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."
"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.
Ok your seriously late now. April fools day was 2 days ago.
USSA
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.
I know. "Change" we can all definitely believe in.
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?
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'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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hey, it's Obama!
We trust him, right?
[fonzie]Come onnnnnnnnnnnn!!!![/fonzie]
You're a funny guy! I may agree with your first statement, but your second is just Republican "But We Were SUPPOSED To Rule Forever Without Opposition Or Restraint" sour grapes. C'mon. You're just mad that it's Democrats taking away rights instead of Republicans - after all, that's supposed to be YOUR schtick!
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
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*
Ironically this was a case of a Democrat and a Republican who usually votes with Democrats submitting the bill.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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
What, like he's President Google or something?
Actually, if there's any organization that already has the power to "shut down the Internet," Google comes pretty close. It's not like they could seal off the tubes, but it's an interesting mental exercise to imagine just how much Internet traffic would be curtailed if Google suddenly ceased all of its operations.
Then again, Microsoft could kill a lot of Internet activity if it suddenly activated whatever remote kill switch it might have in every legitimate Windows install. The only country largely unaffected would be China. ;)
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
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
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.
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.
Just declare it a Cyberpolice Netaction. It's the handiest tool a president can have. Police actions over the past decades have kept America involved in dozens of countries fighting under warlike conditions without congressional approval at all. Usually, they'll roll over and provide the budget for it, too.
You know they would have defined Wednesday an emergency due to conficker, even though NOTHING HAPPENED.
I'm skeptical that the worm even exists.
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?
I'm worried about any president holding such powers, not just the current or future one.
It's a slippery slope. Today, they censor the internet. Tomorrow, they censor the phones. Then it's mail. Then our speech.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
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
I agree that an emergency has to be defined. Although, I am seeing this as solution to the leaking information to China problem caused by intrusion. This is a problem that needs to be fixed.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
That's why we should remove the oversight responsibility from Congress and assign it to the Union of Retired Postal Workers. Then we could have rubber-pantied stamp wasters.
It just sounds like a lot more fun to me.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
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'm sure that the Commerce Sec. will side with the *IAA and declare an emergency quite often when they see too much P2P file sharing traffic.
Talk about a built in excuse to wield this power and pretty much any given moment.
I was joking the other day in another thread about how it had to 'kill' governments, including ours, that they were late to the party and had no real control of the internet.
I guess they read that...and came up with something like this.
I swear...this administration is punching so many scary things through congress I'm really afraid for what the country is gonna look like very soon, and if any of it can be undone??
Geez...the overboard spending (without actually doing anything about the main problem being the frozen credit in the banking system), the President talking about capping salaries even on companies that aren't taking bailout money, the Treas. Sec. talking about having the power to intervene in private companies (even those not on bailout money) and take them over in essence to 'save' them if they are looking 'troubled', the Atty General wanting to start up gun bans again, the head of DHS saying we need to crunch down on gun laws due to MX drug gang violence....and the list goes on.
Now...they was to legislate unlimited tapping of the internet and the ability to just turn off the spigot for very non-specific reasons? Ouch.
And I thought the previous administrations NSA taps were nefarious. This law has the potential to make that look completely insignificant.
Seriously....those that voted for "O" and were adament supporters. Is THIS the change you were wanting?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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
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.
That is panty waste, not pantywaists.
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.
It's an interesting mental exercise to imagine just how much Internet traffic would be curtailed if Google suddenly ceased all of its operations.
Not much, actually. Sure, there'd be a dip until people figured out what to do, but then Hotmail and Yahoo (and many others) would pick up the slack. Come to think of it, it would actually be pretty nice to shake the competition up a bit.
Liberal fascist is an oxymoron, genius.
Would you prefer the term Oligarchical Collectivist?
"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"
Yes, because Obama is the person that proposes and passes laws. Right?
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.
I'm not sure how you got the idea that GP is blaming Bush. Looks to me like he's implicitly faulting Obama for this particular expansion of government, and putting him in the same boat as the Bushes. He could have just as easily said, "Preparation for the next Clinton administration. Hillary will love this when it's her turn at the wheel."
If you think that the differences between the mainstream Democratic and Republican parties run deep below the surface, you are grossly misinformed. For reference, see: most legislation passed in the US Congress for the past two decades.
Your brain is not a computer.
Seriously....those that voted for "O" and were adament supporters. Is THIS the change you were wanting?
Did you even read the article? The bill was introduced by a Democrat and a Republican. Obama was not involved.
Mod parent up.
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!
Wow... what a stretch THAT is. Now that "your" guy's got all the keys and juice, it's simply to empower the next person you don't like? How about the CURRENT PRESIDENT'S POWER? He didn't overturn any of the executive snooping powers put in by shrub... and he didn't pressure to repeal any of the Patriot Act's diabolical crapola.
In other words "Change" == "More of the same in a different suit." And you can bet your left-leaning butt Obama's relishing all this new-found power... the same new-found power that he criticized and chastised shrub about when he was running for office. Now that he's IN office, it's just like the last president. This one's just got bigger ears. We're living in a one-party society. This BS legislation is proof of that.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
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
Nice play. Very nice...
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
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.
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 :(
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~
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantywaist
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.
Temporarily closing down nonessential Internet traffic isn't much different from shutting down the freeway when road conditions make driving on it unsafe.
...
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.
the idea of any single entity "shutting down" the Internet is a nonsensical statement, regardless of the entity involved. If you don't understand why, spend some more time thinking about how someone might "shut down" "the Internet". Shutting down a provider or a given link or exchange point, sure. "Shutting down the Internet", not so much.
(this doesn't even touch on the wisdom or propriety of granting any single individual that kind of power, much less the President. Of course that kind of power doesn't exist to grant in the first place, so it's kind of a moo point. You know, like a cow's opinion.)
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
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)
@MozeeToby: "I don't have any real problem with this..."
I do. How many more bills that pick away at our civil rights will they introduce to congress before you decide its enough?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
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.
Exactly. Why is Obama once again getting blamed for something Congress is trying to do?
I strenuously warned people before the election to not make Obama into something more than he is. He is a person, and a politician. He isn't going to "save the world" or conquer evil for good. He can only do so much. I can't believe all these disenfranchised "so-called" Obama supporters who expected the world to turn from shit into gold overnight simply because the presidency changed. I got news for you people, that isn't how it works. Generally the only kind of change that happens overnight is the bad kind. Good change takes time. Have a little patience. And every time you think Obama makes a bad decision, stop and ask yourself how things would have turned out if "I can see Russia from my house" was calling the shots.
"But this one goes to 11!"
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]
Exactly. Why is Obama once again getting blamed for something Congress is trying to do?
Because it's naive to think that the president has zero influence on the proposing of bills in Congress? Secondly, do you think that he's actually going to veto this? HAHAHAHAHA, yeah right.
What, no clever acronym for this one? It is bound to fail.
I agree, it is naive to think that the president has zero influence on proposing bills in Congress. Almost as naive as thinking the president has 100% influence on proposing bills to Congress. Of course there is also the fact that Obama didn't actually propose the bill.
Now that that is cleared up, how about answering my original question? Why is Obama once again getting blamed for something Congress is trying to do?
"But this one goes to 11!"
So you think the World of Warcraft infrastructure is critical?
Panem et circensis, I think.
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
Er, panty waste would be something completely different....
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.
Ooo, please, godefroi, who wins the super bowl next year? you must be from the future, as you know the outcome of the bill... He's either going to veto it or not. We DO NOT know yet. Even if he doesn't, we don't know if he will (ab)use it. Stop doommongering.
Karma is for whores
Uh, if this passed and they told AT&T, verizon and the other telecoms to shut down the tubes, where is the internet going to go in America? It might stay up for the rest of the world, but the telecoms carry 99% of all traffic and they can shut down the internet in America. I don't consider an ad hoc wireless network where I can connect to my neighbors to be the internet. YMMV.
Does anyone honestly believe this bill would have been vetoed by the other guy?
