Slashdot Mirror
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 Passes Senate Panel
An anonymous reader writes "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel, giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval. The bill, written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV] and revised by Sen. Olympia Snow [R-ME], was drafted in an attempt to thwart internet-based terrorist threats, and gives the president this 'kill switch' without oversight or explanation. The bill is up for Senate vote."
Well, you can't contr[Connection dropped by USA Presidential request].
Why do I have a funny feeling that The Pirate Bay will suddenly be labeled a terrorist organization?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's not as bad as the Patriot act, so therefore it's ok for this to pass. At least they're not as bad as the last administration, right?
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
Is this Kill Switch just for the internet or the all the people who use the internet?
Like most emergency powers, it requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours.
It doesn't seem, though, to give Congress power to stop the emergency action if it feels that it's not really an emergency.
We'll see what the House does with it.
Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch? You're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting > 90% of the economy, making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people, and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society. The damage would be severe and significant and I just can't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good.
Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of "Terrorism". It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.
Kickass Cheap Web Hosting
A page must be created right now to prepare the bets and polls on which page will be blocked first.
I know you're joking, but seriously, how would something like this even work?
As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America. So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?
I really thoughts the democrats would be different.
I don't have a problem with this, there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary. Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably, even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency. I don't think this law is about approval (I'm sure there would be a huge investigation by congress if he ever used it), it's about timing - stuff on the internet happens quickly and needs to be responded to quickly.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
I voted for Hillary.
He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing
Lots of comments but not one that is technically based...
Ok, I'll ask. Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work? Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless). What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?
I am trying to envision how this would work on any technical level and I just can't get there. Yes, you could pretty easily cripple our telecom system here and there but to shut the whole thing down and make it unusable is quite a different scenario.
Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents. Yes, I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it, then someone else can also do it.
This actually raises (many) more questions than it answers.
This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason. IMHO, this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way. Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last? Oh, yeah, Hugo Chavez. Oh yeah. the Chinese government. Oh yeah, the Iranian government. Oh yeah, the Burmese government (scuse me Miranmar). If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power, this will do the same in the other direction. "Oh, but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias (that nobody ever heard of until now)." Yeah, keep thinking that. Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power?
Change you can beli-- 404 ERROR...
Proverbs 21:19
I've read the bill. It honestly isn't that bad. First off, the "kill switch" doesn't apply to arbitrary web sites or anything like that. It specifically targets 1) government computer networks and 2) computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure". By "critical infrastructure", they mean things like the power grid, water and sewer systems, natural gas systems, stuff like that. Some people who have read this bill have made the assumption that "infrastructure networks" is synonymous with "network infrastructure", i.e. internet backbones, but it's pretty obvious from the context that this is not what the bill is meant to cover. There's nothing in the bill which allows the president to turn off your internet or disconnect you unless you are a utility company.
Now, that said, they really could have more precisely defined "critical infrastructure networks" in order to make that clearer. There is still a little weasel-room in the bill where it is possible that someone could try to justify ridiculous actions using it. They could have eliminated this with a more specific definition of what comprises "critical infrastructure". So I wouldn't say that I support it 100% in its current form, but honestly, I don't think that the bill is all that terrible.
The bigger problem to me is that I don't see any reason to believe that the measures in this bill will do anything significant to address the problem which they are purporting to address. Although I'm not convinced that a "cyber attack" is a real threat, if it is, by the time the president declares a state of "cyber emergency", it will probably already be too late. If there really is a serious on-line threat then the way to fight that is not to give more power to people at the top to respond, it is to give people at the bottom more authority to make decisions and respond quickly to a developing security situation.
Yeah, too bad Obama publicly stated he wanted this. He also publicly stated that he wants a federal police force that answers only to him. Besides, since people think Bush was so evil, why didn't he do this? He certainly had enough time and a congressional majority to do it.
The difference between martial law and this is that martial law takes a lot of time and manpower to implement on a national scale. This takes a few hours.
And martial law violates Posse Comitatus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
I'm sure this cybersecurity thing does too. Communications lines aren't federal property.
Did you read it off your palm?
While US did create ARPA in the 50's for military use, most of how Internet is used now a day has been actually created in Europe. US got the ball rolling, Europe polished and finished it.
On 6 August 1991, CERN, a pan European organization for particle research, publicized the new World Wide Web project. The Web was invented by British scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.
Same goes for almost every other major protocol and technology.
The Internet is an invention of the USA, so why shouldn't we have control over it, you eurotrash piece of shit?
DARPA created the Internet, so why shouldn't they have control over it?
More to the point, a very small number of individuals at DARPA created the Internet, so why shouldn't they have control over it?
In fact, only some PARTS of those individuals created the Internet, so why shouldn't those parts have control over it?
But wait, HUMANS created the Internet, so why shouldn't we all have control over it?
Why exactly are you picking one particular level of abstraction out of the infinite multitude of possible ones and declaring that it is the only one that we should all pay attention to? What makes the nation-state your entity-of-choice with regard to causal efficacy and moral supremacy? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Ex post facto oversight is worthless.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
I read that the 'kill switch' was removed from the bill a few weeks ago... Even Fox says it was.
they're not as bad as the last administration, right?
Do as I say, not as I do. Bush BAD, BO GOOD.
