View Full Version : Bill to give pres emergency control over internet
Bill Harsey
08-28-2009, 10:14
Here is some good news, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
Of course this would never be abused.
Bill Harsey
08-28-2009, 10:20
Here is another one, http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/
Where is Leni Riefenstahl when you need her?
Utah Bob
08-28-2009, 10:36
Here is another one, http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/
Where is Leni Riefenstahl when you need her?
Well the Left does have Michael Moore (who, if clean shaven, resembles Goering somewhat);)
People wanted change. They will get it.
Someone, somewhere wants power and control. Who that someone is - a politician, or someone behind that politician - is not yet clear, at least to me. But if a ruler, or the ruler's advisers, desire power, then freedom is at risk even during the best of times.
However, in my opinion, we face some challenges in the future. The temptation to take power and impose solutions will be great.
We will, I think, have the opportunity to experience interesting times.
Warrior-Mentor
08-28-2009, 10:59
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
August 28, 2009
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."
Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBSNews.com who writes a daily feature called Taking Liberties focused on individual and economic rights. You can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site here, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can e-mail Declan at declan@cbsnews.com.
FULL STORY:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
Guess they've been watching Die Hard 4.0 again. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
"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."
"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."
WM, Thank you for posting this Sir. As I would not have known about it otherwise, since the media is being mum!
Oh good gracious, someone roll Orwell over in His grave.:rolleyes:
When will it end???:confused::mad:
Holly
...since the media is being mum...
Mum...:confused:...it's on CBS and Fox news.
Richard
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Then the printed media. Then the Airwaves. Then your telephone. But it's in the name of National Security.
Wonder how Hugo Chavez is doing?
Mum...:confused:...it's on CBS and Fox news.
Richard
Richard Sir,
Am positive that you are correct Sir!!! In my limited scope of news delievery today, I heard nothing of it. My sincerest appologies for not knowing the facts, and posting my own interaction with the media outlets, as fact.
swpa19,
VERY well said, IMHO!!!
Holly:munchin
The Reaper
08-28-2009, 16:54
Looks like we need a PACE plan.
TR
Monsoon65
08-28-2009, 16:55
I wonder if this has been cleared thru Al Gore yet. I mean, he invented it, didn't he?
The more I read about this, that and the other the more I keep thinking that this administration is trying to create one crisis after another in order to take over everything.
This isn't going to end well.
Where's my tinfoil?
The more I read about this, that and the other the more I keep thinking that this administration is trying to create one crisis after another in order to take over everything.
Isn't that what 'they' said about the last one...and the one before that...and the one before that...and...:confused:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Maybe, but they were wrong. :D
At least the previous administration wasn't Socialist. Or Marxist. Or ... well, you know.
Ret10Echo
08-28-2009, 19:07
I would first like to tee this up by stating that Senator Snowe annoys me with her support of legislation that seeks to screw up the telecommunications capability of the United States...... Her sole focus appears to be to increase the status of the committees on which she sits by mandating ridiculous reporting and hoop-jumping requirements on the Executive Branch Departments and Agencies....
Apparently the Air Force Cyber Command and the DHS National Protection Programs Directorate Office of Cybersecurity and Communications are not redundant enough....Heck, we almost had a Cyber-Xar for a while there. Now the Commerce Department (National Telecommuncations and Information Administration (NTIA) to be exact) is being dragged into the fray. NTIA, which is in no way shape or form prepared to conduct anything that remotely resembles the requirements of this proposed legislation.
Stupid is as stupid does....
Time to dust off the HF rig and work the code key a bit.
Trip_Wire (RIP)
08-28-2009, 19:47
Just another link in the chains, IMO! :(
I would first like to tee this up by stating that Senator Snowe annoys me...Her sole focus appears to be to increase the status of the committees on which she sits by mandating ridiculous reporting and hoop-jumping requirements on the Executive Branch Departments and Agencies...
Thread hijack>>
She's made a career of bucking the Republican party to appear to be a moderate. Like many others, she's been a politician for far too long, and it shows. Her partner in crime, Collins, is also a RINO PITA. Sadly, they both represent the large (but quickly dwindling--industrial evolution can be a bitch) pro-union population in the state, as well as the growing Masshole influx.
emergency control?
...does the control kick in once approval ratings drop below 32% ?
wow... so this is what true power hunger looks like
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773
Shows as only referred to committee. So the time to act is now before the congress critters send political capital on it and can not just dump the stupid idea.
I am going to write to my congressman (Evan Bayh [D-IN]) and tell him how I feel about Big Brother.
I hope that all of you will write as well.
