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.
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
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 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?
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.
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."
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
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
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
...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.
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?
The internet won't be routing around anything when the President orders your ISP to sever your shit.
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
Do you even read what you post? From your own wikipedia link: "Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all."
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.
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.........
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.
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.
Honestly I think there is a good argument that China is actually more Fascist than Communist.
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.
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 :(
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantywaist
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)
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.
Yes, it is.
Yet it is also an old tactic, documented as far back as 656 A.D.[1]
More insane politics have probably happened by way of "waving the bloody shirt" than any other tactic.
[1] From the above wiki link:
The term "bloody shirt" can be traced back to the aftermath of the murder of the third Caliph, Uthman in 656 AD, when a bloody shirt and some hair alleged to be from his beard were used in what is widely regarded as a cynical ploy to gain support for revenge against opponents.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
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.
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