Bill would give president emergency control of Internet - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Tweety · 08-28-2009, 01:04 PM

Comments, anyone?

Link to Article

Full text of article:

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."

(END OF ARTICLE)

So what does everyone think of the President being able to shut down your internet access anytime he feels like it? Is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

And with Obama putting together a civilian security force that's just as powerful and just as well funded as the U.S. military, what exactly is he trying to do?

ABlairican Pie · 08-29-2009, 01:18 AM

If the "President" finds anything critical of him or his policies, he could shut it down, including the internet. This clown in office has no right to do this. It's freedom of speech, baby. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have gotten elected. Move to some socialist country, they'll love you there.

ABlairican Pie · 08-29-2009, 01:26 AM

"Civilian National Force". DAMN, WHY DID I VOTE FOR THIS SACK OF CRAP??

You've got to watch and be careful when you vote. See, with that video clip, he makes all these ominous things sound just lovely and noble. He could phrase it just right, and people think he's totally right on. They don't have time to THINK and ANALYZE what he's saying in the midst of a major celebratory event. He could be selling free cheese wrapped in underwear to every American, and they would cheer like crazy.

Tweety · 08-29-2009, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

"Civilian National Force". DAMN, WHY DID I VOTE FOR THIS SACK OF CRAP??

...

Hey, we TRIED to warn y'all!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

"Civilian National Force". DAMN, WHY DID I VOTE FOR THIS SACK OF CRAP??

You've got to watch and be careful when you vote. See, with that video clip, he makes all these ominous things sound just lovely and noble. He could phrase it just right, and people think he's totally right on. They don't have time to THINK and ANALYZE what he's saying in the midst of a major celebratory event. He could be selling free cheese wrapped in underwear to every American, and they would cheer like crazy.

And when he talks about this civilian force, listen to the idiots in the crowd that are applauding the idea! Talk about mind-numbed robots!

Brieannas21 · 08-29-2009, 01:48 AM

If it's like when Bush passed the law on taping phone lines and internet messaging and all that craziness? If it stops terrorist then I'm all for it.

ABlairican Pie · 08-29-2009, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tweety

Hey, we TRIED to warn y'all!

And when he talks about this civilian force, listen to the idiots in the crowd that are applauding the idea! Talk about mind-numbed robots!

Yeah. I was duped. But now I'm listening!

Yeah, that crowd bugs me. They're not listening to what he's proposing. Scary.

ABlairican Pie · 08-29-2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brieannas21

If it's like when Bush passed the law on taping phone lines and internet messaging and all that craziness? If it stops terrorist then I'm all for it.

What if Obama uses the "terrorist" excuse to shut down any critics of him? It's happened before.

Brieannas21 · 08-29-2009, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

What if Obama uses the "terrorist" excuse to shut down any critics of him? It's happened before.

COme on now. Think. That is just stupid.

platinumblondelife · 08-29-2009, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brieannas21

COme on now. Think. That is just stupid.

How is it stupid? We already know Bush broke the law in he name of "security." Why exactly wouldn't Obama?

ABlairican Pie · 08-29-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brieannas21

COme on now. Think. That is just stupid.

How is it stupid? People react strongly to things labelled "terrorist", etc. It can be used as an effective propaganda tool. It cuts off people's ability to think, to properly assess the situation, and just circumvents everything with a hysterical term: "TERRORIST!!!" It's an emotionally coloring word.

Tweety · 08-29-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by platinumblondelife

How is it stupid? We already know Bush broke the law in he name of "security." Why exactly wouldn't Obama?

New York Times(!) - Court Affirms Wiretapping Without Warrants

L.A. Times (!) Court calls warrantless wiretapping legal

Obama has continued and expanded the program (after complaining for two years that Bush shredded the constitution).

The internet thing goes WAY beyond anything Bush ever did. And since Obama is releasing terrorists from Club Gitmo while putting A.G. Holder on the task of going after the CIA people who have kept this country safe for the past 8 years, no one can say that Obama is the least bit concerned with national security.

One of Obama's first acts as President was to drop the charges (and subsequently, the death penalty) against the mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing. (may the 17 sailors who died in that attack - a precursor of 9/11 - rest in peace). He's also closed all overseas CIA interrogation centers. He also donated $900 million for Gaza reconstruction - which will end up under the control of Hamas. He said nothing about Yemen releasing more than 100 terrorists from its prisons (they wouldn't have dared do that while Bush was in office)... etc etc.

Someone wanna tell me that Obama gives a rat's rear end about national security?

08-28-2009, 01:04 PM	#1
Tweety Senior Member Member Join Date: Jan 18, 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 6,265	Bill would give president emergency control of Internet Comments, anyone? Link to Article Full text of article: 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." (END OF ARTICLE) So what does everyone think of the President being able to shut down your internet access anytime he feels like it? Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? And with Obama putting together a civilian security force that's just as powerful and just as well funded as the U.S. military, what exactly is he trying to do? __________________ If it's gay, it ain't marriage.

08-29-2009, 01:18 AM	#2
ABlairican Pie Forum Celebrity Viking metal rules. \m/ \m/ Join Date: Dec 12, 2001 Location: Celebrating the holiest holiday of the year, Monday, June 6, as we honor Slayer and all metal, with plenty of pizza, beer, and sacrificial goats. Life is good. Posts: 27,073	If the "President" finds anything critical of him or his policies, he could shut it down, including the internet. This clown in office has no right to do this. It's freedom of speech, baby. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have gotten elected. Move to some socialist country, they'll love you there. __________________ Weights. Dark Chocolate-Peanut Butter-Banana Oatmeal. Metal. Life is good.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-29-2009, 01:26 AM	#3
ABlairican Pie Forum Celebrity Viking metal rules. \m/ \m/ Join Date: Dec 12, 2001 Location: Celebrating the holiest holiday of the year, Monday, June 6, as we honor Slayer and all metal, with plenty of pizza, beer, and sacrificial goats. Life is good. Posts: 27,073	"Civilian National Force". DAMN, WHY DID I VOTE FOR THIS SACK OF CRAP?? You've got to watch and be careful when you vote. See, with that video clip, he makes all these ominous things sound just lovely and noble. He could phrase it just right, and people think he's totally right on. They don't have time to THINK and ANALYZE what he's saying in the midst of a major celebratory event. He could be selling free cheese wrapped in underwear to every American, and they would cheer like crazy.

08-29-2009, 01:48 AM	#5
Brieannas21 Senior Member Member Join Date: Apr 05, 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 9,480	If it's like when Bush passed the law on taping phone lines and internet messaging and all that craziness? If it stops terrorist then I'm all for it.