Slashdot Mirror
New CyberSecurity Bill Raises Privacy Questions
Nicolas Dawson points out coverage in Mother Jones of the early stages of a new cybersecurity bill that conveys sweeping powers on the President. Quoting: "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to 'declare a cybersecurity emergency' and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any 'critical' information network 'in the interest of national security.' The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president. The bill ... also grants the Secretary of Commerce 'access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.' This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws."
Just Wow
"in soviet america..." jokes
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
...it's just a piece of paper anyways.
Jeb Bush will be coming along soon to take his place in line, he'll love these extended powers.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
Ok your seriously late now. April fools day was 2 days ago.
USSA
I for one welcome our new government masters.
You can take my connection from my cold dead SANs!!!!
Or
All yer Pix is belong to U.S.
Or
HSRP - Homeland Security Routing Protocol
Or
TCP/IP - Total Control President/Internet Precedent
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I want to know who in the unholiest of hells thinks this is a good idea? Even if critical networks and cybersecurity emergency were defined, what the gives them the right? The language scares me to death. The existing laws are there for a purpose. To create a law that circumvents them on a whim, even if it's a whim that has to be defended later, is total bull.
I have been fighting encrypting everything I do for a while now because I had hopes it wouldn't be necessary. Now I see that there is a chance it might be after all.
time to learn how to farm and make first person shooters out of sticks...
honestly, how much more are you willing to take before you walk away from oppression?
she was the daughter of a wealthy florentine pogen read em and weep was her adjustable slogan
One step forward, two steps back. Lets just turn around and look the other way.
Think Deeply.
This is precisely what the Internet was designed to defend against. Let us continue to work to insure that the Internet will view the President as damage, and route around him in the event of an emergency.
I had first post, but the president shut down my internet!
I think I speak for everyone here on slashdot when I say
Fuck you!
Define the terms in the bill. List the checks and balances in this that will prevent a tyrant from encroaching on our constitutional rights. The supreme court really needs to start looking into this shit and start hacking apart these bills and laws that infringe on our freedoms. If not, they need to be replaced with people who will.
Shutting down the American network would hinder the whole world. Since a number of the backbones run through the states.
Further more the government just made the biggest argument against cloud computing I have ever read. Your data lives online the goverment say oh noes cyber attack and shuts every non critical system down for weeks? months? what happens to you google docs homework or business files.
1) Threaten national cyber-security
2) President shuts down the national infrastructure
3) ???
4) Profit!
Sounds to me like you don't even need to code a worm that is capable of shutting down the internet, all you have to do is make someone believe you have already done so and the president will do all the heavy lifting for you.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Well, maybe something like fidonet.
In Soviet Russia, you listened to kremvax.
In Soviet America, nsavax listens to you.
Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. We wanted a government that listened to the people...
I think we are finally seeing Obama's "Change" he was talking about his entire campaign. I give him credit for running his entire campaign on the word "Change" and not explaing what changes he would make...
Now America is paying for general stupidity. I find it interesting that the UK, France and Sweden all scorned Obama for all of this bailout money. By dumping all of this money into the economy he is undermining the basis of good business and capitalism.
With this Bill we find Obama giving more and more power to the federal government. Overriding the bill of rights and bypassing everything that our country stands for.
I urge you to watch this film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
Please do not watch it as a direct bashing of Obama, this is one of several films that have been produced over the years detailing the "behind the scene" actions of our government.
I myself did not vote for Obama.
Ohh, once so proud, once so free.. Ruled by fear, nothing else.. I feel for the true American people.. if there are any left..
It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. But I am mild by nature, and do not wish to see the destruction of democracy. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated.
--Chancellor Palpatine
I have a bad feeling about this...
You folks were up in arms about the loss of Privacy when the Bush administration was trying to spy on Terrorists calling into the country? Here you have a Democrat congress and a Democrat President who are going to be snooping into EVERYONE's business - let's have a little more energy - or one might think all the previous belly-aching about privacy was really just partisan nonsense????
Have you compiled your kernel today??
I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the "in soviet america..." jokes
If this bill is enacted, what keeps the president from permanently shutting down access to certain "harmful things" just like the great firewall of China?
