Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Law Would Give DHS Power Over Privately Owned IT Infrastructure
CelticWhisper writes "H.R. 3674, the Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act (PRECISE Act), would allow the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to require improved security practices from those businesses managing systems whose disruption could prove detrimental to critical life-sustaining or national-security initiatives." As the article points out, this is just "one of 30 or so such bills currently percolating on the Hill."
Republicans all scream for "smaller government" yet they happily sign any bill that gives away rights to the Gubment for "fighting TERRORISIM"
Bunch of hypocrites they all are.
It seems that nothing but evil comes out of washington DC anymore.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Another yoke around the neck of private businesses everywhere.
Even as a Democrat, I am getting very tired of our ever expanding Government. However, requiring critical systems like power and transportation etc... to have upgraded security is kind of a no-brainer.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
...is how you win elections.
does the DHS even have the necessary expertise in IT security ?
It really makes me wonder. New laws are being proposed in rapid succession to give organizations more and more power over individuals. What laws are being proposed to save us all from this?
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
So now instead of pitching your IT security related technology to the customer (competing with other vendors), you just need to get really good friends in DHS and they will mandate use of your tehnology?
Can we please get rid of patents on cryptography? There are a lot of cryptosystems out there whose deployment is being hampered by patents on the underlying mathematics, and which could go a long way toward improving the state of computer security. This would not be a bad place to start repealing software patents:
http://www.voltage.com/technology/patents/index.htm
Here too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_patents
Palm trees and 8
have it's own lobbying organization now?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
This is really overdue and your a fool if you think it isn't inevitable. We accept regulation for critical infrastructure like electricity and gas distribution. Why should IT be any different than any other piece of infrastructure?
I've worked with ITIL, SOX, HIPAA, SEC and a number of other regulations or standards for years. They are also largely similar in what they require, once you learn one the others are a quick learning curve. Mostly they are nothing more than attempt to codify best practices that you should be following anyways.
It's like the rail companies that cried foul when regulations required that they install safe coupling mechanisms in the 1800's. The railroads cried foul at the new expenses until they discovered that the regulations ended up saving more in labor than they can cost in parts.
So the President will sign it after it gets shut down by the Republican Congress? Or will the Republicans pass it so it can be signed into law?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
does DHS have for doing this? Despite flushing billions of our tax dollars paying Hamburger University dropouts for irradiating and/or groping the American public with not a single no-so-scarist being caught. As effective as the crystal my dotty Aunt wears around her neck to keep them away and far cheaper. The U.S. gov cant event get their own house in order IT security-wise as department after department fail their audits and fail to meet their mandates, How effective can they be trying to remotely administrate the IT infrastructure of independent businesses/institutions? There is absolutely no evidence that the have the expertise or management skills to perform this function.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Your republican president signed the Crime against the USA called the "PATRIOT ACT"
And I am certain that Obama will sign it, he has already proven he does not care about Rights. He proved that by doing a 12/31/11 signing of the military bill that lets him jail US citizens for no reason forever.
From where I am standing, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is the animal on their campain buttons.
does the DHS even have the necessary expertise in IT security ?
NCSD of DHS is responsible for all non-DoD government networks and their security. And yes, they do.
They're pretty good at taking down websites en masse. Surely that takes some kind of skill?
http://www.geekosystem.com/government-shuts-down-84000-websites/
So the Government wants to control the Internet like the DOJ. If they don't like where your going, they block you.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
It's the Democrats that are trying to raise SOPA from the dead.
But don't let that spoil your primitive tribal reaction.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
does the DHS even have the necessary expertise in IT security ?
Of course not. What a silly question.
Understanding something is not a requirement for supervising it. Ask your boss.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Link to the PDF for those slashdotters who want might want to read the actual bill.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3674ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3674ih.pdf
The United States of America comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive republic were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valor. The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the states. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence: the American people appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the President the executive powers of government.
But its fall was announced by a clearer omen than the flight of vultures: the American government appeared every day less formidable to its enemies of liberty, more odious and oppressive to its subjects.
Congratulations: You've proven Republicans exist!
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
You'll still get slow as speeds trying to get any data out of it like the rest of us.
Hell just vote for Mit then we can all wear magic underwear to protect us from satan and terrorists.
What is it with politicians insisting on giving their bills the most inane titles possible, just to spell out some mildly related acronym? We're electing and paying these people to write LEGISLATION, not commercial branding!
Exactly. I would be much more comfortable if the NSA were in charge of something like this. They have a much better track record, and proven experience in providing security advice to the private sector.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Isn't this the same DHS that re-classed some security issues as not bugs? Don't worry I am sure they won't screw this up.
Time to offend someone
to issue hunting permits for feds w/unlimited quotas
Government, by definition, is above the law. (How can any organization, government or otherwise, possibly hold a special "right" to employ physical force as a business model yet NOT be above the law of the common man? That's impossible.)
With that said, the business of government is effectively immune to being held accountable for false advertising (or indeed, any crime of the common man, as long as they can wave the magic power wand).
In your view they are hypocrites. In their view they are brilliant businessmen. This next expansion of government, like nearly every expansion of government, is designed to justify more spending. It doesn't matter where the money comes from or where it goes. What matters is that it passes through their hands, giving them a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain.
Technically they aren't doing that. They are ordering someone else to do it. This doesn't change anything... but... does go to show stupidity does have control.
this is from the bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Casinos) and supported by the White House.
No republicans there.
They can block this bill, if they dont it means they aprove of it and you bringing up the President is just a straw-man argument. The Democrats do not claim to be the party of small government and fiscal conservatives.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
does the DHS even have the necessary expertise in IT security ?
Of course not. What a silly question.
Understanding something is not a requirement for supervising it. Ask your boss.
I take it we're using the customer service skills of the TSA as an example of DHS's practical application of their lack of knowledge? ;-)
Here is the list of sponsors and co-sponsors.
Representative Daniel Lungren R-CA
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7]
Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15]
Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9]
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7]
Yup, that must be a democrat bill.
How did you get modded up?
Fuck no!
Life is not for the lazy.
No
Time to offend someone
I take it we're using the customer service skills of the TSA as an example of DHS's practical application of their lack of knowledge? ;-)
More like we will be using the IT skills of the TSA screeners.
"Does the Internet really come out of that cable? Wow. That's cool."
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And why the volatile title. Other than that his is Slashdot.
"Proposed Law Would Give DHS Power Over Privately Owned IT Infrastructure".
Requiring improved security is not much different than making sure that a company that makes toasters aren't making toasters that burn your house down.
Or cars having seatbelts. Do we say that the government has "power" over privately owned Car companies because they must abide safety or security concerns?
I have not read the full details of any planned law yet, but as stated in the short article, I do not see why this is a bad thing.
Both parties are at fault here, not Just Republicans or just Democrats. The problem is that we no longer have a class of "Citizen Legislator" but instead have professional legislators who will do anything in their power to stay in power.
This includes buying votes from the masses by telling them they will get everything free at the expense of someone else - even though our national debt is now so large you could confiscate all the wealth of all the millionaires and still not pay it off - and also letting themselves be bought buy the highest bidder - er - best paying lobbyist.
Of course, to keep it under wraps, you have to both dumb down the general populace, and control all means of dissent. Shut down internet sites that oppose your viewpoint, call anyone who disagrees with you a terrorist and lock them away without any rights, and threaten the livelihood of anyone else who may be bold enough to get around your restrictions.
The only way to stop such non-sense it to VOTE THEM ALL OUT!
Al least it will take a new batch a few years to get so corrupt!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
is corruption and problems. They ought to be excised and punished as a rogue state. Note, I'm not a right- or left-wing partisan, just an American who grew up when this country was known as the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave."
The TSA ought to be expunged as the totalitarian body they are. The Department of Homeland Security ought to be dissolved and its members stripped of their citizenship and exiled to North Korea on the basis of the name of their agency alone.
The FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, and their attendant bodies need to be spanked firmly for violating the constitutional rights of all Americans over the last 20 years. That means, their Directors and employees who issued and obeyed illegal orders ought to go to prison for the rest of their lives.
If that happened, I'd reckon the integrity of the Republic to have been preserved. But I'm not naive, and I know that that will never happen.
As such, the only answer is for American citizens to bring the government and its backers to justice by force. As a man of peace and a father, I don't relish that at all. But neither do I want my kids to grow up as slaves.
It's sobering indeed to contemplate another 20 years loving and nurturing my family in an increasingly totalitarian country vs. a personal life-ending confrontation with tyranny in the name and cause of freedom. But in my heart I can't see any other way. I was raised a patriot. In my mind and heart I meant the oath we all took to uphold and defend the freedom America stood for. But now the unthinkable has happened and the political entity known as the United States has so far departed from the premise of the oath we took that we cannot possibly reconcile the two; we can either support the path of freedom, or we can uphold the United States.
I know that enough of my compatriots, supposed "left" and "right," share that conviction to make a difference. I know that the subversion of our freedom is not yet widespread enough and deep enough to reverse that bedrock faith. I know that despite the prevalent apathy, supported and abetted by those in power, there is not enough corrosion to avert the will of the American people to assert their freedom.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. It's inventing something and then attacking that instead of the real thing said. Where did I invent something that isn't happening? If the president signs it then it means he approves it too -- same logic you just used. Now, who sponsored and created the bill in the first place, again? Oh i'm sorry, is bringing up the sponsor a "strawman"? hahaha.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
...whose time has not come. Can anyone document a single incident unto which this law might have helped? Have we had any IT infrastructure in the US compromised in such a way that has produced life-threatening results to the general public?
We're going through a DOD certification process. It's difficult, but as I go through
the requirements I find most of them do make a lot of sense -- as you say, best
practices codified.
As always, always, with government involvement expect these (in no particular order)
The only 'redeeming' quality of this just maybe creation of alternative Internet infrastructure driven by user demand, outside of normal channels, but this will happen much later.
You can't handle the truth.
Three words: "Military Industrial Complex". It's a headless beast now. Eisenhower warned us.
The thing you seem to be missing is that while there is an ISO 27001 standard covering IT, what reason do you have for the power company, water company, transportation or any other important industry to use it? Businesses won't self-regulate unless it costs them money.
As GP stated most of the regulatory frameworks are similar, all of them are step-children of the Common Criteria and all of them have requirements that can be mapped to each other.
No really, in principle it is a good idea.
Crucial system should be mandated to follow good practice and have some minimum security and redundancy available. Totally counter-productive and beyond harmful to put DHS in charge of it of course. On the other hand, the article is full of neo-capitalist bull as well:
"Businesses already know hacking is costing them money – this is really the only incentive needed for them."
Right... That's like saying, "we don't need the FAA, a plane costs a lot of money, and not losing too many planes is all the incentive an airline needs."
The problem with the proposal is the DHS, not the idea behind it. There is a National Electric Code and there is UL, something similar could be done to critical data infrastructure without putting Homefront-Safety in charge.
Is it just me or does anyone else think congress people spend way too much tax-payers money coming up with these bill names.
I mean, come on: PROTECT IP, PRECISE, etc etc. It almost seems as if they would get together to discuss the naming instead of the actual bill content.
No?
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
Now that I have your attention listen to my argument before you mod...
Regulations provide businesses with cover when sorting goes wrong. The argument goes "we did exactly what the rules required so we can't be liable for what happened;" and thus making an argument for mitigating the cost (to them) of the damages.
In addition, regulations add to the cost of doing business, helping shield companies from too many competitors by raising the barriers to entry.
The only "bad" regulation is one that makes it hard for a company to make more profits or opens them up to additional liability.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Honesty isn't a virtue in politics, it's a liability.
Are the republicans a bunch of thugs out for their own? Yup.
Are the democrats a bunch of thugs out for their own? Yup.
This is why I vote for a third party, even though im 'throwing away' my vote, im not part of this mess. For all I know, they'd do the same, but i'll reserve that judgement for if that ever actually happends.
This is not having the TSA manage critical power infrastructure. This is giving authority to a central body to determine minimum security standards for critical infrastructure (groups that share threat infos with NSA, FBI, US-CERT, etc). Unless you are big on the idea of directly connected SCADA systems with weak vendor back-door passwords controlling services you find important, then this is a good thing. This gives teeth to the recommendations the government security agencies have been handing out for years. If you are part of a critical infrastructure IT shop then you can expect some government standards to come your way along with some sort of audit agency under the DHS. This is a no-brainer... some standard is better than no standard at all.
They're for anything that spreads FUD to help tighten their grip on power. No doubt in my mind that it took every fiber in Karl Rove's being not to dance a fucking jig on 9-11, knowing all the power and profit that would flow from that tragedy.
Could this be used against sites staging protests? Such as wikipedia.org protesting SOPA.
