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."'"

Comments

Uh, no, you can't have my network

[WCMI92]

First off it's private property, and private property rights are covered in the Constitution.

Obama can have my root passwords only from my cold, dead, brain.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Kjella]

Well, during normal peace time a lot of things like water pipes, electricity, phone lines etc. basically what you call critical infrastructure is a civilian matter. In a real emergency or military conflict the military can send an engineer corps to fix it, and I doubt any civilian has the authority to stop them. This sounds like something fairly similar for cybersecurity. If they need to plug in some extra cryptoboxes or firewall rules or armed guards at interconnects to secure the network infrastructure, they can and will. I'm just saying that depending on what exactly this means, it might be quite similar to what's already happening for other infrastructure.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[DJRumpy]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[PerformanceDude]

Hmm - let's for a minute imagine that you are the person in charge of an essential utility (say an electrical retailer with the new "smart meters" installed) and you are under attack. You are not coping, your countermeasures are not working. Bit by bit, your network fall under the control of your attacker and people are slowly but surely getting their power turned off.

Lets add to that scenario that it is the middle of winter in one of the northern states, so people are starting to freeze to death.

In that equation, would you still not hand over your root password to safe lives? Just because it is "private property"?

I'm not saying that you are incompentent as a sys-admin - but I'm saying that there may be incompetent sys-admins out there in very critical private companies (in fact - I'm sure there is - at least incompetent when it comes to fighting a competent blackhat).

I'm not sure of the details of this bill - but as in the above scenario I can certainly think of situations where intervention by specialist government experts may be needed for the greater good or to save lives.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Pojut]

Obama can have my root passwords only from my cold, dead, brain.

Read the freakin' summary, at the very least. It's Lieberman the Toad that wants to do this, not Obama. (Although, given the chance, Obama likely would...but still, this is about Lieberman.)

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[brian0918]

In that equation, would you still not hand over your root password to safe lives? Just because it is "private property"?

Correct. The fact that you consider my services "essential" does not grant you the right to my services. I am not your slave.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Anonymous Coward]

It could probably be secure if it was handled by intelligent people. The Federals have consistently displayed to me the inability and negligence to handle anything "security" related. When we start rolling out our own nets by god they better not touch that otherwise they will have a piece of cold steel up their ass.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[morgan_greywolf]

Did you RTFA? It says that the bill covers "critical infrastructure." Not all private networks will fall under this category. The fine article says:

But the staffers say that the emergency powers will only apply to a relatively small number of companies, and only in the most extreme cases — when an electronic exploit might cause “catastrophic regional or national damage” resulting in “thousands of lives or billions of dollars” lost.

In fact, the article even points out that the recent Aurora attack against Google, Adobe, etc. wouldn't count. A staffer was quoted in the article as saying, “It’d have to be Aurora 2, plus the intel that country X is going to take us down using that vulnerability.”

This all sounds rather vague, however, and vaguely-worded open-ended legislation that stomps on people's Constitutional rights has a history of being shot down by the Supreme Court.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[east coast]

this is about Lieberman

No. It's about anyone that votes for it and the guy who signs it, if he does.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Pojut]

The article made zero mention of Obama, other than when Lieberman referenced "the president" in his quote. This is Lieberman's idea. Granted, if it passes and gets signed into law, then obama has played a role...but until then, this is about Lieberman the Toad.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[stonewallred]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[mcgrew]

Obama can have my root passwords only from my cold, dead, brain.

Yeah, I need more coffee this morning, too.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[cosm]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Jurily]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Borealis]

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?

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[smash]

putting "critical infrastructure" on the internet is a fucking retarded idea in the first place.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Nimey]

You're not factoring in the irrational hate some people have for Obama.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Broken scope]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Aeros]

This happens all the time with pregnant women with no insurance going to the emergency room. I mean that baby is coming out one way or the other. But since they don't have the insurance are they not entitled to medical care for both the mother and the child?

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[DeadPixels]

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?