If so, then you are quite naive. Once you begin a slide into despotism your votes start to matter less and less.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
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
I've just scanned the 51-page bill and concluded that the summary is hyperbolic, at the least.
The bill addresses concerns over cyberterrorism, creates a review panel that serves in an advisory role to the president, tracks potential computer science & cybersecurity students from kindergarten on (and offers them incentives and inclusion in summer government programs), offers to split the costs of cybersecurity with small businesses and nonprofits for at least the first 3 years, and finally, authorizes the president to shut down "federal and United States critical systems" in the advent of an emergency situation.
It's that last one that's bothering folks, especially since emergency isn't well defined - but a state of emergency is never well defined; it's pretty much whatever the president says it is and it's always been that way.
My issue is the lack of definition of "critical systems". From the bill, it can be inferred that critical systems pertain to utilities and financial institutions, but it's never explicitly defined.
In any case, nowhere is there mentioned the ability to shut down nonessential systems - the whole point is that it grants the ability to shut down essential systems.
So in other words, the only time this would really affect the masses (or be noticeable at all) is if the president decides that ISPs are critical systems that need to be shut down.
Finally, about this part of the summary:
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.
While this language does appear in the bill, it refers to Federal-owned networks and the so-called "critical" networks.
Again, it all comes down to what "critical" means to the government. If they decide critical means anything they want, then this is the end of the free internet in the U.S.
Ultimately, the bill gives the federal government more power than it needs while making it bigger and more expensive to taxpayers, as well as overburdening small businesses with unnecessary security costs and measures.
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!
Does anyone honestly believe this bill would have been vetoed by the other guy?
No, but this guy ran on a platform consisting almost entirely of "I'm different from the other guy", so those who voted for this guy might be a little let down by stuff like this.
Hey, don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Liberal fascist is an oxymoron, genius.
So that whole National Socialist party thing was just an unpleasant dream? Every large totalitarian goverment since the fall of feudalism has called itself Communist or Socialist.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
>>What, like he's President Google or something?
Google is in tight with Obama. They did the "Office of the Presidential Elect" web site for him.
>>It's not like they could seal off the tubes, but it's an interesting mental exercise to imagine just how much Internet traffic would be curtailed if Google suddenly ceased all of its operations.
Not much. People know about other search engines... Google is just too easy to use and it works well, so they use that.
I agree, it is naive to think that the president has zero influence on proposing bills in Congress. Almost as naive as thinking the president has 100% influence on proposing bills to Congress. Of course there is also the fact that Obama didn't actually propose the bill. Now that that is cleared up, how about answering my original question? Why is Obama once again getting blamed for something Congress is trying to do?
Because he clearly benefits from it, and won't hesitate to abuse it as he wishes. Don't worry, Congress is quite to blame, as well. But don't tell anyone I said that. They might declare a "cyber-emergency" and use that as an excuse for a warrantless search of my home-network and house.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
"shut down the tubes" meaning what, exactly? a router? all routers? core or edge or both? BGP sessions? exchange points? private or public?
what I'm driving at here is that the fundamental nature of the Internet, its very definition, is a number of independent networks agreeing to exchange traffic in a decentralized manner. Even shutting down a single large provider (e.g. MCI/UUNet/Verizon/AS701) is an nonsensical statement - what specifically are you shutting down? There are thousands of routers, peering connections, internal interconnects, hand-offs to smaller providers who in turn interconnect and hand off to still smaller providers ... the architecture very much resembles a fractal for the larger providers.
Now multiply that complexity by a dozen and you've covered probably 90% of the carriers in the US ... but wait, some of these aren't US based carriers! We have quite a few carriers with circuits or presence in the US where the organization is legally located elsewhere. What do you do then?
Telling AT&T to shut down (assuming you can even define that; let's say you mean disconnect from every other provider they peer with, and shutting down their tens of thousands of client connections) would cause damage, but would do little more than isolate AT&T from the rest of the world.