There is generally a lot of talk here on Slashdot (and all over the Internet) about the lack of protection of privacy for citizens in European (and Asian, for that matter) countries. This puts the good 'ol USA on par with the rest of 'em...
When do I get my Web filter and CCTV camera? I need to be protected from terrorists! Who needs privacy.
It all really comes down to the same problem with things like gun control, drug laws, and DRM- this sort of shit really just hurts honest, hard working people- criminals and "terrorists" will always find a way to circumvent laws like this. If they (government) seriously think they can "shut down" the Internet and prevent criminals/terrorists from communicating- they should probably re-visit those drug laws they are likely violating. All this will do is force more honest people to start encrypting everything they do.
Not only has this not been reported by any mainstream media source (AP/UPI/Reuters) or in any news source of record (WSJ, NY Times, et al), but that it's not listed on the Senate's website? Or that the PDF is a blank template without any names on it?
Methinks \. caught a regurgitates April Fools blog entry a couple days late!
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Isn't this the type of sweeping executive power in times of emergency was gave ultimate power to Hitler and the Soviet Premiers?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
'Nuff said.
The headlined tyranny is only the start of the ugliness with this bill. The first part smells heavily of pig product, but it gets worse.
Some lowlights:
Section 5 introduces a 747-load of red tape related to "cybersecurity standards" for anyone doing business with the Federal Government.
Section 6 goes beyond that and introduces some requirements for "private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks". Which, if I'm reading it right, means the Feds get to dictate to e.g. Google (assuming someone classifies Google as critical) how they set up their networks and what software they run on it.
Section 7 introduces a federal license for a "provider of cybersecurity services". All contractors and employees providing "cybersecurity services" on any Federal or designated network would be required to have these. Want to install antivirus software on some "critical" network? Sorry dude, need a license. *shudder*
Now I get it! It's going to be business as usual, same as before; only this time around, it'll be a black dude. That IS change I can believe in!
From TFA:
It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
No, what it says is that Sec Com could demand any information from any person anywhere in U.S. jurisdiction, so long as that information somehow "concerns" such networks.
Overreach much?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Stop invoking a Bush boogeyman. Everyone is Washington is bad. Bush's alleged abuses are kid's stuff compared to what some previous administrations have pulled off, and probably will be sorely missed after we get through what's coming down the pipe...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
You have a unconstitutionally elected president doing what liberal fascists have always done ... take away our rights to further their power and control over the people.
You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about fascism (or here). First of all, you have to be right wing to be a fascist, BY DEFINITION!
Please stop using words without knowing what they mean! Just because you say it means one thing doesn't make it so!!!
Oh, and the Constitution doesn't elect the President, it gives the power to the people to do so ... and we did! You really should read more, a lot more!
Get over it.
-Scott McNealy
Without all these corporate bastards and government authoritah wannabes.
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it".
...is that most people don't understand what this kind of thing means in terms of their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's not that they don't understand public or private networks, DNS, TCP/IP, or anything involving computers beyond their own desktop short cut to the family photos... but that they assume it's complicated techno babble and don't want to. They fail to see how it affects them personally; we will be called paranoid as we try to explain these implications. They know what the constitution is but fail to see what it can no longer protect us from in an age where information of any kind can flow freely. This is beyond, what our laws can mandate, because technology moves faster than laws can be passed. This will happen with little opposition. Those of us that see it will scream and yell, but to those up top in that big elliptical office it will be merely just another of societies thankless whispers for them to ignore.
sudo apt-get lost
Wow I am so glad that Obama is so completely different from George Bush II.... oh wait...
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
cmon liberals. All you Bush bashers who hammered on this for 8 years. Speak up. Obama is now committing some of the same acts of privacy invasion as Bush was (rightly) accused of. Why isn't there more outcry here?
This bill gives ridiculous dictitorial powers to the President. I for one think it should not be passed. I have big problems with giving this kind of power to the federal government.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
Nothing, anything can be deemed "critical" (kind of like "too big to fail") because there are no stipulations on the term critical.
Such as "We must shut down access to porn sites because it is critical to the morals of our society."
Not specifically saying he would do that (although future administrations might with this power) its just the first thing that came to mind.