Sponsors:
Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV]
Evan Bayh [D-IN]
Bill Nelson [D-FL]
Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Committee:
Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV]
Sen. Mark Begich [D-AK]
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
Sen. Byron Dorgan [D-ND]
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI]
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]
Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D-AR]
Sen. Tom Udall [D-NM]
Sen. Mark Warner [D-VA]
Just another link in the chains, IMO!
And the chain is getting heavier and heavier. Its becoming more and more difficult to pull it. Oh well, could be worse 0 could make us push it.
wow there are a lot of "D's" in that list
The Reaper
08-29-2009, 17:14
And the chain is getting heavier and heavier. Its becoming more and more difficult to pull it. Oh well, could be worse 0 could make us push it.
The chains will get heavier, as the number of those pulling will decrease, till forward motion eventually ceases.
You would think that they could see that as well.
Bread and circuses for the American people.
TR
6.8SPC_DUMP
08-30-2009, 00:17
Have to act quick with these bills...
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=258831#post258831
I love Drudge and look it over daily - but it feels like fact checking "tinfoil hat" sites is the way to get news of these bills before they are set to be passed. :boohoo
HowardCohodas
08-30-2009, 02:53
Time to dust off the HF rig and work the code key a bit.
Since turning off cell phone communications is already part of the terrorist response plan, that may be a good idea.
Perhaps we should push to roll this back while we discourage adding the internet to the emergency control infrastructure list.
Ret10Echo
08-30-2009, 06:46
wow there are a lot of "D's" in that list
In reality they are ALL 'D's.....don't be led astray by Mz Snowe's feigned allegiance/affiliation.
Seems to me as if it's about the struggle in a free society between trying to circumvent the dangers of disinformation vs information and their impact on operations during a national crises - I certainly don't have any answers to it, though, but I'm sure the WWWs tinfoil hatters would be glad to provide their insightful opinions. :confused:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Surgicalcric
08-30-2009, 07:09
...WWWs tinfoil hatters would be glad to provide their insightful opinions...
Quite a few of those tinfoil hats can be found in Congress as well as the DHS and the AG's office......
;)
Crip
The Reaper
08-30-2009, 08:26
Here is the real question.
Would those proposing this legislation have been happy with it if President Bush (or another Republican) were the one to have his hand on the switch, rather than The Annointed One?
If not, then this is not a good piece of legislation.
Seems to me that the civil libertarians were almost constantly up in arms over perceived concerns from 2000-2008.
Where are they now?
TR
Where are they now?
I think they are all on a spiritual retreat sponsored by Eric Holder and Cindy Sheehan. They're rechaging their batteries in preparation for the next "Real" crisis, one deserving of "THEIR" attention.
I guess it's hard for me to understand what they hope to gain by this.
If they end communication, there will be economic losses - worse, preventing routine communications might add to the possibility of panic.
If communication is restricted - say, to only commercial sites - then circumvention becomes both easy and likely.
If the goal is observation (and perhaps interception) of traffic, it simply will not work.
I question the efficacy of getting "certified people" to run the networks. If they simply give them material to study, then in short order people will study the tests, pass them, and have limited real knowledge. To really get control, there would, perhaps, need to be a filtering system, such as the security clearance mechanism. Those people will be in high demand - and hence be quite expensive.
Utah Bob
08-30-2009, 12:24
I guess it's hard for me to understand what they hope to gain by this.
If they end communication, there will be economic losses - worse, preventing routine communications might add to the possibility of panic.
If communication is restricted - say, to only commercial sites - then circumvention becomes both easy and likely.
If the goal is observation (and perhaps interception) of traffic, it simply will not work.
I question the efficacy of getting "certified people" to run the networks. If they simply give them material to study, then in short order people will study the tests, pass them, and have limited real knowledge. To really get control, there would, perhaps, need to be a filtering system, such as the security clearance mechanism. Those people will be in high demand - and hence be quite expensive.
I guess they hope to gain "control". That seems to be their ultimate goal in everything.
Ambush Master
08-30-2009, 13:35
Here is some good news, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
Of course this would never be abused.
"Bill to give pres emergency control over internet."
Now what in the HELL did you go and do that FOR?!?!?!:D:munchin
I think they are all on a spiritual retreat sponsored by Eric Holder and Cindy Sheehan.
Oh no, haven't you heard? She's at Martha's Vineyard...protesting the current president. You wouldn't know it by the lack of msm reports on her though. Guess they just got all peetered out after the past several years... :rolleyes:
"Bill to give pres emergency control over internet."
Now what in the HELL did you go and do that FOR?!?!?!:D:munchin
LOL!