This legislation is an incredibly bad idea for a number of reasons, but the risk it poses to the availability of the Internet as a whole is not one of them.
illum oportet crescere me autem minui
Ooo, please, godefroi, who wins the super bowl next year? you must be from the future, as you know the outcome of the bill... He's either going to veto it or not. We DO NOT know yet. Even if he doesn't, we don't know if he will (ab)use it. Stop doommongering.
Geee....
if someone put a contract in front of you, where basically your consideration in the contract was to "use what we give you at your leisure" and theirs was "giving you unlimited power", would you not sign it? If not, I'd call you stupid.
And as much as I can't stand Barack "hOpe" Hussein, I'm almost entirely sure he's not stupid.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Until their servers fail from the strain.
I highly doubt that either Yahoo or Microsoft could handle that much of a traffic leap Unannounced without going down in flames after the first few minutes or so.
Now that I think about it, actually, that would make a very effective legal DOS attack on the two for Google.
Why are we blaming the whole of congress for an entirely un-passed bill?
I'll be angry when it gets past either the House or the Senate. Until then, I suggest you direct your hate toward the dumbass congressmen that proposed the bill; in this case, Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) according to TFA.
The bill might not even be put in front of him. You know how much proposed legislation gets passed by congress? Next to none.
Although I agree that the bill is terrible, the time to be worried is when it comes out of each half of congress with the worst parts unchanged.
If and only if the bill passes the Senate should anyone really even begin to be concerned about the bill. Although it's horrid legislation, it has about as much power sitting in committee as the weaker half of my ass.
Probably less, now that I think about it.
Let me just join the masses and say; BOOO this bill sucks! I personally dislike any provision that grants any sort of power without defining circumstances or limitations. It will just be abused.
Hell, I can't even trust him!
And of course everyone knows the real reason, this is the only media the guvmnt doesn't control now.
We used to have a democratic republic form of government in the USA. That went straight in the shitter with the federal reserve act 21 years before I was born, again in the year I was born with the FCA, and again in 1968 with the GCA68.
Ever closer to a dictatorship folks, and don't say you haven't been warned as even Thomas Jefferson warned us about it at about the time we kicked the brits out.
They who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Most of our lives are about proving something, either to ourselves or to
someone else.
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.
Nah. Democrats don't censor; they socialize and overregulate. Although the net result may be the same (lack of availability).
"We're not banning anything - we're making sure this is used properly by everyone. Now, please file your form for your network ID to get access to your internet ration. What? You don't already have your internet ration? Well then, we can't issue you your ID."
That's why I use a Mac and have an Ubuntu Live CD (just in case)!
To be fair, Snowe is my senator, and she's not really a Republican. I'm pretty sure she runs as a Republican just so she can break from her party whenever there's a partisan issue. Sort of like senatorial sabotage.
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
With the attitude so many are taking about the Evil Obama (not saying he is or is not, time will tell), it would be interesting to see what people said if it made it to him and he vetoed it. Hopefully, it will not get that far.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Now multiply that complexity by a dozen and you've covered probably 90% of the carriers in the US ... but wait, some of these aren't US based carriers! We have quite a few carriers with circuits or presence in the US where the organization is legally located elsewhere. What do you do then?
Nationalize 'em, tax 'em 90%, and put salary caps in place on all the execs - they'll toe the Party line from there on out!
Oh... :/
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
"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:
It's certainly not as surprising as TFA might suggest. I know that, at least in the UK, they've had the ability to shut down the internet in national emergencies (intended to include "big enough terrorist attacks that we want to avoid national panic"). Also, in both the UK and the US, I think the government has always been able to shut down the phone system similarly.
With the attitude so many are taking about the Evil Obama (not saying he is or is not, time will tell), it would be interesting to see what people said if it made it to him and he vetoed it. Hopefully, it will not get that far.
InnerWeb
If he vetoes it, kudos to him. I'll look at him a with a tad less suspicion. It doesn't get him off the hook for spending my money on everything but me, and telling me to cough up more.
If he truly stops acting like an FDR Socialist, then maybe I'll have a better opinion of him. Until then, he's a commie, as far as I'm concerned.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Who's the nitwit who modded this OT?
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
If Olympia Snow is a Republican, then I'm a Socialist.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them