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."
I hope it does not come to it either, but BUT got to remember with the internet being a part of free enterprise, Obama touching that internet would open a pandoria’s box for trouble.
Actually, I already have a CCNA (though I never saw any video when I was studying for it, and I need to renew), as well as an MCSE, a MCSA, and a CISSP. And I have a Masters in information assurance, but I’m sure there are plenty of folks for whom this is useful.
Just want to reassure all of you who are worried about the government “shutting down” the Internet, or even portions of it.
Every bank in the world, almost all large businesses, and every large financial transaction in the world, today, is made over the Internet; that includes the business of the FED and the US Treasury. All international diplomatic communication are carried out over the Internet, and at least half of all military communication.
The Government cannot shut down the Internet without shutting itself down (which is really not a bad idea, actually).
If the Internet were shut down today, all the communication necessary to maintain trucking shipments, for example, would be lost. In 72 hours Washington DC would be starving. Every major city in the country only has enough food to sustain it for 3 days, and only the continuous replenishment by truckers keeps those cities from starving.
Shutting down the Internet would eliminate all electronic Bank transactions (which today is 99% of them), and eliminate the control of most nation-wide control system (think gas and oil pipelines).
Shutting down the internet would mean the almost instantaneous destruction of the world’s enonomy and society. Even Obama is not that stupid.
Think it over.
Hank
Yes...many FReepers have short memories and don’t recall that it was the Bush Administration that first started this garbage. Heck, remember the provisions in the John Warner DAA?
It's not a matter of stupid. It's a matter of marxists goals.
Think it over.
5.56mm
They are already trying to define the swine flu as an emergency.....
.....laying the ground work for a crisis.
Right now the internet is the biggest enemy 0b0z0 and his thugs have and our best tool to expose them.
“(Dave, remember the warning we were given for pulling an unauthorized eavesdrooping offense.....$10,000 and 10 years for each offense.)”
I guess the warnings on eavesdropping only applies those not in the 0b0z0 camp.
I think they are busy pushing bills such as this under the radar. My opinion is they don’t want the healthcare bill to pass. Not yet anyway. They are just using it as cover.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
Technically, the government (FCC) can shut down the Amateur Radio Service at will simply by ordering the service to cease operation. This is why you have to be licensed, you are technically a government service. Of course, the "Service" was initially set up when threats were assumed to be foreign or natural disasters. I don't think a "Kommunist Presidential Koup" inflicted on the citizenry was in their mindset.
That being said, in a real emergency where the government was out of control and "in the wrong", if you have the equipment, it could be used despite the order. But they could jam communications, and transmitting too much from one location could get you located and shut down by force.
I would imagine, the safest communication would be to transmit from Canada or elsewhere with amateur receivers in the USA. Smuggle messages to the transmitter and everyone listening could hear if it wasn't being jammed.
>>I would imagine, the safest communication would be to transmit from Canada or elsewhere with amateur receivers in the USA. Smuggle messages to the transmitter and everyone listening could hear if it wasn’t being jammed.<<
You mean from Canada from Ham radio?
I’m really close to Windsor.
You could smuggle messages across the border.....
.....a freedom loving Canadian Amateur Radio Operator could talk to another freedom loving Canadian Amateur Radio Operator so it isn't a "broadcast" (illegal in Amateur Radio, at least in the USA), and the information could be weaved into their discussion like a coded message.
But the Michigan border crossings would likely be shut down in such an "emergency". I was thinking about a country crossing west somewhere, where you could use an ATV or hike across in the wilderness into Saskatchewan for instance.
LOL!
Thanks....very interesting....
I had a college buddy that was into HAM big time....but I never did anything with it....but there is a HAM Club around here.
I should go to a meeting.
You forgot man is destroying the planet, and warming will kill us.
Nearly everything these leftist are using as a crisis to push legislation is a lie.
Right on, metmom. This danger must not be overlooked. — FRegards ....
One can heap scorn upon GWB for suggesting wire taps on suspected foreign agents of the State is illegal, but it seems quite permissible in the minds of the left to control the whole Internet to some degree. Like some have raised the question, where is the ACLU on this issue.
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.