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[jittles]

I haven't reviewed this most recent iteration but they had a bill like this in committee about a month or two ago that only required the president to notify a single committee of the senate. There was no rule requiring public announcement. This could be different, I don't know.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[gnieboer]

Wow. So "your" failure to secure your network is killing people (given the scenario above), and you would still refuse to hand over the password to people trying to stop the attack and therefore save lives??

If your stance is that extreme even in the face of an example that extreme, then you may have just changed my mind on this legislation. Clearly we need it. I would have thought anyone out there, when faced with something beyond their capability, would ask for help if it was really important. Guess not.

I would also suspect you'd end up in jail for criminal negligence / negligent homicide / etc.

And also, IANAL, but I think the statement about essential services is not correct. I believe there are legal avenues for essential services to be forced to be provided. (remember the Air Traffic Controller strike, Reagan ordered them back to work, and they had to comply)

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Proteus Child]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[couchslug]

"You're not factoring in the irrational hate some people have for Obama."

Not to mention the _rational_ hate some people have for Obama.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[smooth wombat]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[DJRumpy]

All of this concern is valid, but is being stretched quite a bit given the posts in this thread. From what I recall, we still have a form of Democratic government. This doesn't allow them to simply toss all consequence out the window regardless of what the alarmist posts in this group are implying. Our government is still answerable to the citizens they serve. If the times comes when our government is no longer answerable to it's citizens, then this bill is rather irrelevant in the larger scheme of things as we will have much larger issues to deal with.

This is no different than existing bills already on the books for other critical infrastructure. I suspect much of the rhetoric being posted is more from the anti-Obama crowd, and possibly a wee bit from the usual anti-government/paranoid crowd.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[misexistentialist]

Not only did they not repeal the PATRIOT Act, but Congress easily renewed it and Obama signed it earlier this year. The Senate even exercised its own hypocritical right to privacy by voting anonymously.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[DJRumpy]

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.”

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Shakrai]

It would require a presidential declaration to start this in motion.

Because the Executive doesn't already have enough power, we need to give it more?

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[mcgrew]

Lets add to that scenario that it is the middle of winter in one of the northern states, so people are starting to freeze to death.

The likelihood of a cyber attack is about as close to zero as you can get -- it hasn't happened yet. OTOH, we get ice storms that cut power for weeks.

The week containing March 12, 2006 saw rain storms, snow storms, ice storms, hail, sleet, and tornados here in Springfield. If Osama Bin Laded saw the destruction the tornados caused, he'd give up. There's no way short of detonating a nuclear weapon any terrorists could cause that much damage. My power was out for a week, cable and landlines were out for a month. An ice storm in 1978 took out power here for even longer.

Kook at Katrina, and the damage hurricanes cause in Florida. Look at the earthquakes in California, the recent flood in Tennessee. Helll, speaking of disasters, look at the mess the terrorists from BP caused in the entire gulf. Who needs Muslim terrorists when we have corporations that own the government running things?

These idiots need to stop worrying about the boogeyman and fix the infrastructure in this country that's deteriorating on its own without the help of any terrorists.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Besides, do you want "Good Job Brownie" to be in charge of YOUR power supply? Who knows, we could get a President who appointed even more incompetent cronies than Bush did -- it's a good thing Blago was impeached and arrested, he might have reached the White House. He'd be even worse than Bush (shudder).

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Shakrai]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[omglolbah]

Actually, the amusing part of the example you've used is that the oil company is doing exactly what they know work :-p

Where your argument breaks down is when you attack the efforts of the people "doing it for a living" with regard to the oil leak.

These people know what works. The problem is that the solution that works is too slow and we're all paying the price for that.
The same could be said for networking where the solutions that work are known. And with regard to networking it is fast!

I seriously doubt the government will be willing to spend the amount of money needed to buy the knowledge needed for a "network response team"... So I would rather have the admin who considers it a matter of honor and dedication to keep his network up!

