Posted on 09/01/2009 5:22:44 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
A revision to the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, the proposed Rockefeller-Snowe legislation in Congress, has drawn criticism because of concerns that it would give the president power to shut down the internet.
The proposed law, introduced in April by Sen. John (Jay) Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, originally contained a controversial clause that said: “The president may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of internet traffic to and from any compromised federal government or critical infrastructure information system or network.”
The bill recently was revised, and the new language now reads: “The president may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and may, if the president finds it necessary for the national defense and security…direct the national response to the cyberthreat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network.”
Additionally, concerns are directed at the proposed power to determine whether an event is really an emergency and to assign any agency to deal with it.
Writing in a blog post, Michael Tanji, senior fellow at the Center for Threat Awareness, a Washington, D.C. think tank, said: “The way to deal with a cybersecurity emergency on a national level is not consolidation, but distribution. Centralized management provides the illusion of control, but it doesn't make things more secure; it just makes things more brittle.”
Others echoed those sentiments.
“The operating and safeguarding of enterprise networks should be left in the hands of network operators,” Ryan Radia, information policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit libertarian advocacy group, told SCMagazineUS.com Monday. “The private sector can react to emergent threats and can compete to develop the best security technologies. The government does not have a particularly good record of protecting networks.”
Then there are people in the industry who doubt whether the government should have any final word on security.
“If you're not doing a particularly good job of securing the networks you own, then maybe you should focus on doing that before trying to impose more regulation on private networks,” Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told SCMagazineUS.com Monday. “I think [the Rockefeller-Snowe bill] is much more of a political document than a thoroughly vetted policy prescription."
“And this is not a White House bill,” he added. “This is a congressional bill. The White House position is not yet clear, but I think it's fair to say that the White House has a more cautious approach than that outlined in this bill.”
The bill still is before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which seems to want to play down the controversy as a legislative work in progress.
In an email to SCMagazineUS.com Monday, Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the committee said: "To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a 'government shutdown or takeover of the internet' and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response."
There is no legitimate reason for communications to be shut down. That’s what you do when you invade an enemy.
Hello ACLU????
Snowe, another example of the many examples of why a viable third party must be established!
This bill is unconstitutional since Article 1 Section 8 does not expressly list regulating the internet as a power granted to Congress by the Constitution.
An emergency:
The president proposes another way to severely curtail our freedom and push us closer to being a banana republic. We find out, and use the internet to communicate, educate people, and organize our opposition.
Wham! President shuts down the internet!
Don’t give Olympia Snowe a pass. What is wrong with this woman?
70 years ago the Nazis faked a Polish attack on their own communication network.
And then invaded Poland.
Nobody believed them then, and no-one will believe the new Nazis now.
Snowe always uses the excuse that she has to vote for Democrat bills because she’s in a liberal district.
Well this legislation has nothing to do with votes and everything to do with giving this President the ability to shut down free speech. Snowe should just officially take her numb brain over to the Dems side of the isle.
Snowe’s political career is threatened by free speech.
Now you're just trying to cheer me up. ;)
Keep the GOP. Kick Snowe out.
I’m not giving her a pass.. My point is that is that the ACLU was screaming bloody murder over wiretaps and gitmo during the Bush years but not a peep over this..
We should all drag our CB radios out of the garage. They can jamb them but we would at least have some sort of communications available if this comes to pass. The other thing of need would be linear amplifiers so we can “skip” comms all around the country at night.
But if it comes to that, we would be in the new revolutionary times. Not a pretty pitcure.
For those in Florida, our Dem Senator Bill Nelson is also a sponsor of this trash.
Snowe is another example of someone who shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of any legislation.
-----
Agreed, FRiend!
But I'm sure some clever bunny will find a way to apply the Interstate Commerce Clause, since the Internet crosses state lines. Then again, that Clause has been abused for so long that a clarifying Amendment is sorely needed.
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.