Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New CyberSecurity Bill Raises Privacy Questions

Posted by kdawson on from the picture-future-presidents dept.

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."

7 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Route Around Him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. I think I speak for everyone by Taibhsear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:I think I speak for everyone by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If not, they need to be replaced with people who will.

      I'm a computer guy with only a basic understanding of government... but doesn't the President replace the judges? If he wants to wield that much power over peoples' rights, won't he just put more justices up there that support his power grabs?

      Also, I'm pretty sure the only way they get replaced is if they step down or... you know... die. I highly doubt they'll care about "getting replaced" in either of those situations.

      How lovely.

      --

      Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

  3. Presidential ddos? by TinBromide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
  4. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that by Markvs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."
  5. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We trust him, right?

    Completely besides the point. Even if we trust Obama, and I must admit I have doubts about him, this law will survive his term as president.

    Can you trust EVERY FSCKING PRESIDENT that follows him?

    I know I can't.

  6. Re:Who needs the constitution... by ajs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read this very differently, and I think this is just the case of a VERY bad Slashdot summary and a terminology barrier between the government and the geek community. "Data" doesn't appear to indicate live bits streaming over networks, here. I think this is saying, "relevant data" and meaning "information relevant to understanding the topology of critical networks." That is, if you run a backbone in the US you have to tell the Feds about it and give them specs.

    As the Net becomes more of a critical piece of US infrastructure, I don't think that's terribly unreasonable.

    Now, if someone can demonstrate that this is being pushed as a way to snoop on packets without a warrant, I'll stand corrected, but it just doesn't read that way at all to me.