(Yes, I said it, porn was the first thing to come to mind)
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Not to rain on anybody's paranoia parade (OK, yes I am) but this is a [STAFF WORKING DRAFT] and has not been introduced to the Senate. It doesn't even have any sponsors. You won't find it on THOMAS, nor in the list of active legislation posted to senate.gov.
Edith Keeler Must Die
If you want to know how the senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee got scared into this bill, take a look at the testimony before the committee at the bottom of this page, especially that of Joseph Weiss.
Doesn't anyone remember their schoolhouse rock? This is just a bill. Lots of bills get introduced. Most of them are terrible. This bill is still in committee. Hopefully someone there will be able to identify that this is a terrible idea, and that will be that. If it makes it to vote, you can bet I will be calling up my senators. That is unlikely, however. I'm not quite sure how Obama is getting lumped up in this. Has he come out in favor of this bill? If not, please stop with the ridiculous "Change we can believe in" slogan waving. In closing, outrage that someone would be stupid enough to think this is a good idea is healthy. But let's not act as if this is already been signed into law.
described in this story!!!!
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
The thing is that the internet is a distributed system... How can they make an on/off switch to it?
I don't know where to start with this, but I'd like to see the conversation happen: how is this similar or different from the power the government has to impose emergency control over radio and television? The Emergency Broadcast System, for example. Can someone with knowledge address this? Is there a precedent for this kind of control in other forms of media?
I welcome this proposed capability to openly damage the internet.
Mesh networks and other decentralization will ensure ATT is no longer the gatekeeper.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
THIS is the third Bush administration.
No, that is not what that says or means. It says data about networks, not data on or transversing the network. It says the Secretary of Commerce will have access to things like IP addresses; bandwidth and capacity; lists of servers, routers, etc.
It does not say the Secretary of Commerce "can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws." That is an outright lie.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
As long as the President, PERSONALLY, does all the viewing of data, I'm not too concerned.
Same goes for SecComm.
I am completely against them sharing their findings though.
lol and people thought this president was going to be different then the last, come on people wake up they dont care about your freedom only their own and how to keep themselfs in power. That is any government.
Compare to the story ran on April 1st:
New Legislation Would Federalize Cybersecurity
I glanced at the articles, seems both are articles mention Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia J. Snowe. I also checked the PDF files.. both are different and lengthy.
Seems like a lot of work to do for an April Fools prank but I wouldn't put it past them to leak this on April 1st... one of those "hide in plain sight" deals.
"SEC. 4. REAL-TIME CYBERSECURITY DASHBOARD. The Secretary of Commerce shall (1) in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, develop a plan within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act to implement a system to provide dynamic, comprehensive, realtime cybersecurity status and vulnerability information of all Federal government information systems and networks managed by the Department of Commerce"
Sweet, now you can just hack ONE central place and get full vulnerability information on EVERY system. What a genius fucking security idea.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
How do we know that TPB (the powers that be) are not planning anything for the future. It matters not who it is passed under, but what is left to those in the future. Bush last week, Clinton the day before last, Bush yesterday, Obama today, but who tomorrow?
It is these populist presidents that do the most damage. They pass questionable legislation under the guide of a good president at good times only to wield them under a completely different president.
I've been afraid for some time that an unseen hand is pulling the strings, patiently grabbing power whenever the opportunity arises. What bothers me the most is the abvious wording "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." Which is a big "fuck you, we do what we want. Your constitution is meaningless".
Lastly, lets not forget to liken this to Obama's ousting og GM's president. When did yhe government wield such power over a private company? Now, this bill would allow them power over private networks. There is no comparison to public infrastructure like roads.
Things like this make me think the U.S. is over. We're running on momentum of the idea of what the U.S. /was/. We're quickly becoming a fascist state. "Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology that aims to create a single-party state with a government led by a dictator who seeks national unity and development by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race."
Thank you Mr Obama. But it is not his fault alone. We've been taking orders for some time. I think the crux here is free trade. Every one warns of protectionism, which is non-free trade, but that is the answer. That will turn the house of cards into castles. But with a house of cards, everyone must work to maintain the structure... It makes it easy to control.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The economy keeps going down the crapper, especially as the rest of the world abandons the FRN as the global "reserve currency" (which is underway right now). Tens of millions of previously reasonably well off middle class folks in the US are now impoverished, no job, debt out the ass, no hope of remedying either situation. Government wants to head off a general revolt, which could happen. A false flag attack, attributed to fantasy boogie man of the day, is put forward, perhaps simultaneously in many large cities, as a distraction/fake out move. Government has to "shutdown" all the tubes except for their private ones, ostensibly because they are "under attack", but more to stifle the free flow of information, they can't take a chance on the truth coming out, or the net used to help people organize.