I actually knew that, and voted 3rd party. What I was proving was that the democrats are so blindly loyal that even when a democrat sponsors a bad bill, they bitch "oh those evil republicans". And I think that point was proven before I entered the discussion, actually. I just had to bring it to the attention of Mr.Republican-Whiner whining about a Democrat bill that can only pass with a Democrat president signing it. I love how the republicans are at fault when a president doesn't use his veto power.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
You're either an intentional liar or an idiot. Either way, this bill was sponsored by Republican Daniel Lungren (R-CA) by and is sponsored largely by Republicans. Make sure your blatant lies can't be checked in less than 20 seconds: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3674/show
I'm in one of these "critical" industries that will be most likely be included under the benevolent government security umbrella provided by this bill. I've gotten pretty good at predicting how our loving, caring government is likely to respond to this type of challenge, to wit:
After a competitive bid involving only Cisco, Oracle and Microsoft, they will likely hire Cisco, Oracle and Microsoft to tell them what's needed. Unsurprisingly, the solution will include the requirement to purchase lots of expensive products from Cisco, Oracle and Microsoft.
This new regulatory function will obviously need oversight by the government. The government will expand (bloat?) the bureacracy by hiring an excessivly large number of underqualified, overpaid people to monitor compliance with their byzantine rules, which will constantly change to suit their whims. There will be minor incidents, which will be blamed on laziness and non-compliance by the industry. More regulations will be drafted, new equipment will be purchased and the bureacracy will expand even further.
At that point, we commence the never-ending circle of more regulation, more money paid to a select group of "certified" vendors and the unceasing growth of the bureacracy.
- Pithy comment goes here.
Except that that is not the bill being talked about in this article. The bill being talked about in the article is in the Senate, not the House.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
that criminalizes assigning lame-ass, lying acronyms to bills.
Anyone who lives in their districts might consider writing a letter to the local news paper explaining why this proposed legislation might not be such a great idea. James Carville says that letters to the editor published in hometown newspapers get more attention than constituent mail.
The summary incorrectly points to the House PRECISE Act as giving Department of Homeland Security the ability to regulate critical infrastructure. In fact, the PRESCISE Act creates a quasi-governmental National Information Sharing Organization. Participation in the organization is voluntary. In contrast, the proposed Senate bill gives more authority to DHS to regulate cybersecurity for critical infrastructure. The Summary conflates the two bills, which is incorrect.
So, there is a fundamentally different approach represented in the House and the Senate bills. The House avoids strict regulation, which makes sense given the conservative tenor of the House. The Senate bill is more comfortable with regulation and centralizing authority in DHS. Both bills are attempting to implement cyber-threat information sharing, but the Senate bill gives more teeth to the government to address gaps in security.
If those systems are so critical why are they in private hands in the first place?
For the bonus cookie convince them that the Internet is only coming out if they see electricity arcing from the cable.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Well, sparkles... we're talking about the SENATE bill, not the HOUSE bill. And since this bill is parallel through both houses, the Republican controlled House of Representatives would have republican sponsors, because well, they're in charge. Make no bones about it... it's not about party... it never has been. There IS no difference between the parties anymore, besides the mascot. Anyone who believes otherwise needs to turn off MSNBC or Fox (whichever one you're currently buying into at the time.)
... why the congress-critters think they need ANOTHER set of regulations for the electrical power grid (which is one of the primary focii of this proposed law). Are they totally unaware of the NERC/FERC Cybersecurity Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards already in place and being enforced? Standards that have gone through three increasingly tighter and more onerous versions already, with a fourth and fifth version even now under consideration? Standards that are enforced through stringent audits with very high monetary penalties?
Voting machines have effectively eliminated any pretense of public control over government. Your choices are limited to the corporate-approved labels on the buttons.
And no matter what buttons you push, the tallies from the voting machines will say what the controllers of the voting machines want them to say. You have no way to check the validity of those tallies so they are incredibly unlikely to be valid - there's too much power at stake for such an obvious control point to be left uncorrupted.
Lately some states don't even bother to count write-in ballots any more, and most of them are looking into removing the write-in option from their machines.
We're leaving the Republic stage and entering the Imperial era. If we keep following the classical pattern, the next step is civil war, although hopefully long after you and I are both dead.