Disclaimer: I work in the oil/gas business :-p
I want to strange whoever authorized the drilling procedures that caused the accident... Mostly because it makes the whole industry look like asshats of greater douchery! Do it right, or dont fecking do it at all...

*goes back to testing emergency shutdown controller logic*

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Runaway1956]

"How many times have we seen laws "creatively interpreted" to allow someone to do something that might otherwise be considered illegal?"

Eminent Domain. One of the best known times it was used in this (ooops, LAST century, now) century, was when Ike wanted the interstate highway system. Nowadays, any bunch of frat boys can go to city hall, convince the mayor and the city council that they can make more taxes off of a property, and that property is pretty much handed over to the frat boys. I'm quite certain THAT was a pretty creative "interpretation" of eminent domain.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[mcgrew]

Entitlement will be the death if America.

Yes, but it's the rich who have the entitlement mentality, not the poor. The entitlement AFDC was abolished in 1976 and replaced with TANF, which is not an entitlement. But the rich think they're entitled to take over your property through emminemt domain to build a shopping center, and they get away with it. They think they're entitled to pay a lower tax rate than a working man, and they get away with it. They think they're entitled to tax credits (welfare for the rich) and guess what? They get it.

Entitlement isn't what bankrupted Califoneia, idiots in government did. The DJ on the radio this morning was talking about how San Fransisco (or some other California town) is spending $100k to move a shrubbery! That money isn't going to the poor, it's going into some rich bastard's pocket at the expense of working, taxpaying Californians, and I'm sure the rich asshat thinks he's entitled to that cash.

Look at BP, who think they're entitled to take shortcuts and disregard safety... oh, I guess they are entitled to ruin the ecosystem of the entire Gulf Coast.

Neocons will be the death of America. They are the ones with the entitlement mentality.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[DaMattster]

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.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[schon]

There is if you are a civil libertarian.

No - we're talking about rational people here.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[sconeu]

Parent isn't kidding. Please see Kelo v. City of New London.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Borealis]

BP is probably not a good analogy to this as there is to my knowledge no evidence that federal involvement from the initial blow out would have made any difference. The feds don't have a solution to capping the well either (and in fact failed rather disastrously in keeping BP in compliance with existing government overseen safety regulations).

I concur that both feds and civilians would work better in concert than opposition, but for civilian networks you are dealing with an area in which the feds have absolutely no expertise. Every network is configured differently, with different requirements, different hardware and different security concerns. To allow feds access to those networks under the auspices of "security" is a ludicrous proposition. If the feds want to improve security they should look at the government computers (which most government offices receive a failing security grade for) and concentrate on making sure that there is absolutely no kind of all encompassing override (like a government backdoor) that could be exploited by attackers.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[DragonWriter]

The trigger for this bill is also very specific.

That's not at all clear. An actual bill number would let us check the text, all we have in TFA is two characterizations by staffers which disagree, and you've pulled the one favorable to your position and ignored the other:

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.”

See, that sounds somewhat narrowly applicable. But if you keep reading the following paragraph in TFA, you'd see another staffer suggesting that something like the Conficker worm might have triggered based on unspecific evidence that "hackers" were looking to "leverage" it in some way (not the kind of specific "country X" kind of requirement the first staffer suggested):

A second staffer suggested that evidence of hackers looking to leverage something like the massive Conficker worm — which infected millions of machines and was seemingly poised in April 2009 to unleash something nefarious — might trigger the bill’s emergency provisions. “You could argue there’s some threat information built in there,” the staffer said.

So, given that the staffers quoted in TFA don't agree -- and, frankly, even if they did -- maybe we shouldn't take the most inoffensive characterization in TFA as being an accurate reflection of the bill.

People complain that politicians lie too much, but you know -- if people didn't just accept the most comforting thing they or their staffers said on faith, maybe they wouldn't keep lying.

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[superdave80]

A believe federal law doesn't allow any emergency room to deny treatment for ANY emergency if the person can't pay. Now, the ER can go after the person for the money after treatment is done, but they aren't allowed to say "Hey, we aren't treating that bullet wound until we verify your credit card."

Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network

[Shakrai]

ut the nutters on the Internet claiming to be civil libertarians are bitching about health care, which doesn't violate any civil rights.

The individual mandate violates the right of free association (I'm to be compelled to associate with a for-profit entity), the 10th amendment and possibly the 5th amendment.

And I thought technically, civil libertarians are like the ACLU.

The ACLU has no right to claim to be a civil rights organization as long as they cling to the discredited notion that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect an individual right to firearm ownership.

WTF?

[Parker Lewis]

I think this senator (John Lieberman) don't have any idea about the computational impact of this bill (almost impossible). As the majority of the politicans, he's making laws to raise credibility over the non tech people.

Re:WTF?

[OhPlz]

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.

Re:WTF?

[maxwell demon]

What is impossible about a group of armed officers coming to the building and saying "give us your passwords, or else"?

Strange name

[miffo.swe]

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.

Wager time!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wager time!

[DarkKnightRadick]

I hope your wrong too. We've been in some sort of state of emergency since the New Deal.

Re:Wager time!

[lennier1]

Given that nowadays the government IS the threat it's really ironic.

Which will be extended to?

[LatencyKills]

And how long before "imminent cyberthreat" is software piracy, child pornography, or any number of other crimes du jour? Thanks but no thanks - we'll take care of our own tubes.

Uncle Sam Knows Best

[lseltzer]

Right, because the Federal Government knows better how to secure a network than private industry.

Re:Uncle Sam Knows Best

[jimbolauski]

How is a 3rd party, who has rarely if ever seen your system, going to come in and magically fix issues when the person who uses it everyday cannot?

You're under the delusion that this bill's true intention is to help, but truthfully it's nothing more then a power grab. First they got control of the car companies under a financial emergency, next they went after control of health care because of a health care emergency, they are currently going after control of wall street because of the financial emergency, why would it surprise you that they are going after the internet (where information is freely disseminated) to control it under the threat of a cyber-emergency.

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Rahm Emanuel

Re:Uncle Sam Knows Best

[dachshund]

First they got control of the car companies under a financial emergency,

What, who? You mean a subset of the American car industry (excluding Ford) that was about to go out of business anyway. It's a huge political turkey and if the government could get rid of that "control" (sell the industries off to private bidders at a reasonable price) they damn well would.

next they went after control of health care because of a health care emergency

What? This is gibberish.

why would it surprise you that they are going after the internet

"They" being Joe Lieberman, a formerly Democratic senator who's now an Independent senator who campaigned vigorously for both George Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Did I mention Lieberman was a huge chearleader for the Iraq war and Bush's anti-terrorism policies, including PATRIOT? If by "they" you mean the misguided fuckers who ran the country into the ground from 2000-2008, you're very much in the right.

Jesus christ, it's sad to see this stuff on Slashdot rated +5, Interesting.

i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[circletimessquare]

the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room

its 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

or howabout: "if they legalize marijuana they will legalize meth and heroin too!" no. meth is not marijuana. heroin is not marijuana. everyone understands the radical differences between these drugs

if you can understand that those who use the bullshit tactic of the slippery slope against gay marriage or marijuana legalization are trafficking in fear and hysteria, then maybe you can see that in your own words, is the exact same fear and hysteria

so, just so you clearly understand... no: a cyberattack is not piracy. a cyberattack is not pedophilia. common sense attempts to secure a network is not going to be confused with efforts against piracy. or pedophilia

really. we all understand the difference. really

people, please: shut up with the bullshit slippery slope arguments. whenever you find yourself arguing in terms of the slippery slope, you have lost your grasp on rationality and reason and are simply fearful, hysterical, and confused. there is no such thing as a slippery slope. repeat: there is no such thing as a slippery slope

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[HopefulIntern]

Karl Rove? Is that you? You don't work there anymore!

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[VShael]

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?