They is one possible scenario, and it isn't far fetched at all if you just connect a few simple dots. They already established a blatantly illegal domestic military presence. There's no way in hell they DON'T know the economy will keep going south, and they wargamed what happens if the dollar loses to another reserve currency. The US turns into a second class second world styled nation within weeks or just a couple of months. Just look at the accelerating unemployment figures, not those phony temporary "stock market" figures, those are from them using printed up money to try to shill the market back up, there's a REASON they won't release the details of where the bulk of the TARP funds are going. We went from a quarter million a month job losses to a half a million now it is scratching three quarters of a million jobs loss, *per month*, with no end in sight, in a short period of time despite all these alleged bailouts. Do the freakin simple math there. And now the commercial real estate market is in the process of imploding like those ARM private mortgages did, which will accelerate the job losses, they are closing because all those stores and shops and offices are going out of business, tens of thousands of them, which will be part of the unemployment feed back loop, they are going out of business because of the amount of people who are now in desperate measures economically, they aren't going out and spening, because they are tapped out, beyond using up all their credit. It's a feedback loop and they KNEW it would happen. And they can claim it was an "accident" all the time.
All that and more, and they wargamed this out probably starting a few years ago. They have the globalist bankers clique (these are the primary coup plotters) running everything now, and they want to destroy the US backbone of jobs so they can reconstitute some global "new order" and be able to drastically drop payscales all across the board in the "rebuilding". They want the planet to be run more like their dream model nation China, that exact same sort of situation, just all over. Problem, reaction, solution. They created the problems, they got the reaction they wanted, now we will "enjoy" the solutions they come up with. Beyond obvious.
This has been an ongoing economic and political coup, it has been planned, it was not accidental at all, there is NO WAY it was accidental, there were plenty of published economists going WTF??? starting a few years ago who predicted what was going to happen and were correct. You look at all the government weird laws being passed (not only in the US but all over especially in europe where the same globalist bankers are), the near panic mode of putting in surveillance cams and having police forces morphed into just big paramilitary SWAT teams, and they give every appearance to have been designed to give unitary executive power, so that the puppets they have in government can follow orders quickly and unfettered. I mean, just for a really basic example, you'd have to be both pretty naive plus lack a fundamental understanding of Chicago and Illinois power politics to even imagine a product of that completely corrupt machine getting into power without being 100% controllable and under control, as were A
I work in IT security in the Department of Commerce. I can tell you that without a doubt, we have no abilities whatsoever to perform this type of security work, nor the staff to execute this. Commerce is about 20-30 years behind the Department of Defense on security capabilities, and almost all security exists exclusively at the operating unit within the Department (Census, NOAA, NIST, etc). Most likely, these new functions would then be handled by the NSA, or DHS.
Kind of like the big red button to launch all nukes, except this one is a giant A-B switch to the intertubes of the US!
"Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
I think our downfall to come may in fact be due to our 'acceptance' recently of this very little, but, IMPORTANT phrase.
In the past, no company or agency was 'too big to fail'. Capitalism, cannot function if companies become 'too big to fail'. Too big to fail means the govt. has to help...which leads to takover. This leads to corptocracy / fascism. I think we are starting to see the seeds of this planted in the past 6 months.
The US did not grow to be the power it is, by having companies/entities 'too big to fail'. This NEED to fail occasionally...when they are outdated (lest they become a drag on society moving forward), when they are detrimental to the country.
Strange, I would have never have foreseen 4 simple words as being the possible base of destruction of much of what has made the US great so far. I never would have guessed it would have moved so fscking quickly either....with little or no debate.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The DHS definition of Critical Networks = Military, Federal and State, Utility, Infrastructure, Financial Sector... ...In other words, the government and related networks that run the country (and are often connected to the Internet in some capacity, if for no other reason than to allow employees access to resources.)
