Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gives Feds "Emergency" Powers To Secure Civilian Nets
ziani writes "Joe Lieberman wants to give the federal government the power to take over civilian networks' security if there's an 'imminent cyber threat.' From the article: 'Lieberman and Collins' solution is one of the more far-reaching proposals. In the Senators' draft bill, "the President may issue a declaration of an imminent cyber threat to covered critical infrastructure." Once such a declaration is made, the director of a DHS National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications is supposed to "develop and coordinate emergency measures or actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of covered critical infrastructure."'"
Strange name for a bill thats made for limiting and controlling the flow of information in case of, well just about anything. War on drugs, immigrants, terrorists, citizens?
If there was any real concern about cyber security, Windows would be outright banned on the spot.
HTTP/1.1 400
If this passes. (and it will, in some form) I bet we will have a 'threat' within 5 years.
And they just won't give back control of the net.
Hope i'm wrong. but... that doesn't happen often.
I think this senator (John Lieberman) don't have any idea about the computational impact of this bill (almost impossible).
Nor the irony. Perhaps they ought to try securing our borders first.
If you can give me ONE example, where a set of laws were introduced (like the Patriot Act) with the promise they wouldn't go down slippery slope, AND THEY KEPT THAT PROMISE, then I'll shut up about the slippery slope.
Okay?
And the "there is no slippery slope" argument implies that everyone in the room shares your opinions on everything that matters.
Note that we're talking about government here. The government's objectives at any given time are not necessarily the same as your objectives. They're not even necessarily similar to your objectives.
Do remember all the screaming about the PATRIOT Act. And then look back over the last eight years and see how much of that has actually happened...
As to the question of legalizing Gay Marriage...personally, I'm pretty much indifferent to the question, but I hate to break it to you, but the arguments used to justify gay marriage work quite well to justify polygamy/polyandry/polygyny. If I were a Mormon, I'd already be planning my ad campaign for the 2020 election season....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I don't have a problem with this. This is worded in such a way that they can't just quietly come in and take control of the infrastructure. It would require a presidential declaration to start this in motion. Hardly something you can hide. It will also protect the rest of the internet that we control in the event of a cyberattack. I agree with the parent. This is a logical step to secure critical infrastructure in the event of an attack. Not some paranoid bill that will allow big brother to sneak in unaware and monitor/control every aspect of the internet. It is very specific in it's target and implementation trigger.
As to the question of legalizing Gay Marriage...personally, I'm pretty much indifferent to the question, but I hate to break it to you, but the arguments used to justify gay marriage work quite well to justify polygamy/polyandry/polygyny. If I were a Mormon, I'd already be planning my ad campaign for the 2020 election season....
Nobody wants to prevent polygamy except the utterly undesirable who will be unable to attract a mate if they have other options. I'm sure most women would rather be the "second wife" to someone attractive, kind, or both than to be the first one to most of these fat old fucks making laws and whipping religious conservatives into a froth of voting fervor. It's not like making such unions illegal prevents them from forming, it just means that the participants lack legal rights, which is what this is all about, anyway. Giving rights to married couples is a violation of constitutional rights preventing laws which respect an establishment of religion, but we can't even get "In God We Trust" off the money after the Supremes ruled that it refers specifically to Jehovah.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
ts the same argument used by those who stand against gay's right to marry: "if we let gays marry, then people will be marrying sheep! polygamy will be legal too!" bullshit. people understand that homosexual marriage is not bestiality or multiple wives
I had no problem with folks wanting to marry a sheep, cat, goat, or whatever - what they do behind closed doesn't affect me or my liberties.
the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room
It's no the people in the room I'm concerned about. It's the people making policy.
Border patrol. They are there to secure our borders from illegal immigrants and protect the borders from invaders, but yet, they're searching citizen's laptops for child porn. What has child porn have to do with securing our borders? Or drugs for that matter. A citizen sniffing a line of coke won't jeopardize our security or our freedom, but yet, the increased powers of the border guards has limited some of our freedom - Fourth Amendment.
Gun laws are on this continuous pendulum of restriction and liberation but the net effect over time has been more restrictions on law abiding citizens and our Second Amendment right is withering away . In the meantime, the criminals are shooting away without restriction.
Tax laws - IRS - the Mother of all slipper slopes. The income tax was put in place to pay for a war that has long been over and paid off and yet, the laws become ever more complex and violate our rights more every year.
No. The slippery slope argument exists because it's true. Sure there is a bit a hyperbole occasionally but it doesn't make it not true.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I am a conservative who opposed (and still opposes) the PATRIOT act just for this reason. I am against giving the government ANY additional power or control over citizens. Especially ones with such huge possibility for misuse. I didn't want Bush to have the PATRIOT act because I knew that someday there'd be someone like Obama come along to also use it. What has this guy taken over so far? 2/3rds of the US auto industry, the entire banking industry, and now the healthcare system. Yeah, do we want to allow them to take over the private network infrastructure too?
They can't even get unemployment back under 9%.
History has proven that whenever you give government power that CAN be abused, it WILL be abused.
Corporatism != Free Market
Terror, fear and threats are too easy to manufacture. With laws like this, a few people can seize powers and rule above the people. Then, traffic gets filtered or blocked and no one learns who really did 9/11 or the 'internet attack of 2015' or whatever it will be.
Doubt any civilian has the means to stop them. Most real authority comes from the barrel of a gun. And even though the USA is almost totally made their once respected police officers into para-military goons, with balaclavas, blacked out badges and no name tags, armed with fully automatic weapons in many cases, with an arsenal of armored vehicles, grenades, sniper teams and trained tactical response units, they still are not the match of a average military combat unit. The police still get a minor amount of instruction and training in holding their fire and less than deadly responses.
Please consider that the bill comes from an anti-civil libertarian, a war 'hawk', and a post-9/11 buddy of the bunch in Congress that gave you the Patriot Act, and so on. Yeah, hurricanes, oil spills, and Internet threats-- perfect candidates for federal government emergency work.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You are pretty wrong about that.
First of all, they wouldn't be interested in internal/private networks. They would be interested in the public internet. To that end, nearly all of the pieces of the public internet are privately owned but are granted "right of way" by governing agencies. This "right of way" is how their cables and devices are protected under law. But in order to get this right of way, they have to agree to be governed under certain rules. This is no different from the FCC leasing radio band ranges and then controlling what can be done with them or how they are used. In fact, participation in the public internet comes with rules of its own. Which governing agency is a subject of controversy but you know all about that I'm sure.
Yes it does. If a man is bleeding to death outside a bandage store, I am perfectly entitled to get the bandages and save the mans life even if he cannot pay or the store is closed.
That is not true. At least from a legal standpoint. If such a thing were true, if a homeless person is starving to death, is he "perfectly entitled" to breaking into a grocery store, even if the store is closed? FUCK NO. Now don't get me wrong, I am not trying to come off as a cold hearted ass, but when you start applying entitlement to situations involving unauthorized acquisition of private goods, drawing the line just cannot be done without legal precedent, so please cite a case in which a person was entitled to another persons goods based on need, and was given right to take those goods without the other persons consent, regardless of extenuating circumstances.
Entitlement will be the death if America. Look at Greece. They felt entitled to everything, were given everything, and it broke them. Look at California. Look anywhere where large amounts of entitlement ran the country for years.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
It is very specific in it's target and implementation trigger.
You forgot one thing: there's always an "imminent cyberattack", for the same reasons we still have spam.
Basically this gives the president the power to declare computing martial law whenever he feels like it.
So was my social security number and it was never going to be used for ANYTHING except the delivery of my social security benefits. That didn't work out quite the way they promised either.
Do you remember Katrina? Do you really want the feds fucking with your network? It is far more plausible to believe that civilian networks will rebound faster from a cyber attack without federal interference because most civilian networks are run by people who do that sort of thing for a living, with their networks, configured properly for their use. Do you really think some random fed network guy is going to be able to reconfigure your network from afar without prior knowledge of how you have it configured? How will they know your user names? How will they access your backups? How will they know which entries on your administrator list are valid administrators and which ones are planted by cyber attackers?
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
You're not factoring in the irrational hate some people have for Obama.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
If your company directly uses the government granted right of way that allows your people to drive through my cornfield twice a year to get a power pole, generally knocking down a 350 square foot patch of corn in the process, and has a government granted monopoly on providing a utility to my area, you don't get argue private property.
You are infrastructure and you need to suck it up, there are already laws that prevent you from killing someone by cutting their power in the winter, if this law passes, you can bitch all you want, but you will give up the passwords cause your company only exists and profits by the grace of the government. You don't like it? Then don't use government right of way, build the lines by negotiating with every property owner who has land you need to cross.
You mad
It is very specific in it's target and implementation trigger.
Unfortunately, that's not enough to reassure me. How many times have we seen laws "creatively interpreted" to allow someone to do something that might otherwise be considered illegal?
I don't have a problem with this. This is worded in such a way that they can't just quietly come in and take control of the infrastructure. It would require a presidential declaration to start this in motion. Hardly something you can hide.
Whether or not the takeover is hidden is not the point. Whether or not they'll give it back is the point.
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.
It is far more plausible to believe that civilian networks will rebound faster from a cyber attack without federal interference because most civilian networks are run by people who do that sort of thing for a living,
Agreed. Just look at what a great job the civilian oil industry has done in stopping the flow of oil from the broken well in the Gulf by the people who do that sort of thing for a living when the government hasn't interfered.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just giving a counter-example to the mantra that private companies are better at doing things than the government. Government, on the whole, can martial resources more quickly and get them to where they are needed faster than can civilian institutions. However, that requires that both parties not be at each other's throats during the process. The process should be:
1) Government gets the resources and delivers them to pre-position points
2) Civilian organizations then distribute/use those resources as they know what needs to be done
To use Haiti as an example, it should have been the government, in the form of the military, who got to the airport first, then using engineers, cleared a path from the airport to the city. During that time, basic resources should have been collected and prepared for delivery with civilian organizations working with the government on what aid was really needed.