The 1913 US Tax law was a tax on only the top 1% of the population, the "wealthy". Now, the wealthy have tax dodges that allow them to pay less taxes than their maids, who often work at minimum wages. The resulting enforcement agency, the IRS, has been repeatedly used over the years as a political weapon, even more so than the Census Act. The use of the Census Act as a political weapon is rapidly gaining ground.
The RICO Act was created to fight organized crime, and a "promise" was made that it would "never" be used on ordinary citizens. Now, it is used over 10,000 times a year against ordinary citizens as a way to steal "guilty" property and as a supplemental funding source when law enforcement budgets are frozen or cut. The RICO Act provides that the law enforcement agencies can keep the property they stole even if it turns out that the "target" supplied by a jail house snitch seeking a "deal" was innocent.
The MOST UNPATRIOTIC law ever passed, the PATRIOT ACT, effectively destroys the Bill of Rights. The accused cannot tell anyone, including their spouse, that they've been accused, or of what they have been accused. They cannot face their accuser, nor can they see the "evidence" against them. They are tried in special courts. In fact, the PATRIOT Act RE-ESTABLISHES the conditions that were created in America by King George, prior to the Declaration of Independence. It's a slam-dunk convection when you cancel the Bill of Rights, especially when you add the infamous "perp walk" and the leaked "fact" news, all deliberately used to create an air of guilt for which there is often little or no real evidence. Toss in the self-appointed TV pundits, who act as judge, jury and executioner, and the accused is forever tainted. Fear of terrorist attacks have resulted in a law which cannot guarantee safety and has destroyed the Constitution. Like the Tax law and the RICO act, it is only a matter of time before future politicians use it for political purposes. So now, the US citizen has neither safety nor freedom and bribed Congressmen steadfastly refuse to identify or accept the power base of Jihadist threats in America, and persist in wasting American blood and treasure in Mid-East energy wars while Oil Companies continue to make record profits on oil and lobby to suppress alternate energy development in order to sustain their profit margins.
The FAIRNESS Doctrine was never about fairness. It was created as a political weapon. The political center and Right has always had a larger base in the US and, as Sen Franken found out, the Left cannot sustain a sufficiently large enough audience or advertiser base to support a national radio talk show preaching Socialist/Communist/Marxist values. When businesses failed to purchase sufficient ad time and devoted listeners failed to donate enough money, Air America failed. Not to worry! The Left has been successful in getting its message out by hijacking public radio and TV and subverting tax payer funds to sponsor "independent" films and guests, which focus on Marxist themes. The kinds of themes championed by ACORN or other Left Wing alphabet groups. Combine the always Leftists Indie films with mindless, talentless "Create" themes, and constant public service announcements against "hate speech" (which is any speech against Leftist ideology), and you have the complete brain washing paradigm. The stories about America's National Parks, etc., although inspirational, are mainly fillers, to maintain an air of neutrality.
Now we are going to be "protected" by selectively shutting down the only source of free public discourse remaining in this country, the Internet. The Internet bypassed the magazine and newspaper editors and their management of the "news". What was true in the USSR (there is no news in the Truth and no Truth in the news) had become true in America. The Internet bypassed single points of focus of government control or of editorial agendas. Now, the EXACT same method used in China by the Chinese Communist Party to control thei
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
How can Obama deserve criticism here?
A bill with the support of a Republican Senator and a Democratic Senator in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been introduced to the Senate that will have to be passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives before it gets anywhere near Obama.
Why is a bill coming out of committee such a big deal?
I urge everyone in the IT community to download and read S.773 - The Cybersecurity Act of 2009. This bill contains a number of troubling provisions beyond the most obvious one, which is Presidential ability to control the Internet by preventing its use when he deems it necessary to do so. It would require the President to establish a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel without requiring any approval of the members of such panel by Congress. It also requires the Secretary of Commerce to assist the panel with the creation of Regional Cybersecurity Centers that must be affiliated with a non-profit organization or consortium, funded by the panel. Per my reading of the bill, all of this is to be done by people who not been vetted or approved by Congress in any way. It places all of that power in the hands of the President and certainly creates an opportunity to politicize the entire process. Within one year, the Secretary of Commerce must develop a national licensing, certification and recertification program for cybersecurity professionals. Beginning three years after the bill is passed, "it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President's designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program." Ask yourselves, please, who gets to define what is or isn't a critical infrastructure information system or network. That's correct. It's the President (or his designee). But wait ... there's more. Within one year after the bill is passed, the President (or his designee) gets to tell Congress if he wants to require cybersecurity to be a factor in all bond ratings (presumably only for private-sector companies and not federal bonds), Here's where it really gets good. "The term "cyber" means - (A) any process, program, or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or an intranet, automatic data processing or transmission, or telecommunication via the Internet or an intranet; and (B) any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks." Let's see if they left any possible use of computers out of that definition. Nope, they even seem to have VOIP covered. The President can control every computer in the country under that definition, irrespective of whether or not it is part of critical security infrastructure. The point here is that this bill is seemingly titled to make people think that it is a well-intended way to protect our country. When you dig deeper into the bill it clearly spells out command and control of potentially every computer in the country by ... the President. Forget about the person who is in office now. This is a dangerous consolidation of power in the hands of whomever is in the office of President. Read the bill and decide for yourself if this is the path the United States should continue going down - consolidating more and more power in the hands of one man (or woman). Then make your feelings know to your U.S. senators ASAP.