The government owns and/or regulates these networks, and has always reserved the right to unplug if necessary. This DRAFT LEGISLATION (can't emphasize the DRAFT part enough) would give the President that decision.
So not YOUR Internet, at least not from any commercial ISP.
But cue the usual paranoia anyway!
Most of the problem I see is that we are for some reason afraid of a recession. Recessions are necessary, it makes businesses check their gluttonousness (did I just make that up?) and businesses that are misusing their resources (money and people) they go under, so then other businesses can better use those resources.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
Right, wink, wink. It's a "working draft" with no sponsors until it magically passes with overwhelming support, quietly, with no mass media coverage. In fact, it could be a working draft precisely for people to leave it alone for the time being.
The patriot act was rammed through.
The Federal Reserve act of 1913 was rammed through during christmas break.
I don't know how we still on slashdot manage to squabble over whether there is a bigger agenda, or whether these are all a series of innocently misapplied laws... Once we come to agree, it will be because it's too late.
Nothing, anything can be deemed "critical"
Ya think they'll apply the criticality test to investment scams like Madoff's operation or the next price fixing scheme? I'm not holding my breath.
captcha: "sucker". (Does /. have some really good AI running or what?)
Have gnu, will travel.
Nobody cares! This is Slashdot. We'd rather complain about Obama than actually face the fact that this bill was introduced by both a Democrat and a Republican, and Obama was not involved.
To them, we are too stupid to know what is good for us. We appointed them via election their guardians over us. As such they act like the parents we never had. They tell us how much we can spend, how to raise our kids, and pretty soon, what medical treatment we are allowed to have. In return they let us spend ourselves into debt to corporations and banks; sometimes the same thing; who in turn help keep these guardians in power by throwing all our money we don't give involuntarily to the government to the same people setting the rules.
Really, I watched a relative go from a nice everyday God fearing person, to someone who could find justification in almost any expenditure because it helped someone who either needed it or did not know they needed it. He could argue any point so long as he was part of the group saying yes.
Frankly the only thing that can save us from this self redistricting law protected aristocracy is term limits. Sure we may lose a few good people but damn the number of dangerous ones far outnumber the good ones.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
It got better, though didn't it?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
cloud data may suck to lose, but it's nothing compared to what else is proposed here.
if the US is allowed to do this, you could lose:
your freedom to communicate and voice your opinion
the data on your own computer
the connections you have with others
aren't those more important to you?
unfortunately, we've already lost some of those freedoms, but at least we had a fighting chance in court. this bill exceeds and overrides all that, giving them carte blanche to pretty much do anything they want.
the internet used to be free. but they've built it JUST the way they need it to try some smartass bullshit like this.
and it's going to happen anyway :(
Moderators, please don't be fooled! This is a typical ploy to get moderated up, and it worked. The secret is this: point out hypocrisy on Slashdot, even if that hypocrisy doesn't exist. That's it.
If there's a story about how some open source project has problem X, a good number of the first posts will berate said project. Then a poster will come in and say "If Microsoft did this you'd be berating them." For some reason, moderators assume that the poster's insinuation is correct, and moderate without reading to see if, in fact, the assumption (that Slashdot forgives all open projects) is correct.
The same is happening here. Loads of posters are enraged with what the Obama administration is doing. Yet this poster gets moderated insightful for, essentially, ignoring that these posters exist.
I urge everyone with moderation points not to be fooled into moderating something up. Just because it's superficially controversial doesn't mean the poster is taking a principled stand and deserves to be recognized for it. Sometimes he's just ignorant.
First, I don't really see this as an extension of Presidential power. I'm reasonably certain that, without this act, the President can simply declare a general state of emergency and use Executive Authority to do all this stuff.
The National Emergencies Act limits emergency declarations, including this one, so abuse isn't any more likely than before. Definition of "emergency" isn't needed because it's already defined in statute.
I don't see the privacy concerns, either. The Commerce Secretary gains critical network access only during an emergency. Leaving "critical" open-ended is not a bad idea, IMO. It allows the White House some leeway, but if they use it indiscriminate-like, the courts can rein things in by narrowing the definition of "critical".