"That's not the way the world really works anymore," [Rove] continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actorsâ¦and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Dunno bout you, but I have serious doubt that DHS has the necessary expertise to breathe half the time.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Require improved security practices? What practices? Who sets/defines the practices?
Who get blamed for whoops (litigation) when required security practices fail to prevent catastrophic results to critical life-sustaining or national-security initiatives?
Maybe one day in the far-fetched-future a CEO will go to jail for not having a CSO assisting the CTO, CIO, COO ... C*O.
Is IT safe, CSO Frodo?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Allow ISPs and other infrastructure operators to test and certify that their system complies with certain security and availability requirements. Then identify those businesses and/or processes that are critical and the requisite minimum compliance level of service they must use.
The last thing I want is to have DHS come marching in, telling me I've got to secure my systems because some Pentagon official uses them to share files or something. All too often, the gov't or one of its minions selects some poor vendor and then drops a truckload of compliance documentation off. They can take their business elsewhere.
Have gnu, will travel.
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
From the original article: "This is from the bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Casinos) and supported by the White House."
Nice diversion.
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
I'm out of here.
Exactly what part of our government has shown a molecule of respect for privacy and free speech?
Any "Respect" went away a while ago. Only a thin lip service to it remains.
Watch this part of Jon Stewart show, it has your questioned answered.
You can't handle the truth.
And more from Mel Watt, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet (Ranking Member).
You can't handle the truth.
Annoying it is, but evil it isn't. At least, not always.
It's an unfortunate fact of life that individual freedom works best when the consequences of being stupid also (mostly) fall unto the individual responsible. As long as that's the case, I'm in favour of giving people lots and lots of freedom. It's amusing, instructive, and probably very advantageous too for me to see how they get on. It's like receiving free experimental data.
Alas, in our complex society some parts have become so tightly coupled that safety and security of large swathes of society can be put in acute jeopardy by the mistakes, stupidity, or plain laxness of individuals (or companies). In other words: the consequences of poorly judged actions are no longer limited to the individual (or private enterprise) committing them. And that's where things can suddenly become different.
Allowing the situation to continue unabated and self-regulated simply means that things will go bang a few times before those in charge clean up their act. Simply because that's what people are like. Lazy, stupid, and always on the lookout for ways to cut corners (which by the way has fueled progress and development for centuries).
The only question here is whether you want to pay the price that letting the responsible individuals crawl up learning curve entails, or whether you want to pay up-front the price regulation entails. Nothing 'evil' or 'not evil' about it, just the search for a least-cost solution.
I respectfully submit that there are areas (like in this instance) where you do not want to give people (or private enterprise) the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. Instead you want them to either do things in a certain way or quit their business and go away. That's when you regulate, and I think that's what we're seeing here.
The US is exploring a few different public/private/DHS cyber bills up to become law. :)
They seem to know that "not the bill being talked about in this article" works very well in getting the media to quote aspects of "one of 30" while another drifts past.
You have had efforts like: "Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act (PRECISE Act, H.R. 3674) by Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (H.R. 3523) by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich
The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2011 (H.R. 2096) by Rep. Michael McCaul's, R-Texas
PRECISE will create the NISO (National Information-Sharing Organization) - 15-member board with five members drawn from DHS/10 from the private sector to watch over and "share" your private IT.
You do get liability protection for sharing information with the DHS too.
So don't worry about that wrong IP/log/account
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Their response to the loss of this laptop was dangerously naive, IMHO:
Brill was the CEO of the subcontractor that TSA/DHS selected to implement this security program, and I was less than reassured by his assessment of the problem. Yes, you need two passwords to access the data on the laptop. The article was light on technical details, but the first password, I presume, was to log in to the laptop at all. The second password is open to debate, but I would guess it is a password to the application that reads the data on the laptop. Nowhere does the article suggest that the hard drive was encrypted*. As I'm sure everyone reading this post knows, if you have physical access to an unencrypted hard drive, you own the data on it, even if you can't log in to the OS. It's trivial to mount a hard drive from another computer.
*It's possible that the second password was necessary to unencrypt a data partition on the laptop, but if so, you would think that Brill would have mentioned that as an additional reason that the loss of the laptop did not constitute a security breach. He didn't, and therefore, I suspect the hard drive was not encrypted.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Ever since their existance, they created enemies of America.
Every war they lost, they brought assylum-seakers here under the guise of refugees and "naturalized" yet those same imported migrants all brought their culture with them rather than integrate.
China-town, Korea-town, Little Saigon...LOOK what the communists achieved by concealing the exile of their competitors, but an agency that would gladly hold hands with their mainland populous in a hundred years or so to finally stitch the family quilt together. It's a generational manner of forgetting all that happened, or sowing seeds that will shadow over everyone else. First garlic was 99-cents for the pair, but look at what these ethnic neighbors are selling in their non-domestic imports store fresh off the boat but uncompetitive 5-heads of garlic for 99-cents.
Once that US currency goes over-seas, it doesn't come back but to buy Lawful Money (Gold & Silver mints) and Land Patents.
That's why the Super Highway was built through the Trans Texas Trade Corridor facilited by the Security & Prosperity Partnership: because China already owns all the west-coast seaports that they would rather ship their Super-market items through Mexico and truck them through that Super Highway to avoid Tarriffs.
Every last bit of slave-labor-made Communist product in China is being sold on mainland America all beginning since The United States makes it impossible for Americans and nationals to make or fab or grow their own, beginning with Herbalists and Farmers being shot-down by USDA and BATFE and SWAT directed by Big Pharma as well as the seeds of job security being sown by all these US corporations forcing under-age adults/children into the federal STATE-mandated services of schooling and vaccination to assert that indoctrination of College and GMO'd food will will always be necessary to ensure a productive life if not ostricised by neighbors branding natural health and God-given welfare of diet & lifestyle.
Abandon citizen-Ship.
That is all well and good, but it does not excuse the poster I was responding to for stating that the list of sponsors he gave were the sponsors of this bill, since they are not. He was attempting to say that this bill was a Republican bill, not a Democratic bill when, in fact, this bill is the reverse. Your point is all well and good, but there have been several people in this thread who have been using this as an excuse to bash Republicans. As far as I can tell, this was not a response to someone first trying to bash Democrats, which makes it seem that they think this is a Republican problem when it is actually a politician problem, no matter what the party of said politician.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm enjoying all the people up in arms about the bills which would allow the GOV to have a hand in protecting critical private networks. Everyone is all like BOOO gonna mess it up, gonna take over twitter, gonna nurrrrr. Seriously, you think the corporations HAVE ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER in protecting their shit!? HELL NO! See its like this, you MAY get hacked and loose money (of some calculated amount), or you WILL loose money if you try to protect it. See, IT costs mucho mula, where as not getting hacked is FREE. You cant make money off your security infastructure so profit driven enterprises are TOTALLY UNINTERESTED in being any more proactive then absolutely necessary to drive the losses due to hacking below the costs to prevent them. For instance, if a power company gets hacked what are their losses? A FEW HOURS OF POWER FEES! They ARE NOT LIABLE for the personal losses caused by people being without power. A few trains collide, the moment they find it was hackers, NOT LIABLE. A few trains collide, the moment they find it was hackers, NOT LIABLE for all the dead people or environmental damage.
You want corporations to do it, make them culpable for damages due to having insecure networks.
GET A CLUE PEOPLE.
The world needs it now more than ever: http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/
It's OK. All those critical infrastructure providers with their insecure SCADA systems, and defence contractors having their weapon design documentation stolen by the Chinese will fix their crappy IT security all by themselves. No government intervention is necessary.
Or is that wishful thinking on my part?
Unfortunately, elections have been rigged in the USA, off and on, for over 200 years. There are dozens of historically documented examples, and hundreds of examples of statistically unlikely and numerically impossible (more votes than voters) elections.
Example: On March 30, 1855, US Senator David Rice Atchison led 5,000 Missourians into Kansas. They seized control of all polling places at gunpoint, cast tens of thousands of fraudulent votes for pro-slavery candidates, and elected a pro-slavery legislature. Senator Rice stated that he would "kill every god damned abolitionist in the district" if necessary. The pro-slavery President Franklin Pierce not only recognized the rigged elections, but when native Kansans held a second election to elect their own "shadow legislature" Pierce declared the winners to be criminal insurrectionists. Eventually Pierce went so far as to have federal troops raze the town of Lawrence, Kansas, in an attempt to prevent free and fair voting.
