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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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?

Bill?

[RivenAleem]

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

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.