Really, this act looks like a bureaucratic formality with the major purpose being to show that certain members of Congress are doing something about computer crime. It serves a couple purposes, I suppose: It allows the bureaucracy to prepare to mobilize for such an emergency; and it alerts the populace to expect such measures in an emergency.
This, however, really highlights the inexperience of the Obama administration, much as it pains me to admit it. Had this happened under Clinton or Bush, the President's network would've alerted them to the legislation long before draft, and a publicity circus would ensue.
First, pundits, columnists, and bloggers would demand a national computer emergency policy. The draft would follow and be announced in a fanfare and clever acronym, such as SAFE-KIDS. The President would harshly criticize the draft, asking for authority to move critical laptops and data to an undisclosed location, to maintain a national strategic pornography reserve, and to choose all the pizza toppings at press meetings.
The legislation would be redrafted, with the media so relieved that the pizza rider was dropped that they label the legislation as "tough", "forward-thinking", and "savvy". This is because the media describe legislation and Oprah Winfrey in equal terms. The major media outlets have never, to my knowledge, described an act of law as "sassy", but it's only a matter of time.
The President criticizes Congress for dropping the topping rider, and asks that he at least be given veto power, because the Wall Street Journal guy likes pineapple and ham. The press rabidly defends Congress' hardball tactics.
The legislation passes; the press hails it. The White House holds a press conference, announcing that its intrepid, caring administration will now be ready to protect American families. The President mispronounces "intrepid", then signs the bill with a statement that he'll damned well do what he pleases, he's the President, and he likes garlic on his pizzas.
And the end result is positive media, lots of attention, and whatever the law would have done anyway. This slipped into draft without Obama noticing/caring, with the result being bad press. Hell, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if the purpose of the draft is to garner bad press for Obama.
So... I don't see this as a bad thing, or an especially good thing. I do see the press as a mark of inexperience in the administration, though.
No. Fucking. Way.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Is this bill possibly the setup for the expected iPatriot Act?
And is Conficker possibly the threat that has been engineered to scare the people into accepting it?
Disclaimer: I am very, very paranoid
The taking over of business by the Treasury and gaining access to massive amount private information on private networks without a warrant all on a whim is likely not to meet any challenge in court.
In soviet Russia, "in soviet America" joke makes YOU!
Heh, speaking of the "too big to fail" idea, I'm always reminded of the Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov, and how the Empire was "too big to fail".. until it collapsed.
Very appropriately timed with Conficker. They use scare tactics to get people to give up their rights.
Back to the local B.B.S... R?
Ah, well. It was funnier in my head.
~AA
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
H.R. 875 promises to do for farming what this bill would do for internet safety.
I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the "in soviet america..." jokes
If this bill is enacted, what keeps the president from permanently shutting down access to certain "harmful things" just like the great firewall of China?
In short....nothing.
This is just one of many proposals for what to do about the Cybersecurity issues. It contains some ideas that have the potential to do a lot of good, and some that have the potential to do a lot of harm. Everyone largely agrees that the status quo isn't working - too many systems are vulnerable, in both the government and private companies, and there just hasn't been enough done by the various agencies and corporations on their own to fix it.
What needs to happen:
-Someone needs to take charge. No more squabbling between various government agencies over a piece of the cyber (budget) pie. A White House Cyber Czar/Secretary/whatever won't solve this overnight, but it's a step in the right direction.
-Set standards, government-wide, for IT security. This will cause companies to produce items to government spec, because it's cheaper to build to that standard, than to have multiple ones. For those "critical infrastructure" sectors (water, energy, etc), extend these standards there too, but other than that, let them accomplish that on their own. (I for one would love to see, say, Microsoft have to conform to security standards, and not just fob off whatever insecure crap their giant market share lets them get away with).
-Make sure the above standards are "Open Standards." Monocultures are very, very bad, and part of the current weakness. We're still going to need interoperability, so we can't completely eliminate some vulnerabilities, but we can make it harder to exploit them.
-Encourage information sharing between government network defenders and the private sector. If some company is getting hacked, the government probably should know. If the government knows about something going on, they should warn people (albeit in a sensible manner, not the color-code alert level FUD that sensible people just ignore by now).
