The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Hazcat on August 28, 2009, 12:45:13 PM
-
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."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
-
What could go wrong ??? ::)
-
We all need more government in all aspects of our lives. ::) >:(
-
next they are going to take away our right to use the roads in case of a highway security threat
-
Let me think......"What Would Hitler Do"?
-
Let me think......"What Would Hitler Do"?
Maybe we need t-shirts, or at least bracelets, that say "WWHD"
-
Maybe we need t-shirts, or at least bracelets, that say "WWHD"
Maybe we need a REAL American in the White House, instead of this rope bait communist turd.
-
What else would BHO like control over?????
It's only been 8 months people, by mid term, who knows??? Hopefully there will be an upheaval in the 2010 elections to slow the progression into all out fascism.
Otherwise, get into the short wave radio, ham, SSB, or VHF, even CB's can scramble communications....
How's that "pressure cooker doing?"
What constitutes an "emergency" to BHO?
The far left wing Chairman of the FCC, won't take much to regulate the "free communication" out of existence; "In an emergency"...
Bastards...
-
Unfortunately parts of what they are proposing are desperately needed: better certification and training of IT people and a more proactive approach to network(in this case the internet itself) protection from foreign states and their proxies. Most people would be shocked at the amount of state sponsored hacking of private corporate systems that is occurring right now. This includes state hackers infiltrating the home systems of users who work for targeted companies. One of my friends lives in RURAL western Virginia and his system is constantly being targeted(by Chinese hackers) due to its proximity to a minor company that makes industrial related equipment(no defense uses at all), however it is owned by a Japanese company that is heavily involved in making products for the JDF. He has sent formal protests to the offenders' ISP in China but nothing was done about the hacking attempts(because it is the Chinese PLA that is most likely behind it.) Also look at what happened to Georgia when pro Russian hackers did their best to knock them off the net.
As for the honorable Senator from WV, it was actually celebrated when Sen Airhead(Boxer) took over the chair of the Intel Committee for obvious reasons. I wouldn't trust him to actually write any piece of legislation, even if it was a Senate Proclamation wishing the nation a Happy New Year.......
-
Maybe we need a REAL American in the White House, instead of this rope bait communist turd.
Tom
This is one of those issues where if you say, it depends on who's president, that tells you its a bad idea. The thing is, its totally unecessary. If the President declares a state of national emergency he can do pretty much whatever he wants, no enabling legislation is necessary.Its covered under the Article II war powers doctrine. Lincoln suspended Habeas in Mo., imposed an income tax and FDR intered the Japanese, all without a law or a whisper from the Court. What this is designed to do is allow government control short of a real emergency. Any talk of an all out "cyber attack" is BS. In that case, the internet would just be shut down by executive order and the president's term would have expired before the court ruled on it. This has Bad Idea written all over it.
FQ13
-
Considering a lot of the grassroots efforts underway now are all via the Internet. Also, it requires ISP to tell who is on what IP address at any given time to the government. Nothing like big brother watching even more. By the way, that disclosure does not require a "crisis" to make it happen.
-
Tom
This is one of those issues where if you say, it depends on who's president, that tells you its a bad idea. The thing is, its totally unecessary. If the President declares a state of national emergency he can do pretty much whatever he wants, no enabling legislation is necessary.Its covered under the Article II war powers doctrine. Lincoln suspended Habeas in Mo., imposed an income tax and FDR intered the Japanese, all without a law or a whisper from the Court. What this is designed to do is allow government control short of a real emergency. Any talk of an all out "cyber attack" is BS. In that case, the internet would just be shut down by executive order and the president's term would have expired before the court ruled on it. This has Bad Idea written all over it.
FQ13
My point which you totally missed, is that an American, President of the Republic, who actually intended to live up to his oath of office would not consider this type of BS.
But you forgot Lincoln also imposed martial law in NYC and Baltimore as well as he and FDR both locked people in the Washington nut house (I forget the official name, it's where Lincolns wife died ) with out trial or lawyers, for "National Security".
The NSA scoops up ALL electronic emissions, then shares them with the British GCHQ in Cheltanham. The NSA is forbidden by law from reading the communications of US citizens, but the English are not bound by that so they are the ones reading OUR electronic communications.
But one thing you are correct about, cyber attacks are aimed at a specific server, or group of servers.
-
Internet chatter from terrorists has been high lately, since Napalitano put us all on the terrorist list. Basically it is to keep us citizens from spreading the truth. We have a right to assemble and voice our grievences about this govt!
-
My point which you totally missed, is that an American, President of the Republic, who actually intended to live up to his oath of office would not consider this type of BS.
But you forgot Lincoln also imposed martial law in NYC and Baltimore as well as he and FDR both locked people in the Washington nut house (I forget the official name, it's where Lincolns wife died ) with out trial or lawyers, for "National Security".
The NSA scoops up ALL electronic emissions, then shares them with the British GCHQ in Cheltanham. The NSA is forbidden by law from reading the communications of US citizens, but the English are not bound by that so they are the ones reading OUR electronic communications.
But one thing you are correct about, cyber attacks are aimed at a specific server, or group of servers.
umm yep
-
Internet chatter from terrorists has been high lately, since Napalitano put us all on the terrorist list. Basically it is to keep us citizens from spreading the truth. We have a right to assemble and voice our grievences about this govt!
umm yep x 2