Slashdot Mirror


Emergency Government Control of the Internet?

TheZid writes "A newly proposed bill would give Uncle Sam the power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a 'cyber security emergency.' As usual, our government is trying to take away our privacy by citing security. What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform? What counts as an emergency? Can political opponents be deemed a cyber-security emergency?"

14 of 853 comments (clear)

  1. don't underestimate our politicitian by hackingbear · · Score: 4, Informative

    What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform? What counts as an emergency, can political opponents be deemed a cyber security emergency?

    Politicians in this country are all PR/marketing super-talents. Do you think they will or need to do something this unpolished?

  2. Let's not over-react. by Drakin020 · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. The original legislation was proposed back in April and hasn't gone anywhere. At this point I think it's just lacking supporters.

    2. From the actual Bill:

    (2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

    (5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;

    (6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security"....

    This meaning that basically any government related network such as national power grids, water plants. (Things that don't need to be accessible from the internet to begin with) will be under the control of the president during a time of an emergency.

    This doesn't affect the (Internet) as a whole. The internet is not a central computer that sits in a government warehouse with an On/Off button. The internet is a protocol, not an object. Basically it is the collection of various servers and networking devices from all over the world.

    You simple can't just "Turn it off" which is what many people are fearing.

    So in short, if we the united states was under some kind of Cyber attack, the President could not turn off (Slashdot.org, digg.com, weather.com) but they could control the networks of those that are government related.

    I still haven't read through the entire bill yet, but that seems to be the basic summary.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    1. Re:Let's not over-react. by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some big complaints I gleaned from other news sources seem to include the fact that if you're deemed a "critical" enough place, then

      a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

      -- CNET

      The EFF further complains "The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

      So, random government intrusion in random places which are "critical". Blargh. "Be more specific please" is the complaint.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  3. Re:Fooled again? by jdgeorge · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, if when you say "boss", you mean "US Senate", where this bill was introduced.

    In any case, supporting that sentiment that elected officials of opposing parties are not significantly distinguishable, note that this bill in its original form was a bipartisan bill, as one of the co-sponsors, Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME], is a member of the GOP.

  4. Re:Backwards by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Informative

    minor nit:
    Pelosi and co are not 'the administration'.

    I'm just about as liberal as they come and I'd gladly jettison Pelosi and Reid for some competent leadership, but 'the administration' is Obama and the Whitehouse, not Congress.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  5. Re:Backwards by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

    minor nit:

    They are the same party, they meet inside the White House with Obama, and they coordinate with one another to craft bills. They are as much a part of the administration as the vice-president. Perhaps moreso.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  6. Re:Backwards by Zancarius · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm just about as liberal as they come and I'd gladly jettison Pelosi and Reid for some competent leadership, but 'the administration' is Obama and the Whitehouse, not Congress.

    Pelosi and Reid may not be the administration, but if you don't believe they have a significant pull over what Obama does (hint: nothing without their express blessing), you're kidding yourself. I'm not even so sure that the administration is fully aware of the power drain they have suffered with this congress...

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  7. Re:Backwards by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

    In order to secede, you'd have to get a constitutional amendment passed. The Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White laid out in no uncertain terms that the Constitution allows only joining the union, and does not allow for leaving it. From their decision (edited somewhat and emphasis added):

    The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. ... And when these Articles [of Confederation] were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

    But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. ... And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that

    the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,

    and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

    When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  8. Not So Fast by CaffeineJedi · · Score: 4, Informative

    was a bipartisan bill, as one of the co-sponsors, Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME], is a member of the GOP.

    Olympia Snowe votes with Democrats more than Republicans. She was one of the only three Republicans in the Senate and House that voted on the $787 billion spending bill. One of those "Republicans," Arlen Specter, is now a Democrat.

    Here is a visualization which performs an energy minimization mapping to group politicians by their voting record.

    You can clearly see where Olympia Snowe votes in relation to the two parties. Saying this bill is bi-partisan is a more than a bit of a stretch.

  9. Re:Backwards by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Informative

    > The Supreme Court's decision... [blah blah]

    I'm really getting tired of this notion of the Supreme Court trumping everything including basic reading comprehension. This isn't some bad Star Trek episode (The Omega Glory) where the 'sacred words' are only for a few, we are all supposed to read and be able to understand them.

    Facts:

    1. The original Articles of Confederation did include a perpetual union clause. Didn't stop the States from dropping out and reforming under the current Constitution.

    2. The States are soverign, the USA is but a creation of them.

    3. Nothing actually IN the constitution even implies states may not leave. Several attempts were made by the the very people who wrote the damned thing.

    > In order to secede, you'd have to get a constitutional amendment passed.

    No, that wouldn't stop em. The primary reason state are wanting out is because the Federal government has been wiping their arses on the Constitution for decades. If the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments are ALL dead letters it would be madness to believe a new one would be honored. No, there is only one way out if a State wishes to leave: Possession of one or more fusion bombs and a working delivery system. The current Federal Government is all about force, thus the credible threat of force is the only thing it would respect.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  10. Re:Backwards by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whether you supported the Bush administration or not (I voted for him twice - lesser of two evils each time), you have to admit that Congress spent like drunken sailors during his two terms. Yes, spending bills originate in the House and have to pass the Senate, too, but Bush didn't veto anything in his first term and very damned little in his second.

  11. Re:Backwards by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

    >>>People like you just piss me off. You read some right wing horse shit and go around spouting i

    How are you any better? You are simply repeating the Obama and Democratic talking points ("50 million people uninsured") without ever bothering to examine if this number is the truth, or merely propaganda. Well I've done the research and here's the deal:

    - The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid. The Congressional Budget Office says that any point-in-time 7% of Americans *temporarily* uninsured. In other words, between jobs. But they are not completely uninsured because they are protected by government unemployment benefits and COBRA.

    - About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance. There are a number of reasons for this. Mine is that I think insurance is a scam and it's cheaper for me to simply pay my ~$200 a year doctor visit.

    - About 3% are not citizens, so even under Obamacare, they still would not be covered. And then there's the many people that checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 20%.

    BOTTOM LINE- There are only 8 million U.S. citizens who *want* insurance but are not covered by private or government plans.
    8.
    That's it.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  12. Re:Backwards by ajlisows · · Score: 5, Informative

    - About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance. There are a number of reasons for this. Mine is that I think insurance is a scam and it's cheaper for me to simply pay my ~$200 a year doctor visit.

    Man, it is your prerogative but I think you need to realize that insurance isn't about your $200 a year doctor visit.

    Insurance is basically a lottery that you essentially do not want to win. To win means you have suffered an injury or illness well in excess of what you (or you and your company) have put into it. I don't know HOW wealthy you are but money can get chewed up really really fast if you suffer any kind of major medical issue. You just got cancer? After doctors visits, specialists visits, tests, scans, medications, chemo, surgery, rehab, hospital stays, and costs I am failing to mention....you are going to be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars.Maybe you are young, active, eat well, don't smoke, don't drink, and do everything right but that does not mean you are immune to cancer. Hell, even a good compound leg fracture is likely to cost you nearly $50,000.

    Insurance companies make their money, no doubt. Most of the time you are essentially paying lots of money for other people to get treated and for the insurance companies to show a profit...but if you do happen to need it the ROI is extremely high.

  13. Re:Backwards by MrHim · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well I've done the research and here's the deal:

    The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid.

    You've done the research? Care to provide a citation for your claims?

    The 50 (sometimes 47) million number that is often quoted comes from SAHIE. A quick glance at the about page will show you that:

    The SAHIE program models health insurance coverage by combining survey data with population estimates and administrative records. Our estimates are based on data from the following sources:

    * The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS);
    * Demographic population estimates;
    * Aggregated federal tax returns;
    * Participation records for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program;
    * County Business Patterns;
    * Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) participation records; and
    * Census 2000.

    If you want to dig deaper then checkout the data inputs section.

    BOTTOM LINE: it is not a "mailin" survey or anything of the sort. 47 million is the best, educated guess of the number of uninsured based on data from a wide variety of sources collected in 2005 and compiled by SAHIE; 50 million if you look at the 2006 data.