What needs to not happen:
-No stupid "movie plot" crap. You can't just 'shut off' the internet - someone needs to tell these Senators that you can't just flip a switch and turn it all off (Nor should it be like that). Now, cutting off government networks from the rest of the internet, to protect them in time of attack, that'd be a different story.
-No gross accumulation of power. No matter how good the intentions of the current folks, history has shown that someone down the line is going to try and abuse that power. There _have_ to be checks and balances. There _has_ to be accountability, and not just solely within the Executive Branch (because we've all seen how well that works - Nixon, Bush, etc).
There's probably more, but I think that hits the basic highlights.
With, as you'll recall, pretty horrific consequences.
"Too big to fail" doesn't mean it's too big to be able to fail, but too big to be allowed to.
Where's Hari Seldon when you need him?
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
In Soviet America, politicians vote out YOU!
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
s/freedom/security/g
This is how freedom dies.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I think this is another attempt by the government to control something that is larger than itself. The Internet is pretty darn scary, especially because it's so huge, spans every corner of the globe (more or less), and is not technically under the supervision of any single government entity (don't say ICANN; say ICANT). I don't think they like the idea that they can't control what goes in and what comes out (unlike, say, immigration or air travel).
This is beyond the government's ability to restrict traffic flow on roads, on the sea, or in the air. This is far greater than that. This affects far more people, all over the globe. Billions. Imagine if the US decided to cut access to its infrastructure; what would happen to traffic worldwide? It would grind to a halt, or at least close to it. People wouldn't be able to use Google, send e-mail to the majority of people on this planet, communicate with friends and loved-ones, get international news, and so on. I'm not going to pretend that the US is the single point-of-failure of the Internet, but we still have the largest percentage of websites of the whole 'net, and how many out-of-country sites and servers are co-located right here for the fastest speeds and highest availability?
I think this should be beyond the purview of the government. Any government, for that matter. The Internet can manage itself fine, and has been proven time and time again. Why screw with it when it works? *Especially* when it works.
does it really matter? they might be accessing/monitoring ur private data right now and u wouldnt know. it wont make any different with this bill.
as long as no body knows, its not illegal - sad but its true.
Are Belong To Obama
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-778
It's already been sponsored, introduced, and referred to committee.
Sponsor: Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV] Co-sponsors: Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME], Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]
What, no clever acronym for this one? It is bound to fail.
This bill does NOT give the government the power to monitor teh Intertubes. It does two things: Secretary of Commerce as the power to map all networks, public and private; President has an OFF switch for the Internet. The reason that all networks are affected is that it speaks about any "United States critical information system or network". Due to the language of "system", think it probably also extends to the phone network, and perhaps to any computer system that they claim is "United States critical". I don't understand the part about granting powers to the Government "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access". Can you pass a law that says a branch of the Government is exempt from any laws? Well, I guess you can: many state laws specifically exclude the police. The bill also prepares for spending a lot of money on grants and studies. Most interesting thing to me is that it makes it unlawful for anyone not licensed by the federal government to engage in the "cyber security" business inside the USA.
Congress does not have the authority to give the President a new power which is contravened by the Bill of Rights.
They can vote on this and have the president sign it, but it won't be the law.
If they shut off the internet, they will be shutting off most peoples phones. This causes safety concerns and is probably beyond what the idiot who came up with this ideas sight.
sorry for my comments, I'm drunk
Not specifically saying he would do that...
I'm going to bet this administration is the first administration to do exactly that. Afterall, who's going to stop it? It's backstopped by the rubber stamp Congress and the activist Court. And, with the current media lovefest there is no chance anyone will call him on it.
The supreme court really needs to start looking into this...
That activist Court has been on a roll to take away your rights for decades. Get over it. You have no rights.
This sounds like a subset of what he can do already under the Patriot Act.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
The bill was introduced by a Democrat and a Republican, you dishonest idiot!
Agreed, the govt is supposed to be a referee in the market place and the businesses are the players. Once a referee starts playing sides, it turns to shit.
That's about the best phrasing of the problem I've ever seen. How is a company like, say, Toyota goin to feel about "your GM warrentee is backed by the US government". Aren't the majority of US auto manufacturing jobs in factories owned by "foreign" car companies? And some of the bank bailouts are even more ridiculous - how many of my tac dollars are now going to foreign banks?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I can see the rationale for this measure, although I tend to agree that it is ripe for abuse.
