Tendo City: Let's sit down and discuss this irrationally! - George W. Bush's proposal to assume control of American Internet for security reasons

3 Days Ago

Weltall

The Singularity is Near.

Join Date: 05-03-00

Location: Still in Virginia. )=

Age: 27

Posts: 4,501

George W. Bush's proposal to assume control of American Internet for security reasons

What's that you say? It's actually Obama?

Well, I guess that's acceptable!

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

Quote:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh
Font size
Print
E-mail
Share
510 comments

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."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

More proof, I suppose, that Americans were so drunk on this HOPE bullshit that they would have voted for Vladmir Putin if he ran on the Democrat ticket last November. Is this the CHANGE you wanted?

__________________

3 Days Ago	#2
alien space marine SJ has been pardoned edition Join Date: 02-21-03 Location: Canada Posts: 3,568	The Rockefeller family is a bunch of scary motherfuckers. __________________ Cheney today blamed the swine flu outbreak on Obama's refusal to torture the pigs.

3 Days Ago	#3
*A Black Falcon* Defender of the Realm Join Date: 12-19-99 Location: Maine, USA Age: 27 Posts: 24,086	Jay Rockefeller? One of the least liberal "Democrats" in the Senate... __________________ My Games Collection My Webpage! Currently Playing: Guild Wars (with expansions) (PC), Donkey Kong Country series (SNES), Summon Night: Swordcraft Story 1 and 2 (GBA), sometimes Warcraft III or Starcraft (PC) Mega Turrican and Universal Soldier (Genesis), various other stuff

3 Days Ago	#4
*Weltall* The Singularity is Near. Join Date: 05-03-00 Location: Still in Virginia. )= Age: 27 Posts: 4,501	And Olympia Snowe, almost certainly the least conservative "Republcan", now that Arlen Specter finally matched his party with his policies. __________________

3 Days Ago

Geno

Naruto + Hinata

Join Date: 03-29-03

Location: Montgomery, AL

Age: 23

Posts: 2,650

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
Jay Rockefeller? One of the least liberal "Democrats" in the Senate...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weltall
And Olympia Snowe, almost certainly the least conservative "Republcan", now that Arlen Specter finally matched his party with his policies.

Damn moderates! They need to keep their ultra middle wing politics out of my government!

But seriously, the internet is international and no one government can or should try to control it. If the FCC has any say in this, I won't be able to say shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits anymore!

__________________
Favorite shows: The Simpsons, Futurama, South Park, Naruto, FullMetal Alchemist
Favorite games: Final Fantasy, The Legend of Zelda, Chrono Trigger, Mario, Sonic the Hedgehog, Kirby, Starfox, Donkey Kong, Super Smash Bros., Pokémon
Favorite bands: Guns n' Roses, Queen, Metallica, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Franz Ferdinand

3 Days Ago	#6
alien space marine SJ has been pardoned edition Join Date: 02-21-03 Location: Canada Posts: 3,568	Having our big brother imitate china is a scary thought __________________ Cheney today blamed the swine flu outbreak on Obama's refusal to torture the pigs.

3 Days Ago	#7
Fittisize Curtains UP Join Date: 12-01-99 Location: Canada Age: 21 Posts: 1,441	I dunno how bad this is. Just because the power exists doesn't mean it will be used - it's just a safety measure. I like the parallel made with George Bush's decision to suspend all air travel on 9/11 - the power may be extreme and absolute, but it's limited to a short period of time and it has the interest of safety of the people in mind. It doesn't mean that it will be constantly enforced or that it will be used irresponsibly. It does not mean that Big Brother is watching you. With a law like this, you hope that it will never, ever have to be enforced, but if an extreme situation did arise in which it had to be enacted, then it's necessary for it to be done. Doesn't martial law still exist to an extent in the United States, anyways? How is this any worse?

2 Days Ago	#8
*Weltall* The Singularity is Near. Join Date: 05-03-00 Location: Still in Virginia. )= Age: 27 Posts: 4,501	It's considerably easier to describe reasons to suspect a 'cyberterror' emergency than it is to suggest one that requires grounding of air flights or outright martial law. __________________

2 Days Ago	#9
*Dark Jaguar* Resident Schizophrenic Join Date: 10-12-99 Location: Huh, guess I'll be walking this way now... Posts: 14,349	Fitt, I hate to say this but don't be naive. The founding fathers made a point, repeatedly, of noting that no government that gives itself a power goes very long before using it. The question isn't whether or not we can trust them to use this power "wisely" like it's frickin' Batman or something, it is whether they should have it at all. Sacrificing a bit of freedom for a bit of safety nets neither. __________________ "On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

2 Days Ago	#10
Fittisize Curtains UP Join Date: 12-01-99 Location: Canada Age: 21 Posts: 1,441	I don't think I'm being naive, and I don't think this is a bad law. Honestly, if the government were to routinely take control of the internet for no legitimate reason, the American people would respond with mass outrage and dissent. That's one thing the Americans do best - no other nation cares about and defends its personal freedoms more passionately than the USA, but sometimes this passion toes the line of paranoia and irrationality (see: "Nazi Health Care," "Death Panels," insane town hall meetings). If personal liberties were encroached upon so severly by the government, that government would be swiftly voted out of office. And that's something the Obama administration is definitely aware of, from a survival standpoint if nothing else. I think the greatest check on power is the will of the American people, but it definitely does not mean that all government power is harmful. I personally can't think of a situation of "cyberterror" that would necessitate the government to assume control of the internet. I can't predict the future. But who knows, maybe someday such a situaion might arise. I hope not, though.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
France Makes Attempt to Stop Internet Piracy	A Black Falcon	Ramble City	10	Thu, April 16th, 2009 01:41 PM
It's Winamp Playlist time again!	Ryan	Ramble City	42	Mon, September 5th, 2005 12:58 PM
Our database isn't large enough already...	Weltall	Ramble City	88	Sun, August 21st, 2005 08:18 PM