Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19

    Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

    Did you guys miss this one?

    August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
    Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
    by Declan McCullagh

    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.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10...l;txt#comments

    So...how about Bush trampling the constitution and taking away our civil liberties? Still think data mining the phone network is bad?
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  2. #2
    Twitch123 Guest
    Big fuckin deal? They want to give the president the ability to protect the country from cyber warfare. This isn't a bunch of guys living in a cave and training to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. This is a collection of countries that have dedicated billions of dollars into developing the tools necessary to launch a large scale cyber attack on America. If you think 9-11 was bad imagine if they got control of a power grid and shorted out all the transformers and generators.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Twitch123 View Post
    Big fuckin deal? They want to give the president the ability to protect the country from cyber warfare. This isn't a bunch of guys living in a cave and training to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. This is a collection of countries that have dedicated billions of dollars into developing the tools necessary to launch a large scale cyber attack on America. If you think 9-11 was bad imagine if they got control of a power grid and shorted out all the transformers and generators.
    Hmmm...funny how you support the government violating the first amendment now.

    Can you tell me how the power grid is open to the internet? As far as I understand it, power grid, air traffic control, and other sensitive networks are closed.
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  4. #4
    Twitch123 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con] View Post
    Hmmm...funny how you support the government violating the first amendment now.

    Can you tell me how the power grid is open to the internet? As far as I understand it, power grid, air traffic control, and other sensitive networks are closed.
    Explain to me how this is violating the first amendment. Shutting down and/or isolating parts of the private internet isn't stepping on anyone's rights. It's what a good network admin would do in the first place to protect his network. So I guess when I blackholed the traffic coming from a bunch of IPs in Florida once that were attacking my customers I must have been violating their first amendment rights.

    More often than not it's a foreign company that writes the software that will control these networks. They leave themselves backdoors into the network. Of course this requires a break into a datacenter or the insertion of some mole into lets say SDG&E. But do you really think some unarmed guards are going to stop a bunch of armed military types? I know this sounds a bit Hollywood but that isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

  5. #5
    While Twitch123 is right. I still do not like it BECAUSE:

    1. Over the past 5(possibly 10?) years. Companies have been reverting back to an old backbone system/setup. Basicly the ones they have used back in the 70/80's? I think in order to control the grid through a telecommunications network. Instead of spending money for a new system. The bastards have been reverting back to older systems. These systems are completely unprotected. You should be able to find some T.V. and Newspaper articles talking about this a bit more. 8 months ago is when I first came across this about the whole switch. They are admitting that the systems are completely unprotected, because the systems are so old I guess there is no way to institute some kind of protection without being able to monitor the entire cyber network. There has been I think as much as 5 attacks. 1 or 2 of them actually caused some rual area momentary blackouts. The other few were people trying to get free electricity. It's NOT OUR DAMN FAULT!

    2. With control they could easily be able to sensor/block materials they think that could be unpatriotic or even our basic rights to speak our peace about our government. Look at places like china and their extreme control of data going in and out.

    3. Not a concern for me but for maby say Kbot no more bootleg gay porn!

    Back to the whole power issue. Part of one of the Bill's that Obama is trying to get passed will allow the utility companies to add an additional tax which is unspecified or controled by the government(stated in the actual bill). I can presume this tax would enable the companies to use this money to invest in newer systems that are not so weak.


    .... just my $0.02
    You smile because you're happy. I smile cuz you don't have a clue of what's next!

    Life's An Ironic Bitch HUH?!?!
    -----------------------------------

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Obama is our president because....
    By x[ninjax] in forum Political / Religious B.S.
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-03-2009, 12:51 PM
  2. Emergency Zombie Defense Station
    By x[con] in forum Media Mayhem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-11-2008, 02:27 PM
  3. Emergency carfax
    By x[ironmonkey] in forum Random Thoughts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2005, 11:50 PM
  4. is president bush worst president ever?
    By biohazard in forum Political / Religious B.S.
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-22-2004, 11:51 AM
  5. BP advises the president
    By gibb$ in forum Random Thoughts
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-14-2001, 02:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •