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."
...it's just a piece of paper anyways.
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.
I know. "Change" we can all definitely believe in.
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.
I'm more worried (and you should too) about our current president that could have these "extended powers" very soon than some crazy left-wing fear/theory of another member of the Bush family becoming president four years from now. Democrats and Republicans will both fuck you over and continue to steer this country into irrelevancy. Wake up dammit!
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??
Just from reading the summary, I'll say this.
I don't have any real problem with this, except for the non-defined nature of an emergency. I don't know how you would define an emergency (if you know what it is and when it's coming its not much of an emergency) but I would say something along the lines of "a situation which endangers vital communications links, including those needed for power generation, public safety, and military uses".
If a bot-net rises up that starts disrupting these communication links, extreme measures may be needed to ensure those links stay active. Temporarily closing down nonessential Internet traffic isn't much different from shutting down the freeway when road conditions make driving on it unsafe.
The problem, as usual, is the potential for abuse. I would give the president authority to shut down the Internet for not more than 48 hours, anything more than that should require congressional approval. Make abuse of this system a felony offense to punish any blatant abuses of the system. Of course, that is supposed to be how declaring war works too and that hasn't been followed since WWII.
anything more than that should require congressional approval.
Which will be about as worthless as the requirement that Congress is the only body that can declare war. They will just sign over any oversight they have to the president and be a bunch of rubber-stamping pantywaists.
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
Wasn't he paraphrasing Caesar?
Please tell me you are kidding. Did you miss this line in TFS: "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.'"
"...without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy..."??? This is NSA wiretapping all over again! Our new "Change we can believe in" president has only been in office for ~90 days, and he's already shaping up to be 'Dub' on steriods.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
It gives the power to the electoral college to do so.
A President could have every single vote from the people and the electoral college could elect some other schlub. The only thing preventing this is the fact that the electors are appointed by the very people who want to get elected.
There are rules about the electoral college and the assignment of votes in state constitutions, as well. The point is, the power to elect the president is NOT constitutionally placed with the people, not does it realistically rest with them.
Votes are bought, elections are gamed, and people like you fail to see that Republican and Democrat politicians are the same fucking liars, the same fucking morons, with the same bullshit year after year.
But by all means - trot out that "political spectrum" chart you learned about in highschool, and say "fascism is on the RIGHT! It's a FACT!".
From your OWN shitipedia link:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology"
Some would call Obama's jackknifing of the economy radical, his constant "cooperation" with congress and his remarks on dissent ("Look, we won.") authoritariana, and of course Obama is trying to improve America's standing politically and economically.
"that aims to create a single-party state"
Which party controls the House? The Senate? The White House? All that's left is for a couple of justices to die off.
"with a government led by a dictator"
Obama says it and it happens. He's not crushing anyone under an iron fist, but what he says goes. His popularity is his main weapon. Hell, he just kicked out the CEO of a private company.
"who seeks national unity"
Yes we can? It's all about "we". And "change". And "working together". The man has won over the hearts and minds of tons of people. They follow him like groupies follow rock bands.
"and development"
I keep hearing about "new jobs" (without the mention that you can't create jobs without creating physical demand, instead, you can only shift jobs/money/debt around), and our "infrastructure". I have no doubt though that this is all bullshit that will never come to fruition because he won't be able to actually create jobs, and because the infrastructure requires real work and we have a serious lack of real workers (we've got a lot of politicians, lawyers, marketers, and other white collar "workers" that we could put to use).
"by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race."
This one's too easy.
By the criteria listed in your own "evidence", many people could justifiably consider Obama a fascist. Whether or not you agree with them on a whole, or on specific points, is a matter of opinion.
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.
So, he's going to veto it then? Oh? No? Huh.
Well, I guess we really DO get change then. This time, it's going to be LEGAL when the president does it. That's a definite change!
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)