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[Nugoo]

When was the last time you saw someone react rationally to child porn? I give it 8 years, long enough that people are used the bill, before they start overraeching with it.

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[CrimsonAvenger]

the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room

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....

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[WCMI92]

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.

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[Overzeetop]

You do realize that propping up those industries likely prevented a 1930s style collapse? 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? And that it was President Bush who bought out the banking industry?

The problem with this particular law is that we don't need it. The president has this power in the event of an immanent attack or war anyway. IMHO, this is posturing - and counterproductive.

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope

[FreeUser]

What are you, some sort of Democratic partisan? The repeal of Glass-Steagall was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

What are you, a Republican partisan? A republican controlled congress introduced the legislation and passed it with a veto-proof majority. Of course Clinton signed the bill. To do otherwise was to ensure he suffered a humiliating veto, and paint him as the odd-one out in a time when most powerful lobbies, media organisations, and parties were hell-bent on deregulating everything.

That said, I blame the democrats just us much. Not for the current crisis, which was by and large a natural consequence of conservative "deregulate everything and let the market decide" thinking, but for not having the backbone to oppose this shit on principle even when it was in vogue, and for not pointing the finger more loudly at those responsible: Republicans and so-called "blue dog" democrats that have spent the last 20 years dismantling the regulatory structures put into place after the last depression, which were largely responsible for the economic stability we enjoyed throughout most of the 20th century, and for doing so in the wake of the Savings and Loan scandals which had already amply demonstrated exactly why the banking industry shouldn't be deregulated in this way.

There's plenty of bad governance on all sides, but this economic collapse was a direct result of the policies that stemmed from right-wing "get the government out of business" knee-jerk deregulation, of which the republican repeal of Glass-Steagall (with the "bipartisan" help of conservative blue-dog democrats-only-in-name and a centrist democratic president who, frankly, behaved more like a republican than most republicans after his health-care reform failed) was but one part of the problem.

And please don't start claiming this was driven by liberal requirements for fair-lending practices...there was never a mandate to lend to people who couldn't pay back their loans. That particular Republican talking point has been debunked more times than anyone can count. CDSes and exotics required debt to be underwritten, and it was pure profit motive for more debt, to sell more exotics, to line the pockets of greedy inside-traders with more money, that required more lending, far and away beyond anything required or encouraged by the US government. This was deregulated markets in action, "greed is good" in an environment of historically low interset rates kept low for political purposes by the Bush administration, leading to a very natural and predictable result.

Well it was always going to be terrorism or pedos

[VShael]

But somehow, at some point in time, the US Government will cross the line into controlling the internet just as much as any dictatorship would. (see China)

The only question is whether they will do it gradually enough for the people to notice, or not.

Bill?

[RivenAleem]

Who is Bill, and how can he give this kind of power to the Feds?

They'll screw it up anyway

[Jawnn]

The ironic part is that even if the bill passes, is signed, and the law eventually invoked, it will be "the feds" riding to the rescue of the net. Yeah, right.
Look, I'm am no "all government intervention is bad" arm flapper. Far from it, but I'm sorry. There are clearly better hands for this task. They're running the net every day and repelling attacks every day. So what "threat", pray tell, would be so dire that only ham-fisted government cowboys could save us?

Can't see the forest for the trees.

[B5_geek]

Umm, excuse me Government there is a secret I think you should know:

If your 'Critical infrastructure' is connected to a PUBLICLY accessible Internet, then you are doing something wrong.

Get some pepto.

[AnonymousClown]

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.

They already have this authority...

[EmagGeek]

It's called "Martial Law," and should only be invoked during times of dire emergency, if at all.

Not being able to check Facebook does not qualify as a dire emergency.

polygamy degrades society

[circletimessquare]

a bunch of rich men (its about money, not love) taking up a bunch of women represents an equal sized population of poorer men who are now without a mate, through no fault of their own

so now you have a bunch of angry rootless loveless men in your society without any hopes for their future and nothing to lose. use your boundless imagination as to the effects of that

This is not about the power to "turn off the net"

[jonwil]

From reading TFA, this is about the government needing the power to take over critical infrastructure in the advent of a threat to Americas national security. So for example this allows them to take over control of (and security of) electronic control networks running things like the electricity grid if the spooks get wind of an immanent cyber attack.