The reality is that the next major war will either be preceded by or consist entirely of cyber warfare. The average American is fairly ignorant of the constant stream of attacks and probes from foreign adversaries. So far the attacks mainly invading and stealing information. Those countries find it cheaper to steal technology rather than develop it themselves.
Most US companies and Government agencies don't even know how deeply the adversaries are entrenched in their systems. It's scary to know that MS released source code to China, who has probably used it to build quite an arsenal of zero-day exploits.
This has the potential to be very ugly. Imagine someone being able to take down the Wall Street trading computers or banking systems, thus creating a financial panic. How about knocking a few major power plants off line, triggering widespread power grid outages. How about bringing down miltary networks?
The range of damage that can be done to a country if you have access to the right computers systems is tremendous. With that in mind, the government wants to have the ability to step in and declared a "Cyber Martial Law" to stop an ongoing attack. The NSA also has a task to gather information on critical vulnerabilities in the private sector and help secure them.
It is debatable whether the the government already has these powers under FEMA and martial law regulations. I'd much rather see a specific bill on the topic that clearly delineates what authority the government has, the criteria required for invoking that power, and transparency of when that power is exercised.
Actually, now is the appropriate time to cue the 'Vote for Change' comments. Over the next four years 100% of us are going to get what 53% of 'us' voted for.
I posted a journal covering some of the highlights.
Can you say "Big Brother"?
Yes, the powers as stated are broad. The question is, are they unnecessarily so? My guess is that they are, and that this will need to be addressed. However it is also of great importance that something be done, and sooner, rather than later. The Internet is akin to another border to the US. Attacks on nations and infrastructures across this border are not impossible, as at least two countries have been attacked by cyberwarfare tactics already. Many countries have, or are developing, cyberwarfare divisions and tactics. The damage that can be done by a cyberwarfare first strike is incredible, simply look to what has happened in Estonia as a clue. Now what authority does the US have over its borders in case of attack? That is right, the government has the right to shut them down and defend them, completely and utterly, in the case of attack. Fortunately we have safeguards in place to make sure that this does not happen unless it is necessary (whether those safeguards are adequate or are being used is another debate). The problem right now is that there appears to be no safeguards adequately in place, mostly because of the nature of this new border. The fact is, we need to have a division within our government with the authority and duty to limit and protect the flow of information should it become necessary. This is pretty much indisputable. The problem is with oversight and safeguards. We need to develop those, but we also need the protection. No company should be without this capability, even if it is only to pull the plug. Even a freer environment, like a university, should and probably does have this capability. We also need a similar capability to protect the country as a whole. New territory here. While people do have the right to complain about the possible violation of their rights, we need to move beyond that and find a way to build the safeguards to protect those rights, while still ensuring that our country can take the necessary steps to protect itself. Strictly speaking, the privacy along the internet is not there, and will not be. Whether it is the government looking at your data, or someone else doesn't really matter in the long run. People need to wake up a bit and realise that their data is NOT safe out there if you are simply going to pass along data that isn't secured BY YOU. Instead of sending postcards along the Internet, try using an envelope. Encryption is not hard to do, and far too few people even bother. In my mind you shouldn't complain if your data is intercepted (by the government or anyone else) if you haven't bothered to protect it. Protect yourselves! Don't simply expect everyone else to simply respect your right to privacy. Well, this comment didn't come out the exact way I wanted. Blame it on the late hour and the pain killer I just took.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
"Well," you say, "it's not so bad--what infrastructure is really 'critical,' after all?"
Alas, dear reader, it appears that the wifi router in your closet is critical if the President says it is. I hope your certifications are up to date. Really, though, while I don't expect the president to declare your router critical (mine, on the other hand...), it does seem a bit burdensome that he can suddenly require every employee of AT&T, Verizon, Cogent, Level3, Savvis, etc. to go through some arbitrary training program that the secretary of commerce made up over cocktails last night. But we are not yet finished:
So! The department of commerce will have unlimited access to all network information regarding all the networks that take the President's fancy, and then they will apparently collect secret information about them which they will reveal to none but the Congress. At least all that topology information will save the NSA some time next time they want to upgrade their wiretaps on the backbone. And, finally:
The government hasn't.