Watch For A New Set Of CyberSecurity Laws

SuperDuG writes "According to a story on PCWorld.com the Congressional subcommittee dealing with cybersecurity will be researching and legislating new cybersecurity laws. The Chair, Adam Putnam says 'We want to put something out there that makes sense, that's balanced, that accomplishes the same goals, without it being this headlong rush to prove that we're doing something for our constituents because we were asleep at the switch when there was this digital Pearl Harbor.' Perhaps it wouldn't hurt if we all took a part and Contacted Representative Putnam about how well thought out other cybersecurity laws like the DMCA have 'helped out' and were 'thought out.' At least they're actually thinking before they legislate, and it seems they're open for suggestions."

Comments

Re:Kneejerk away

[Motherfucking Shit]

How many DMCA cases have actually been run through the system?

Very few that I'm aware of, and that's the whole problem.

The DMCA essentially presupposes guilt, so ABC Corp doesn't even have to bother going to court... They just fire off a DMCA takedown notice. ISPs or other third parties little choice but to shutdown the target site - even if there's nothing illegal going on - lest they be found a party to any infringement that might be taking place.

OS vendor liability

[Animats]

Suppose it worked like this:

• Operating system vendors who sell, for money, systems which connect to a network are liable for damages to third parties caused by security flaws in their products.
• This liability applies to all new product sold one year after the enactment of the act.
• Class actions are allowed.
• The buyer of the product cannot be required to have the product updated or serviced after the original sale.

This would make Microsoft (and Red Hat, etc.) liable for security holes which allow virus redistribution, distributed denial of service attacks, and similar situations where the victim and the customer are different.

The "no servicing" requirement means that a patch-based or signature-based approach to security doesn't relieve the vendor of liability. The system has to be secure as delivered.

Re:OS vendor liability

[jovian_]

An interesting idea in theory, but delivering *100%* secure software -- at least on the grand scale of operating systems -- is a practical impossibility. Even OpenBSD, arguably the most secure operating system out there, has had at least one large remote hole in the last few years. A law like this would have the effect of practically halting software advances in this country, unfortunately.

please explain to me

[the_2nd_coming]

how can we have a "digital pearl harbor"

I mean the nature of the internet is decentralised so at most, there would be anoyances rather than devistation.

also, every critical system is on a closed network so our infrastructure will not fall apart.

the only thing I am left with, is that they want to protect corprate profits from script kiddies.

Re:please explain to me

[jeffy124]

I've put some thought into that statement "digital pearl harbor". Most people equate "cyberterror" with the idea that a terrorist might shut down a power grid, phone system, etc.

But we've had examples in the past of the power grid going down on a large scale (most of the northeastern US, including NYC, something like 30 years ago) and significant problems with the phone system (AT&T Long Distance outage). Both were thought to be malicious acts (the Russians and "the bomb" were initially accused of the power problems, hackers the AT&T outage) at first. But both were actually caused by bugs/glitches in the systems themselves, and were resolved shortly thereafter.

These two examples seem consistent with Bruce Schneir's explanation of how such outages are only temporary, and how its much easier for a terrorist to bomb a power plant or phone switching station rather than hack into it.

Hey wait! That sounds like Canadian lawmakers!

[edunbar93]

We want to put something out there that makes sense, that's balanced, that accomplishes the same goals, without it being this headlong rush to prove that we're doing something

Our government has this weird tendency towards actually thinking before it acts. And doing it the first time, rather than blundering around with large blunt instruments RIGHT AWAY because people are screaming for the government to protect them RIGHT AWAY.

But I guess someone has to blunder around stupidly to serve as an example to the rest of the world for What Not To Do. :)

Private sector only? What about the rest of us?

[jsmyth]

"Frankly, I'm finding a lack of attention and a lack of understanding by the Congress and the (Bush) administration as to the serious nature of the threat," he said. "It's not nearly as sexy, or as engaging, or as interesting as the threats that are posed by terrorists boarding aircraft, or terrorists threats to the Brooklyn Bridge

Issues that affect us all, but... Forthcoming cybersecurity legislation will be "meaningful regulatory approach to securing private-sector critical infrastructure" says Representative Adam Putnam

Shame it's only for the private sector. Ordinary decent home users would benefit greatly from a similary committee. Currently there is little or no useful media attention, which is a problem
Put it this way: if you were to hold a random sampling of U.S. citizens on cybersecurity, you would likely get a lot of semi- or un-informed views on it. The reason is simple: it's not considered important enough by society at large to have anything more than a knee-jerk reaction to it. If/when the details of cybersecurity (not just the fallout from high-profile cases) becomes a big thing in the media and in government, only then will the population at large (who are being spoonfed by popular media, remember) feel that it is important enough to become an issue.

Congress shouldn't take a "knee-jerk, let's legislate" approach to cybersecurity, Putnam answered. He noted that many people in Congress and in the public don't realize how many pieces of the U.S. critical infrastructure are controlled through networked technology. He used the example of flood-control gates on the Mississippi River or the power grids that serve stock markets.

No mention of the myriad other effects of problematic cybersecurity, such as that mentioned here, and presumably many similar more highly controlled privacy issues wrapped around the TIA and other institutional privacy violations.
Until then, it remains an issue for the interested parties and the various lobby groups, and now for the "private sector" affected by this committee. The average internet user doesn't understand the implementations, the "downsides" discussed ad nauseam on Slashdot, or the current infringements on privacy laws by the Bush administration and their agents, so there will be no popular upswing, no attempt to popularise privacy and security for Mr. Average Midwestern Suburbian, who currently doesn't spend as much time as we do reading up on "niche" issues such as this.
Ultimately, the population is only as interested in an issue such as cybersecurity as they are directly affected by it. Otherwise, it depends how the media portrays it. Think DMCA, think The Geneva Convention, think The Universal Convention on Human Rights. The US media targetted the DMCA issue at the public by suggesting that "hackers" would benefit if it wasn't in place. The Patriot Act was introduced to wide public acclaim because the media suggested "Terrorists" would benefit if it wasn't in place. The Geneva convention is flaunted in Guantanamo Bay, and the US public lets it past because the media doesn't highlight it.
If the general public - the majority of voters - are not negatively affected by the multivarious issues in cybersecurity - including things currently covered by wiretapping laws, TIA etc., and erosion of personal privacy - then it takes too much effort for them to take interest, and too much effort on the media's part to educate them.
Until it becomes an issue of general relevance, the voting public won't care, input will be limited to private sector industries, and their liberties will be further eroded until they have a mode of thought equivalent to "newspeak", with only the single state department/media line to go along with.

"digital Pearl Harbor."

[Glowing Fish]

Politicans already overuse Pearl Harbor in situations where it is actually relevant, such as national defence. It's used for a catch phrase to mean if we let down our guard, we will be overwhelmed at any moment. It's a way to not explain exactly what they mean, which serves them well because the situation in intelligence gathering and warfare now is so different than it was in 1941.

So even using it in that context is a bit of a "Bavarian Fire Drill". Using the threat of a hacking attack and associating it with Pearl Harbor is even sillier. If this country faces a bad hacking attack, or major attempt on our internet infrastructure, what will it mean? I'll have to sklp read people's Live Journals for a few days? Some web pages will get defaces? Some banks records will get broken into? e-Mail will get choked with wormed messages? None of these things are very pleasent, but I don't think we will see a cyber attack that leaves thousands dead and billions of property smoking and burnt. In fact, I think comparing the effects of some "lost productivity" to an event like Pearl Harbor is somewhat tasteless.

Pearl Harbor?

[iCEBaLM]

we were asleep at the switch when there was this digital Pearl Harbor

Riiight, and passing a law through congress that made it illegal for Japan to attack the US would have stopped Japan how exactly?

New laws are not required, everything that should be illegal is under current law. Laws do not stop terrorists or foreign governments from attacking. It won't even stop ordinary people from attacking.

-- iCEBaLM

"Digital Pearl Harbour"?

[Nexzus]

How can they compare the attacking of some computer systems to an attack that left 2,300 people dead?

Rocket Powered Roller Skates

[serutan]

Once upon a time a messenger service discovered that by having all their messengers wear rocket powered roller skates they could deliver things in record time, beating their competitors into the dust. Soon every messenger service relied on rocket powered roller skates, the original company went broke and a few larger companies dominated the delivery business. People hardly shopped or went to the bank any more. Everything was handled by messengers wearing rocket powered roller skates. Commerce doubled and the economy briefly soared.

Then some asshole discovered that by dropping pencils on the sidewalk you could cause spectacular crashes. Packages were lost, messengers and pedstrians were killed, and commerce was interrupted. All manner of security precautions were invented. Radar-equipped skates appeared. The sidewalk hackers used hair-fine tripwires. Police and private guards patrolled the streets. The hackers went through the sewer system.

Congress passed some laws making it a crime to possess anything that could be placed on a sidewalk to trip up a rocket powered roller skater. Civil libertarians were outraged, but what else could be done?

Doing away with rocket powered roller skates was unthinkable, because everything would go back to being unbearably slow. Banning non-messengers from the sidewalk was similarly unthinkable. Building special secure sidewalks just for rocket powered roller skaters would be too expensive. The whole beauty of rocket powered roller skates was that they could use existing sidewalks.

The real problem was that the messenger companies had all jumped into relying on rocket powered roller skates without anticipating their weaknesses. They never really came up with a solution, just ways to stay one step behind the problem. But who could blame them? They had to stay competetive. It was always the hackers' fault. Maybe if enough of them got thrown into prison they would learn their lesson. If ordinary people had to live their lives differently, well... they were the ones who insisted on fast deliveries weren't they? The industry was just responding to demand.

Eventually ordinary people just didn't use the sidewalk anymore. It would expose them to too much danger and litigation. For all their communications and physical needs they relied exclusively on messengers on rocket powered roller skates, never leaving their homes. And they lived happily ever after.

Re:Canadian lawmakers screw up

[Izago909]

Who cares? We're both screwed anyway. In Canada, you'd better be mortally threatened if you want treatment today. In America, you'd better have insurance or we're going to ship you down to the county hospital and hope you don't die en route.

Why did Kevorkian go to jail for euthanasia? Our HMO's have been letting people die for decades.

Shaken, not stirred

[BorgCopyeditor]

asleep at the switch when there was this digital Pearl Harbor

That's going straight into the Mixed Metaphor file. A triple!

Termites ( or why I hate closed source ).

[anubi]

I hate proprietary interfaces and laws protecting them. This is a bit offtopic but I think it illustrates the concept.

I just had my "annual treatment" for termites. The termite guy made a big showing going around my house with a hose connected to his truck which was supposedly dispensing termiticide. Yes, lots and lots of fluid came from the hose, soaking it in pretty good. He told me the termiticide was a pyrethrin based material. Ok. I asked for a jug of it while he had hose in hand for spot treatment should I find a spot missed. No way. He could not, by "law", dispense the material other than as directed. So, it all went onto the ground in front of me.

Ok, now he presents me with the form to sign regarding completion of the treatment. There is a spot on the form where the chemicals used and quantity are supposed to be filled in. But he leaves it blank, because there wasn't an active infestation that was specifically treated. Apparently, under "law", I do not need to be informed as to what chemical he sprayed all over my property.

Now, here's the part that infuriates me, the next day, I go out to feed my cats and there's ANTS all over my cat food bowl. Now I figured that strong fresh dose of termiticide would have done away with all those ants.

Had I been able to recover a sample of whatever he sprayed on my property, I could send it off to a chemist friend who has a gas chromatograph in his garage and ask him to run a spectra on it and look for pyrethrins. I strongly suspect the termite man just made a show of spraying water on my property. To add insult to injury, I destroyed much of my vegetable garden on his advice that the poisons would be absorbed into my edibles.

Its all this closed-source ( not the price, but the reassurance that I know what I am getting ) that concerns me so. I am *personally* responsible for the expenses of maintaining my house, it does me no good to try to blame someone else, so having some termite company to blame it on does not help me. I feel I have a right to know what chemicals and in which strength is placed on my property, and I feel I have a right to verify this.

I am getting really fed up with all these laws prohibiting the understanding ( possibly reverse engineering if the vendor is uncooperative ) of what I am receiving in return for money. This seems so unfair to me because the quality of the money can be so easily verified, but I am supposed to accept, by laws passed by Congress, the word of the vendor on what it is I am buying.

I know I am being a little hot-headed on this issue, but the problem is I am personally responsible. In a large business, it wouldn't make that much difference on whether or not lots of damage resulted from some delegate's failure to perform, as I could delegate the problem and wash my hands of it, while still retaining my employment status and retirement plans. ( This is the main reason in my mind why business executives would choose to go with some system that keeps them ignorant of its inner workings. ) On my level, when I am personally responsible, I want the ability to verify anything. It really cripes me to have my rights to verification annuled by law.