Praetorian
08-30-2009, 22:01
Oh no, haven't you heard? She's at Martha's Vineyard...protesting the current president. You wouldn't know it by the lack of msm reports on her though. Guess they just got all peetered out after the past several years... :rolleyes:
Well, before she was the voice of reason standing up to power and a mother speaking for her lost son....
Now she's obviously just crazy, and it would be wrong to exploit her troubled mental state.
Ret10Echo
08-31-2009, 04:47
I think this goes beyond what you could term as a mere internet access issue. Right now "they" (you know...those guys) are trying to figure out how to wrangle a "cloud diagram". Used to be easy figuring out where critical circuits ran now it is not. In very basice terms the routing goes from my phone to the PBX and off into a cloud only to pop out where it was supposed to go. That is the technology and it sure as heck didn't happen overnight.....but nobody really cared. Now "suddenly" there is an issue because EVERYBODY seems to think that when the next boogey-man comes through that the continuity plan is to telework...or virtual whatever. Well guess what flapjacks...that is the same idea that the rest of the know universe is planning to execute. So how well do you think that is going to work? There are priority-access programs in place now for wired and wireless systems. There is nothing that provides for that same priority in an IP environmnent.
This is a poorly written piece of legislation and I hope it never sees the light of day oustide of the committee cesspool. If it does, then I am quite sure that it will be just as poorly executed.
I question the efficacy of getting "certified people" to run the networks. If they simply give them material to study, then in short order people will study the tests, pass them, and have limited real knowledge. To really get control, there would, perhaps, need to be a filtering system, such as the security clearance mechanism. Those people will be in high demand - and hence be quite expensive.
That's crazy talk, nobody cheats on computer certification tests. I for one am willing to sacrifice for my country and be one of the highly paid federal network security consluts. DoD 8570.1 already mandates certification (http://www.csmd.edu/itcertification/dod8570/) and it is largely a joke. I would probably cry if the U.S. actually got someone with a clue to make tech-related policy.
Why do I sense an imminent national security threat from rushlimbaugh.com that will require prompt action by the white house.
incarcerated
08-31-2009, 18:11
It goes without saying that closure of the Internet would probably be concurrent with the shut-down of cellular and land-line phone services. And of course, these could be applied locally, not just nationally, as the occasion required.
During the 2001 Cincinnati riots, a well known conservative news and discussion board started a thread on the topic. National news coverage of the riot was essentially non-existent for the first two days of the event, while local news coverage was limited. Cincinnati conservatives used the discussion board to share real-time SA, alerting one another to crowd formation, movement, instances of gunfire and reports of violence. While the national news remained silent, the thread grew to the point that new chapters had to be started to keep the reading manageable.
Remnants of that discussion can be found here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad7732a27b9.htm
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad797895117.htm
From April 9th to 14th, 2001, in Cincinnati, these threads acted as a communications net and lifeline, providing for the first need of people caught in an emergency: information.
6.8SPC_DUMP
09-01-2009, 21:06
Here is the final draft of the bill:
http://www.isalliance.org/images/stories/Obama_Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf
Seems to me as if it's about the struggle in a free society between trying to circumvent the dangers of disinformation vs information and their impact on operations during a national crises - I certainly don't have any answers to it, though, but I'm sure the WWWs tinfoil hatters would be glad to provide their insightful opinions. :confused:
Thanks for pin-pointing a key aspect of the cyber security struggle, Sir, and also showing that resisting one "solution" - without having another recommended option - is no badge of honor.
I'm certainly not capable of providing the solutions for US cyber-security - and I'm in debt to the person who can - while maintaining a free society.
But I think there is still some merit in trying to minimize the downside potential of a problem in high hopes that a better answer is on the way.
My problem with giving the POTUS/DHS broad power to limit the traffic of, or shut off voice, video, and Internet communications services and disconnect any critical infrastructure system or network is due largely to my belief that there is already rampant abuse of public-private partnerships; which serve the Corp's balance sheet more than the broader public interest.
I think that private sector is best suited in defending the integrity of their operations; so giving the Gov. power to run these companies seems ridiculous to the point of being false, unless it comes at the expense of the consumer and their competitors.
Senator John Rockefeller IV is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce and this bill would give the Commerce Department the ability to override all privacy laws to access any information about Internet usage.
There are also big questions I have of how this power would be used in a non-partisan way by the POTUS and enforced by DHS who has listed quite a few groups as potential threats. Why would they not block these threats from getting or passing on information or disinformation?
I'm still trying to get my sub-genius, tinfoil wrapped head around how to get away from the type of Fascism that has led a stock market with horrible fundamentals to have fantastic indicators. Again, no perfect answers on my part - just concerns. You see what happens when you let some people express themselves! :)
Just my humble www.0000000002.com/tinfoil