Once a path was cleared, the resources were delivered along with the civilians who would be distributing the resources, using the paths cleared by the engineers.
This is a very basic overview of what needed to be done, but you get the point. A partnership of government and civilian organizations is what is needed in emergencies. Not one or the other.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The president cannot declare martial law 'whenever he feels like it'. It requires the approval of congress.
The trigger for this bill is also very specific.
As to the trigger in this bill, from TFA:
"In order for the President to declare such an emergency, there would have to be knowledge both of a massive network flaw — and information that someone was about to leverage that hole to do massive harm. For example, the recent “Aurora” hack to steal source code from Google, Adobe and other companies wouldn’t have qualified, one Senate staffer noted: “It’d have to be Aurora 2, plus the intel that country X is going to take us down using that vulnerability.”
And even though the USA is almost totally made their once respected police officers into para-military goons
Blame the War on Drugs for this. Two generations ago the local police were rarely armed with anything heavier than a revolver and the occasional shotgun. Now they have armored vehicles, fully automatic weapons, flashbangs, etc. Mind you, that's because the criminals got more firepower too, but that's also attributable to the War on Drugs. The last time we tried prohibition it started an arms race between the criminals and the police. Too bad we didn't learn any lessons from that experience.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I remember a bit further back than you do. I remember when both parties approved of the Patriot Act, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The dems only started backpedaling when it became convenient to do so. They need to keep up the facade of being pacifists, and more importantly, the facade that Republicans are warhawks. They would lose a lot of votes if their party became associated with warfare.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
You do realize that propping up those industries likely prevented a 1930s style collapse?
It's too early to draw that conclusion. A lot of smart economists think that we've just delayed the inevitable and made the eventual crash that much worse. Time will tell of course -- but capitalism without creative destruction is no longer capitalism. All of the resources being used to prop up those failing companies are resources that can't be used by smaller and more nimble enterprises.
And that the safeguards which were removed (and safeguards which were not put into place) occurred during the 14 years that the Republicans controlled both houses of congress?
What are you, some sort of Democratic partisan? The repeal of Glass-Steagall was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton deregulated the telecom and communications industries. Democrats in Congress in Bush's 2nd term blocked needed reforms of Fannie and Freddie. Both parties are to blame for this mess.
And that it was President Bush who bought out the banking industry?
How did then Senator Obama vote on those bailouts?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I applaud the efforts of Terry Childs and, yes, he did stop the authorities. It cost him his freedom but he sent a clear message. A law can only be enforced when it is feasible to do so. If everyone en masse stopped paying taxes, the government would be absolutely hamstrung so they count on their populace being divided and thus easily conquered. You cannot have 3/4 of the population in prison! If everyone united against the government in civil (as in non-violent) protest, stopped paying taxes, stopped going to work you would have your force for change. The government is just good at instilling fear in weaker minds. If everyone stopped paying taxes and peacefully demanded the repeal of the Patriot Act, the government would have no choice but to do so like a whipped puppy. India gained independence from Britain because its populace was united. We may never see this again. It is unfortunate because it is non-violent and extremely effective. By being non-violent, Indians gained the support of the world at large making the pressure so intense the British government had no choice but to relinquish a piece of its empire. A scenario like this is terrifying to the US Government.
There is if you are a civil libertarian.
No - we're talking about rational people here.
Which would still imply that the Democrats share some of the blame, because at no point in recent memory have the Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress on their own.
Yes, spineless (and/or corrupt) democrats are part of the problem. Which part of my post lambasting spineless democrats for exactly that sort of behavior didn't you bother to read?
That said, spineless democrats were not the ones who drove the toxic "de-regulate everything, the market will do all that is good, cure all of society's ills, and save us all" agenda that engineered this collapse, nor did they drive the angenda that engineered a similar collapse that led directly to the Great Depression (in fact, the reason we had a great depression was because of republican tightening of monetary policy for many of the reasons the right espouses such things today, with disasterous results). In both cases it was republican thinking, republican policy, and replublican action that led to the disaster...thankfully this time we have a government willing to loosen monetary policy and steer clear of the worst carnage a great depression would bring.
Will we have to pay for it? You bet.
Will it hurt? Most assuradly.
Would we have been better off "letting the market decide" and riding this collapse down into the belly of another Great Depression? Not on your life.
Why don't you just own up to the fact that the Democrat's hands are just as dirty as those of the GOP?
Because they aren't. As despicable as spineless acquiescence is, it is a far cry from crafting, pursing, and lobbying for policies that are designed to gut government regulation of an industry that history has shown time and time again needs effective regulation, and which history has shown time and time again will create the very mayhem we have recently experienced. Not that I'm applauding spineless or corrupt democrats either, but a congress full of spineless, greedy fools is far less dangerous than a congress full of "let's gut government to the core, so I can make more off my oil well" zealots. Not that either is good, and not to say I don't despite both.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy