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."
In this country the primary 'media of truth' is the internet. Funny, huh? He doesn't need to 'take' over the MSM - he already controls them.....
ROFL!
>> Where are all the civil liberties groups and the ACLU at now?
Does tyranny automatically invoke the cause of ‘Civil Liberty’?
Don’t get me wrong, this is a worthy concern whether or not it’s protected by the Constitution.
White House acting cyberspace chief, Melissa Hathaway, who had worked for the director of national intelligence in the Bush administration, resigned 3 weeks ago. It was for personal reasons, of course. Ahem
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10302297-38.html?tag=mncol;mlt_related
Rahmabama/Obamanation clearly see that net bloggers are onto their nefarious schemes.......and that we are scoring serious hits against them.
==================================
Obama/Rahm are purposefully antagonizing large conservative groups in middle America in an effort to cause civil unrest. This would give them an excuse to declare Martial Law.
Americans need to be very vigilant: Obama and his loathsome COS staff Rahm Emanuel are very calculated in their use of power. As dissent among the populace grows, they are capable of plotting staged events to boost their advantage.
If these two arch-manipulators perceive there isn’t measurable fear in the hearts of the people, they will create that fear to solidify their power. They know people will succumb to fear and will relinquish their God-given liberties when they are fearful.
We are witnessing the emergence of a new government dictatorship...on American soil. History tells us that the rampant corruption, fed by cronyism, are the nuts and bolts of dictatorships.
Dictatorships are almost always governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect each other from accountability.
ACORN---blindly loyal to Obama via federal-funding----is his personal Civilian Security Force, ready to silence the populace and march us to reeducation camps.
I’ve got a nice 15 dBi grid dish hooked up to my wrt54g, ready to go peer-to-peer using custom firmware if the need arises.
Uh....NO.
Former USSR radios have one nob, on or off.
ACLU sues for information on laptop searches at U.S. borders
*******************************EXCERPT********************************
August 26th, 2009
Today's lawsuit is not the first time the DHS has been pressed for more information on its policies relating to border laptop searches. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Asian Law Caucus had filed a similar FOIA lawsuit in February 2008, in which they had sought similar data from the CBP.
In response to that lawsuit, the CBP released about 600 pages worth of information on its policies relating to border laptop searches, said Marcia Hoffman, an attorney for EFF. (The documents are available on EFF's site.)
"It gave us some insight into their policies and procedures around border searches," Hoffman said. What the documents showed was that until fairly recently DHS had not thought about how policies covering other forms of searches applied to digital information, she said. Following the EFF and Asian Law Caucus lawsuit, the CBP also published a formal note describing its policy regarding border searches.
I am clearly behind the curve....what episode?
Thanks for the links. :-)
ACLU: Spying for America's Enemies
Townhall.com ^ | August 26, 2009 | Michelle Malkin
FR Posted by Kaslin
Savor the silence of America's self-serving champions of privacy. For once, the American Civil Liberties Union has nothing bad to say about the latest case of secret domestic surveillance -- because it is the ACLU that committed the spying.
Last week, The Washington Post reported on a new Justice Department inquiry into photographs of undercover CIA officials and other intelligence personnel taken by ACLU-sponsored researchers assisting the defense team of Guantanamo Bay detainees. According to the report, the pictures of covert American CIA officers -- "in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes" -- were shown to jihadi suspects tied to the 9/11 attacks in order to identify the interrogators.
The ACLU undertook the so-called "John Adams Project" with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers -- last seen crusading for convicted jihadi assistant Lynne Stewart.
She's the far-left lawyer who helped sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing and N.Y. landmark bombing plot mastermind, smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client's court-ordered isolation.
The ACLU's team used lists and data from "human rights groups," European researchers and news organizations that were involved in "(t)racking international CIA-chartered flights" and monitoring hotel phone records. Working from a witch-hunt list of 45 CIA employees, the ACLU team tailed and photographed agency employees or obtained other photos from public records.
And then they showed the images to suspected al-Qaida operatives implicated in murdering 3,000 innocent men, women and children on American soil.
Where is the concern for the safety of these American officers and their families? Where's the outrage from all the indignant supporters of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose name was leaked by Bush State Department official Richard Armitage to the late Robert Novak?
Lefties swung their nooses for years over the disclosure, citing federal laws prohibiting the sharing of classified information and proscribing anyone from unauthorized exposure of undercover intelligence agents. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero refused to comment on Project CIA Paparazzi and instead whined some more about the evil Bush/CIA interrogators.
Left-wing commentators and distraction artists are dutifully up in arms about such "inhumane" tactics as blowing cigar smoke in the faces of Gitmo detainees. But it's Romero blowing unconscionable smoke: "We are confident that no laws or regulations have been broken as we investigated the circumstances of the torture of our clients and as we have vigorously defended our clients' interests," he told the Post. "Rather than investigate the CIA officials who undertook the torture, they are now investigating the military lawyers who have courageously stepped up to defend these clients in these sham proceedings."
Courage? What tools and fools these jihadi-enablers be. Civil liberties opportunism is literally a part of the al-Qaida handbook. A terrorist manual seized in a Manchester, England, raid in 2005 advised operatives: "At the beginning of the trial ... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison." Jihadi commanders rehearsed the lines with their foot soldiers "to ensure that they have assimilated it."
Since 9/11, the selective champions of privacy have recklessly blabbed about counter-terrorism operations, endangered the lives of military and intelligence officials at Gitmo, and undermined national security through endless litigation. They accused Bush immigration officials of xenophobia for pursuing visa over-stayers from jihadi-friendly countries. They accused local law enforcement, FBI and other homeland security officials of "racial profiling" for placing heightened scrutiny on mosques and jihadi-linked charities.
Now, caught red-handed blowing the cover of CIA operatives, they shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as "normal" research on behalf of "our clients." But don't you dare question their love of country. Spying to stop the next 9/11 is treason, you see. Spying to stop enhanced interrogation of Gitmo detainees is patriotic. And endangering America on behalf of international human rights is the ultimate form of leftist dissent.
More and more people are connecting to the Internet through fewer and fewer ISPs because of DSL and cable. So the head of the FCC calls up AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and a few others and suddenly 80-90% of the US is cut off. This isn’t about protecting the infrastructure... it’s about limiting communications among the people. Just like the first place a new dictator would grab used to be the radio and TV stations, this is formulating a way to grab whatever they can of the Internet. Will there still be some people with ways to get on the Internet? Yes, but just as taking over the radio and TV stations don’t shut down the last few people with shortwave transmitters it will still keep most people from getting the news.
Thanks.
ACLU sues for information on laptop searches at U.S. borders
*******************************EXCERPT****************************
(08-26) 17:39 PDT -- The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s Customs and Border Protection (CBP) unit for information on its policies related to searches of laptops and other electronic devices at U.S. borders.
The lawsuit was filed today under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In it, the ACLU asks the court to direct CBP to disclose records relating to the criteria it uses for selecting passengers for such searches, and the number of such searches it has carried out so far.
The lawsuit also seeks information on the number of devices and documents that have been retained by the DHS unit following such searches and the reasons for their retention.
The lawsuit stems from the Customs and Border Patrol's failure to respond to a FOIA request in which the ACLU had sought the same information in June, said Larry Schwartztol, an attorney for the civil rights group. The information is needed to understand how the agency has been implementing the policies it made public in July 2008 regarding searches of laptops, PDAs and other devices at U.S. borders, he said.
"We have serious concerns about the border searches as stated [by customs]," Schwartztol said. "We think the privacy impacts of searching a laptop without any suspicion are very serious."
The issue of laptop searches at U.S. borders has been a contentious one for some time now. The government has argued that customs agents at U.S. borders have the right to search through the contents of laptops, PDAs, digital cameras and other electronic devices belonging to passengers arriving at U.S borders. The agency has asserted its right to conduct such searches and even download or copy the contents on such devices, even in the absence of any reasonable cause or suspicion.
Civil liberties groups, privacy advocates and others have called such searches an egregious violation of privacy and constitutional rights. Groups such as the Association of Corporate Travel Executives, and others, have warned of potential security breaches when corporate data contained in a laptop or PDA is downloaded by a customs agent as part of a border search. Similar concerns have been raised about data involving client and lawyer privileges, intellectual property and other sensitive information.
The courts have appeared somewhat conflicted on the issue. In one instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the right of customs officials to conduct suspicion-less searches at U.S. borders . The case involved a man charged with transporting images of child pornography after such a border search.
The April 2008 ruling by the appellate court reversed an decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which had held that border agents needed at least some reasonable suspicion before conducting such searches.
Granted.
When FR goes down, do you goto Dominion/Yahoo/altFR?
The same search for info would happen if power/ISP were shut down. There would be those that seek alternate means or work arounds.
Again, I'm not being Y2K about this, but if the admin did attempt to even pass this, consider what the backlash would be.
I find it ludicrous that it is even being considered, but very cautious since it has been. AND, they will be alienating their youngest and most 'E' based constituents.
I wonder is someone put Rockefellers face on Helen Thomas' "body" and he's pissed about it.
Rush Limbaugh on it now!!!
Thanks for the ping!
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.