If you would prefer a post-Civil War example, you need look only so far as the 2000 Florida presidential election. Despite being retroactively legalized by the US Supreme Court, the election is widely believed to have been rigged; questions remain about the culpability of Kathleen Harris and DBT, among other issues. There is absolutely no doubt that Gore received more legal votes than Bush, and the University of Chicago study convincingly proved that any fair count would have given the Presidency to Al Gore.
Anecdotally, a statistician once told me Ohio and Pennsylvania appear to have been rigged in the last presidential election, but the Republicans were smart enough to rig a state they would not have otherwise won, and the Democrats were dumb enough to rig a state they already had sewed up. Sometimes it seems like the two major parties are "Evil" and "Incompetence".
Keep in mind there's no evidence of any national conspiracy to rig a vote (unless you count the Diebold whistle-blowers, which I don't). Election rigging historically happens at local levels, mostly at individual polling places or in districts, and occasionally at the state level. Now that voting machines without audit trails are being mandated, we're only just getting to the point where a truly national election fraud is even possible. It's hard to believe it won't happen, though, given human nature - purposely building systems that can be exploited generally gives rise to exploitation.
Except that that is not the bill being talked about in this article. The bill being talked about in the article is in the Senate, not the House.
That is all well and good, but it does not excuse the poster I was responding to for stating that the list of sponsors he gave were the sponsors of this bill, since they are not.
The poster linked to opencongress.org
http://homeland.house.gov/bill/hr-3674-promoting-and-enhancing-cybersecurity-and-information-sharing-effectiveness-act-2011 confirms what the poster shared, including the complete list of sponsors.
If the bill being talked about was in the Senate, not the House, it would start with "S", not "H.R."
So I have to ask, where did you get your information, and why should I believe you?
"This is from the bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Casinos) and supported by the White House," says the linked CIO.com article.
Whether you support Democrats or Republicans is of course your business, but to blame Republicans for this is naive. But even if not to blame here, they will certainly propose legislation that will earn the ire of the electorate, today, tomorrow or next week. Just like the Democrats.
I don't blame them, as they are a reflection of us. Blindly bomb throwing at the other party, never able to see past our own blindness. We deserve it all, because we're out of touch, as a people, with things like being principled, morality and ethics. We've forgotten consequence. Like spoiled children on the playground, we stomp our feet and pitch a fit. I see the worst of character everywhere: reality shows, internet forums, television and entertainment, etc. It's embarrassing.
When we stop trying to make an imperfect world perfect, or find some external factor to blame for our circumstances, we'll begin to figure it out. Until then, our foundation as a people and culture is not firm, and we'll keep slipping deeper into a pit we can't get out of.
Those in Washington are a reflection of this (most of them...there are some honorable ones who do want to serve others).
A free society means living bravely, knowing you may get hurt but relishing the freedom. You don't blame others, and handle what you need to, and your example convinces others to follow.
So, in conclusion, take a big swig of Cowboy the Hell Up, stop making excuses, walk the walk and be a good-hearted, firm and principled man (or woman). Figure it out and be dependable, honest and trustworthy; Be able to seal a deal on a handshake; be a rock.
You'll have to look to the words and deeds of past generations for examples, for the most part. Or better yet, the true principles found beyond this place.
Living it day by day will change your whole perspective, and you will choose only those who are worthy to represent you.
I got my information from the article linked to in the summary and from the AP article which that article linked to. Just because some poster brings in a link to another bill after the fact does not mean that that link has anything to do with the bill mentioned in the summary. If the original poster I responded to had said that the Republicans backed a bill just as bad, I would not have responded, but the poster I initially responded to gave a list of Republican sponsors of a completely different bill from the one in the summary, or in the article the summary linked to (or even the article that that article linked to).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
sponsors of a completely different bill from the one in the summary
Very first sentence says H.R. 3674.
, or in the article the summary linked to
I read that article. The only bill mentioned by title or # is HR 3674 as well, right at the bottom.
(or even the article that that article linked to).
Reading this article again I see the confusion. They talk first about a "Senate plan" (no bill by # or name), then proceed to mention a House version by the HS subcommittee as being less intrusive. They don't mention that bill by name or title, just a quote from a Dem, Langevin. As he is one of the sponsors of 3674, no doubt 3674 is the bill talked about in the article. /. editors not checking the articles before posting, and these posts.
meh
So we have CIO misquoting Reuters, CelticWhisper misquoting CIO,