Just like the feds used their power to shut down US airspace after 9/11, the feds need the power to take over, disconnect, shut down, secure or control computer systems and networks controlling critical infrastructure in the advent of a "Cyber 9/11" attack (a threat that is not just the stuff of movies like Die Hard 4.0)

Per the proposal, "Critical Infrastructure" does NOT mean Google or Facebook or Slashdot or whatever, it means things like power grids, gas plants, water systems, hospitals, emergency services, oil refineries etc.

Sounds like Emperor Palpatine

[aarongreenlee]

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.

Re:Are you sure?

[maxwell demon]

The probability that your systems and behaviours are really secure is much higher if you actively looked for weaknesses and fixed those you found.

Why does the fed need this power ?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Talking about weaknesses, why does this bill specify "the federal government" ? That's a hell of a lot of people that that sentence covered. Why aren't they giving this power to the military, say the newly created cyber command ?

Given who receives this power, one would think it is not -at all- meant to be used in "emergencies". And Obama doesn't trust the military (not that that wasn't obvious yet).

Re:Why does the fed need this power ?

[wealthychef]

Since the War on Terror guarantees we are perpetually at war now with an enemy we define as we go, declaring a state of emergency can be done any time I suppose.

when you argue in the realm of the theoretical

[circletimessquare]

anything is possible

but when you argue in the realm of the realistic, then its obvious that men seek to accumulate women 99x more times than the reverse, and that the romantic harem may exist, but for the other 99% of harems, its pretty much a financial arrangement

occam's razor: when you hear hoofbeats, its going to be horses, not zebras

likewise, when you talk about polygamy, you're talking about a rich guy with a bunch of women

the exotic theoretical offerings you allude to simply have no probative value or logical coherence, because they are so exceedingly rare, and always will be (this is where you argue that your exotic utopian visions are possible. yes, all sorts of things are possible if you can miraculously make people behave like they won't on their own. zzz)

as for your women with legal protections: again i'm certain you can find me the odd weirdo who is happy to share a man romantically, but for the vast majority of women, polygamy is simply the surrendering of the possibility of romance, and sacrificing the pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial security

additionally, you have not examined my simple mathematical inevitable truth: polygamy results in a population of poor men with no hope of finding a mate, through no fault of their own, and this degrades society as any group of angry loveless rootless forlorn nothing to lose no future men would

you're an ivory tower type: you've made a fanciful exotic argument in a void of any realistic understanding of human nature. you're a college kid with a lot of book reading, but no real life experience with real human beings

you should stand against polygamy, for the sake of society and the individual. to conclude otherwise is ivory tower foolishness. you're deluding yourself. not that my post will stop you. now is where you begin furiously building a wall of denial against my words, to preserve your psychological dependence on your blind idealism

Headlines that give me a heart attack...

[flibbidyfloo]

I may be nitpicking, but shouldn't the title of this piece be "Bill Would Give Feds 'Emergency' Powers To Secure Civilian Nets" ?
The proposed bill hasn't been passed, and seeing the headline in my RSS feed just about gave me an arrhythmia when it indicated the deal was already done.

on planet earth

[circletimessquare]

if a woman chooses to cohabitate with a man who already has a woman, she is pretty much giving up the chance for romance and love and sacrificing her pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial stability

i am certain you can produce for me examples of women who freely and out of love choose to cohabitate with a man who already has a woman. and i can produce to you examples of albino deer

the rare exotic fringe is not instructive as to reality. and for 99% of cases of polygamy, it is a woman surrendering her romantic possibilities for financial security with a rich man who has other women with him for the same romance-sacrificing reasons

welcome to planet earth, welcome to reality

Nice selective reading there

[FreeUser]

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.