Posted on 08/28/2009 8:13:33 AM PDT by 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."
FR is a major opposition site; one snipped wire and it’s down - and a whole lotta FReepers have no way to contact each other for information or arrangements.
______________
Jim has many emails, phone numbers, knows many personally. Other Freepers know each other. It wouldn’t take long to put them all in touch. It’s not a bad idea to exchange phone numbers with FReepers you know and trust.
Points to consider:
Obama and his media enablers have, thus far, been very successful at painting opposition to him as racially- based
The all-volunteer army has a disproportionate number of minority members compared to their representation in the general population
” Why would Texas be immune? “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2326800/posts
Secessionist movement under way in Texas
Examiner ^
Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009 12:36:04 PM by wk4bush2004
Fiercely independent and thoroughly horrified at the blatantly unconstitutional explosion of federal tyranny into every aspect of our lives, Texans are set to march on the state capitol in droves on Saturday. They will be delivering a million-strong petition to their elected officials based on the 10th Amendment, demanding an immediate constitutional confrontation with Washington.
If they are turned away or their concerns inadequately addressed, organizer Gerry Donaldson says they “will be forced to call for a vote for secession.” This will not be the last time a state openly defies Obama’s treasonous war on the Constitution.
Donaldson, who runs his own Internet radio show, says they are “calling for an orderly process that will allow our federal government to fall back in line with the Constitution.” He continued, “Either we will restore America, we will live in a Marxist dictatorship, or we will secede and start over again.”
Oh, I envy you! Tahiti is so beautiful, but so far away.
Congress shall make no law
Very true. He's completely delusional. When the conservatives are gone, McCain and his kind are going to be next. There will be no seat for them anywhere.
They don't seem to get that.
Great idea, but how does one do this???.....Do you have a "make your own mesh network" for Dummies version? Or some links to "how-to's" to point us non-tech people in the right direction? :)
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
I have thought for a while we would need this. Is there a way to make something like this happen in this big a country?
Ping!
Did any of you Glenn Beck watchdogs send this to Glenn? This needs to be covered on his show.
Alarmed? The guy is a marxist wannabe dictator! And they are ALAR
ED!
WHAT??? this is NOT China!!
gnip...
Bookmarked
Don't confuse the WWW with the Internet. I am sure that those legacy "gopher" sites and non-WWW based bulletin boards can be dusted off and put to use if needed. Might still have an old 56K baud modem or 2 laying around.
Original Internet was designed to survive a nuclear war by distributing over hundreds or thousands of nodes. There is no central "plug" that can be pulled.
If this becomes law, there will be a "Reichstag Fire" within a few months. Then we will have the ObamaNet.
And many of us from Texas and other states will be taking up arms! This sh!t has got to stop. Lines have been crossed!
We have a refinery in IL that buys all of the IL crude oil, Durbin wants Cap & Tax - the refinery will have to close if it passes - IL oil producers will have to close their producing wells if this happens.
And why does Sen Snowe ...a Republican ... sponsor this ....?
Because she is a stupid, manipulative leftist.
The Honduran military took control under a Court order justified by their Constitution. We have no such powers under our Constitution, Obama can only be removed by impeachment unless you are referring to an outright coup.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.