Senate Legislation Would Federalize Cybersecurity [Feds could shut down private networks] [RINO]

The Washington Post ^ | 2009-04-01

[rabscuttle385]

Rules for Private Networks Also Proposed.

BY JOBY WARRICK & WALTER PINCUS

Key lawmakers are pushing to dramatically escalate U.S. defenses against cyberattacks, crafting proposals that would empower the government to set and enforce security standards for private industry for the first time.

The proposals, in Senate legislation that could be introduced as early as today, would broaden the focus of the government's cybersecurity efforts to include not only military networks but also private systems that control essentials such as electricity and water distribution. At the same time, the bill would add regulatory teeth to ensure industry compliance with the rules, congressional officials familiar with the plan said yesterday.

Addressing what intelligence officials describe as a gaping vulnerability, the legislation also calls for the appointment of a White House cybersecurity "czar" with unprecedented authority to shut down computer networks, including private ones, if a cyberattack is underway, the officials said.

How industry groups will respond is unclear. Jim Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, which represents private companies and civil liberties advocates, said that mandatory standards have long been the "third rail of cybersecurity policy." Dempsey said regulation could also stifle creativity by forcing companies to adopt a uniform approach.

The legislation, co-sponsored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), was drafted with White House input. Although the White House indicated it supported some key concepts of the bill, there has been no official endorsement.

[rabscuttle385]

ping!

[RSmithOpt]

The communists are now engaging on all fronts to seize total control........people had better start waking up quickly!

[taxcontrol]

I have no problems with disconnecting (vs shutting down) a network that is the SOURCE of an attack. However, the majority of attacks come from overseas so that would require first coordination with ISPs and carriers that link into other countries.

Some attacks are in mid progress, meaning that the first and second stages of an attack have already been completed (reconnaissance and beach head). These attacks subsequently go into the third phase which is break out and attack other systems. In this case, disconnecting those entities that have already been compromised would prevent them from doing further damage and may very well protect those companies from further attack. This would allow them time to repair and recover.

[Texas Fossil]

From Rockefeller & Snowe, who would have thought? /sarcasm

The Rockefeller-Snowe measure would create the Office of the National Cybersecurity Adviser, whose leader would report directly to the president and would coordinate defense efforts across government agencies.

It would require the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish "measurable and auditable cybersecurity standards" that would apply to private companies as well as the government. It also would require licensing and certification of cybersecurity professionals.

[ShadowAce]

[Puppage]

........people had better start waking up quickly!

I am sure they will.....by re-electing these AH's

[RSmithOpt]

No good unless The Orifice of the Nat'l Jerkyoff Playperson can enforce defensive efforts worldwide.

BTW, most people haven't a clue as to what we already have in place with the NSA and certain DoD branches to completely & literally fry any network, anywhere, activating within 3 minutes after it is 'in place' and without firing a shot? Wanna talk about unstoppable virus's that are hardware/OS/bios specific??

So, ignoramuses in the public need to realize this is just a Dim snake skin to grab more power to be used to cripple the US at the communists whims.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

I have no problems with disconnecting (vs shutting down) a network that is the SOURCE of an attack.

Even if the "attack" is posting "hatespeech" on a website that opposes the great 0's policies?

This is just the set up for censorship. All it takes is a stroke of a pen to define free speech as hatespeech. It can be done quietly.

Scary times we live in. Nothing is off the table.

[taxcontrol]

And attacks, real cyber attacks can be life threatening and need to be disconnected to prevent significant damage. I live in the cyber security space and know what damage they can cause. There does need to be a mechanism for halting an attack. Personally, I would like to see it follow the same formula that is required for a warrant. The police seem to be able to obtain one of those fairly quickly, why can the FBI cyber branch do the same?

[free_life]

Cyberattacks = criticism of government, criticism of the left, conservative discussion, discussing Jesus.......... you think?

[rabscuttle385]

And attacks, real cyber attacks can be life threatening and need to be disconnected to prevent significant damage. I live in the cyber security space and know what damage they can cause.

I understand what you're saying, but I also want to caution you against believing in the best intentions of the Government whenever it gains a new power.

[pissant]

Let the feds worry about their own systems, and stay the f*** away from everyone else.