government intervention unless a elephant sized hits the fan.
I doubt this garbage passes.
I do like the idea of having certified people managing corporate security though.
As opposed to your antiObama-bot posts? You're as sad as people who suck the left off.
Different side. Same coin.
Here's a link or two if you're interested.
Stats on the GiG
http://iapot.com/docs/GIGMAICD.pdf
A good overview of the GiG setup:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/61xx/doc6...-28-GIG-BE.pdf
Eh, if companies hire non-cert'd people and e hits the fan, then that company will be sued for not performing due diligence anyways. The system seems to be working fine as it is now.
More than you know...and more than my present and past representatives care to expend.
But I at least know they are there. So many just sit back with no question and except what they do.
For all those who condem capitalism...look no farther than the biggest capitalist endeavor this country ever knew...Federal Government.
A thing I know about the private sector (it's probably the same in the public sector.. but I wouldn't know) from first hand experience is that there are a lot of unqualified people in important stations. Whether that be from cronyism or from just lying your ass off I don't know... but you'd be surprised (or not) what being a son of somebody or an old college buddy can do for your career. I see nothing wrong with making sure a guy knows what the he is doing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
