Another Power Grab by the Feds.

[Matt34]

Next thing you know Nancy Pelosi will be running Audioholics.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.



The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

 

[lsiberian]

Next thing you know Nancy Pelosi will be running Audioholics.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

All I can do is Cuss. this is stupid and should be stopped.

 

[jamie2112]

uuuummmmmm do you know who Rockafeller really is?He is part of the family that controls this country.He is also part of the Federal reserve,and this is all part of the plan to control the country.You all naysayers can tell me I am nuts but soon enough ALL of our liberties are going to be gone............yeah I already knew that.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

c'mon....

The democrats are in power!!


Democrats are all about personal freedoms. What do we have to fear, but fear itself?

 

[Adam]

Yeah, like Google doesn't already have the capability to shut it all down.

 

[highfigh]

c'mon.... What do we have to fear, but fear itself?

Democrats. that's what.

Before the election, people called me paranoid for some of the things I said I was worried about. I think I'm going to call some of those people to tell them about this, too. They aren't happy that I was right on several other ones, either.

 

[10010011]

I guess they should have use the phrase "to protect us from cyber-TERRORISTS", then all you conservatives would willingly hand over your civil rights to feel safe.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

C'mon...

The Marxist Obama "New Deal" economic policy will fix this economy right up!!

....just like it did for FDR

 

[Davemcc]

I don't think you're done yet. It's still a long time until the mid-term elections.

 

[highfigh]

I guess they should have use the phrase "to protect us from cyber-TERRORISTS", then all you conservatives would willingly hand over your civil rights to feel safe.

Or not.

Try to remember that we conservatives are the ones who don't think it's a good idea to have half of the country on the government payroll and we think government should be involved in our daily lives as little as possible. There's no reason they should crawl as far up our backsides as they have and want to. The Federal government should rule on issues of national importance, protect us from foreign invaders (they're not doing that at all) and loosely monitor trade and any industries we have but they should NOT be knees deep in running any of these. Government ownership of any corporation or industry is dangerous ground and should never be allowed.

 

[markw]

Home, home in DC

Oh, give me a home where the liberals roam
Where the a$$ and the radicals play;
Where never is heard a questioning word,
And the ether is monitored all day.

Aren't these the same people who screamed bloody murder about eroding our civil rights right after 9/11 when Homeland Security was born? I guess they're just protecting the country from those who say we're headed to hell in a hand-basket.

 

[unreal.freak]

It reminds me of North Korea.....where LiL Kim runs all the media.

Most of main stream media is so biased to the left or to the right, that alot of people are turning to the internet for thier news. If .Gov gets the power to control the .Net, we will all be like mushrooms or sheeple. I watch Fox news IF i watch cable news. I just love Beck and O'Reilly

Peace,
Tommy

 

[10010011]

Or not.

The Federal government should rule on issues of national importance, protect us from foreign invaders (they're not doing that at all)

And the Bush administration was.

Bush administration “a disaster when it comes to cyber security”

| September 7, 2008 |

A bi-partisan commission of cyber security experts Tuesday gave a scathing review of how starkly unprepared the Bush administration is to stop a digital Pearl Harbor: cyber terrorists knocking out our nation’s financial, telecom or power systems.

You can view a webcast of the Congressional hearing at which the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th President (what a name!) presented its findings here. And you can see supporting proof points from a new Government Accountability Office report released at the same hearing here.

CSIS commission members who testified before the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology included CSIS director Jim Lewis and Good Harbor Consulting’s Paul Kurtz and Ret. Lt. Gen. Harry Raduege. They painted an alarming picture of a secrecy-obsessed Bush White House creating a rudderless Department of Homeland Security. The experts said that DHS has utterly failed at establishing trust, much less partnerships, with the private sector and with other nations. (Such collaborations are crucial to formulating and implementing an effective cyber defense.)

“This administration has been a disaster when it comes to cyber security,” observed Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ).

And yet, the upshot of the hearing was decidedly upbeat. The good news: a bi-partisan solution has been painstakingly pieced together by the commission. What’s sorely needed, testified Lewis, is a senior level administration official, with high level security clearances, and the president’s ear. Somebody like, say, Richard A. Clarke. You may recall Clarke was an effective cyber security czar under President Clinton. But Clarke resigned in 2003 after President Bush eliminated his cabinet-level access. He has since re-invented himself as a security consultant and best-selling author of cyber thrillers.

There appears to be bi-partisan momentum in Congress to make cyber defense a higher priority. Rep. Al Green (D-Tex) and Michael McCaul (R-Tex) both cited concerns about the public outcry, should cyber terrorists strike with government preparedness at a nadir.

“We have some duty to respond,” said Green. “If we do have an attack, people are going to want to know why we didn’t move forward.”

McCaul put it more succinctly: “We don’t want to be sitting here some day with a cyber 9-11 asking what we could have done to stop that.”

 

[adwilk]

I haven't read any of this thread, but its the first time I've seen matts new avatar.. phenomenal...

 

[Tomorrow]

McCaul put it more succinctly: “We don’t want to be sitting here some day with a cyber 9-11 asking what we could have done to stop that.”

Hmmm, sounds like Iraq has WMD's.

My digital friend...you still bash the Bush administration. It sucked. He sucked. It's over. Now what are you going to do about the current guy? He swore to uphold and protect our constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. How do you square that with him hiring self-admitted communists like Van Jones? Please answer that one question.

 

[highfigh]

Oh, give me a home where the liberals roam
Where the a$$ and the radicals play;
Where never is heard a questioning word,
And the ether is monitored all day.

Aren't these the same people who screamed bloody murder about eroding our civil rights right after 9/11 when Homeland Security was born? I guess they're just protecting the country from those who say we're headed to hell in a hand-basket.

The same. They're the "Don't do as I do, do as I say" party.

 

[highfigh]

And the Bush administration was.

Bush administration “a disaster when it comes to cyber security”

| September 7, 2008 |

A bi-partisan commission of cyber security experts Tuesday gave a scathing review of how starkly unprepared the Bush administration is to stop a digital Pearl Harbor: cyber terrorists knocking out our nation’s financial, telecom or power systems.

You can view a webcast of the Congressional hearing at which the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th President (what a name!) presented its findings here. And you can see supporting proof points from a new Government Accountability Office report released at the same hearing here.

CSIS commission members who testified before the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology included CSIS director Jim Lewis and Good Harbor Consulting’s Paul Kurtz and Ret. Lt. Gen. Harry Raduege. They painted an alarming picture of a secrecy-obsessed Bush White House creating a rudderless Department of Homeland Security. The experts said that DHS has utterly failed at establishing trust, much less partnerships, with the private sector and with other nations. (Such collaborations are crucial to formulating and implementing an effective cyber defense.)

“This administration has been a disaster when it comes to cyber security,” observed Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ).

And yet, the upshot of the hearing was decidedly upbeat. The good news: a bi-partisan solution has been painstakingly pieced together by the commission. What’s sorely needed, testified Lewis, is a senior level administration official, with high level security clearances, and the president’s ear. Somebody like, say, Richard A. Clarke. You may recall Clarke was an effective cyber security czar under President Clinton. But Clarke resigned in 2003 after President Bush eliminated his cabinet-level access. He has since re-invented himself as a security consultant and best-selling author of cyber thrillers.

There appears to be bi-partisan momentum in Congress to make cyber defense a higher priority. Rep. Al Green (D-Tex) and Michael McCaul (R-Tex) both cited concerns about the public outcry, should cyber terrorists strike with government preparedness at a nadir.

“We have some duty to respond,” said Green. “If we do have an attack, people are going to want to know why we didn’t move forward.”

McCaul put it more succinctly: “We don’t want to be sitting here some day with a cyber 9-11 asking what we could have done to stop that.”

Have we been attacked since 9-11? Has our infrastructure been compromised?

"The experts"- come up with some names if you want these experts to have any validity.

I sometimes wonder if Democrats hate Republicans only because they're on the opposite side, or if they actually know the differences in philosophies.

I won't argue that cyber security is needed but I don't like the way the Obama admin wants to take control of everything. If Windows was secure, I don't think it would be as easy to hack into the network. Individuals need to learn how to secure their own computers and instead of going the easy way and leaving wireless networks unencrypted, they need to be harder to get into. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a cyber-attack will be launched over coffee at a Starbucks.

 

[lsiberian]

I just love Beck and O'Reilly

Yes let's create a show where we yell at the person we don't agree with.

I have an idea for a show you'd love. I'll just get a conservative on and then get a liberal on and I'll cuss his *** out. You'd love that for sure. Then I'll write a book sell it to you.

In reality look where the conservatives(republicans aren't really that) have gotten us. I think a return to the 90s system might be a good thing for the economy. Jacking up taxes on the 1 million earners club I think will help pay for all the republican spending the last few years.

But would we have to raise taxes if Bush had been a true conservative. The republicans had their chance with me and they blew it. Sorry but unless they get back to being real conservatives I have no interest.

Did anyone here know that we had a balanced budget in 2000? What bush did was wipe it out with a bad tax cut. We could have helped ourselves with that surplus, by taking down the national debt. Instead we squandered it on unnecessary tax cuts.

Think of it this way if you reduce debt you reduce interest payments. Thereby increasing the surplus. If you keep this up you might actually put yourself in a very good position. Instead we have big spenders on both sides of the isle driving this country further into the ground financially.

 

[highfigh]

Yes let's create a show where we yell at the person we don't agree with.

I have an idea for a show you'd love. I'll just get a conservative on and then get a liberal on and I'll cuss his *** out. You'd love that for sure. Then I'll write a book sell it to you.

Like this?

"Jane Curtin: Dan, only a reactionary *** such as yourself could oppose full diplomatic relations with China. As President Carter said, it is a simple recognition of reality. How can we ignore eight hundred million people? But, then again, I guess it's your habit to ignore reality. You're a paranoid schizophrenic, Dan, whose politics are obviously born out of some buried infantile trauma. You hide from reality, constructing a hostile world to justify your own incapacity for love and compassion. Go ahead, Dan, live in your dark, lonely world. The rest of us will extend our hands in friendship to eight hundred million human beings, saying, "Hi! You do exist. Let's be friends."

Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant slut. My personality profile is not at issue here, any more than is your inability to achieve orgasm. The issue is Taiwan. How can we expect to have the confidence of any free nation when we stab one of our most faithful allies in the back. I suppose you'd like to conduct our foreign policy the way you conduct your private life, hopping from bed to bed with anyone that can do you some good. Then what do you have? An old, dried-out scuzz that no decent man would be seen with. Is that what you want for America? It's too late for you, Jane, but our country still has some dignity left, you hosebag!"

 

[highfigh]

In reality look where the conservatives(republicans aren't really that) have gotten us. I think a return to the 90s system might be a good thing for the economy. Jacking up taxes on the 1 million earners club I think will help pay for all the republican spending the last few years.

But would we have to raise taxes if Bush had been a true conservative. The republicans had their chance with me and they blew it. Sorry but unless they get back to being real conservatives I have no interest.

Did anyone here know that we had a balanced budget in 2000? What bush did was wipe it out with a bad tax cut. We could have helped ourselves with that surplus, by taking down the national debt. Instead we squandered it on unnecessary tax cuts.

Think of it this way if you reduce debt you reduce interest payments. Thereby increasing the surplus. If you keep this up you might actually put yourself in a very good position. Instead we have big spenders on both sides of the isle driving this country further into the ground financially.

One thing that never fails to amaze me is that every administration rails on the previous one for what they did to the economy and then, they turn around and make it even worse. The recent figures show that our national debt will be close to $9 Trilliion dollars soon and that's more than all of the cumulative debt since the US was founded. It doesn't need to be this way. The number of lost jobs alone will make a huge negative impact on tax revenues and many were caused by the automakers going bankrupt. Since when does a POTUS tell the president of a corporation that he needs to resign? Since when does the government control industries? What right do they have to take from some to give to others when the ones getting have been conditioned to stick their hand out for what they should be able to provide for themselves?

A POTUS usually can't do much on their own, they need to work with Congress. However, Congress and the POTUS generally don't do this very often, unless a congressional majority who are in agreement with that POTUS exists and the way it is now, they could actually negate the Supreme Court's rulings, if they wanted to. That's dangerous territory when the POTUS and members of Congress are such extremists and my view on this would be the same if it was a conservative administration that was so extreme.