Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

CNET ^ | August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT | Declan McCullagh

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

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."

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[KevinDavis]

Hello ACLU?? Where are you??

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Where are all the civil liberties groups and the ACLU at now?

[KarlInOhio]

When it looked like Iran was ready to have a revolution, I suggested that what was needed was a way to deploy wireless routers that could communicate with each other to form a self-organizing peer-to-peer network outside of the Mullah's control. Little did I know that we would need one too.

[edge10]

But, but... I thought it was ‘Evil Republicans’ that were the threat to our liberties? /s

[Marty62]

Since this outrage has been in the works since Spring...Where is the msm in alerting the public to this Fascist Bill.

[SE Mom]

OMG

This is an example of what’s sooooooo disturbing about these people. This is a huge piece of news- but there’s SO MUCH ELSE he’s got us looking at that this isn’t on the radar.

YET!

[ShadowAce]

[Puppage]

Define: emergency & threat

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!

And why does Sen Snowe ...a Republican ... sponsor this ....?

[This_far]

...and electronic health records

Kinda jumping the gun there aren't ya?

Further, nothing like pissing off the 'youngsters' who will love to hack any kind of blockade you try to impose.

Oh, they are also the voter base that got you elected.

Hey kids, you are welcome to join our side of reality (and we told ya so!)

[nikos1121]

Senator of Durbin is for taxing any purchases on the internet. In fact, why not tax garage sales too.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hello ACLU?? Where are you??

Since the "antithesis" rather than the "thesis" is the target, they don't care.

[Uri’el-2012]

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet.

This may be the "Reichstag Fire Enabling Act" of 2009

[Niteranger68]

I dare them to try it. It would be suicide..political and otherwise.

[hoosierham]

obama ,like all tyrants,wants total control over speech.

[Nosterrex]

This is a blatant attempt by the government to control all forms of communication. We aren't to know anything other than what the government tells us. If Obama stays in power much longer, the government will control talk radio and the Internet. They already control everything else.

[Repeat Offender]

Define: emergency & threat

Emergency and threat; Definition: Articles in the Breaking news and activism section on FreeRepublic that have at least three responses casting the 0bummer Admin in a negative light.

All your FReeRepublic are now belong to us.

[SE Mom]

Sent this to Drudge and Rush