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."
Check Obama's back pocket.
He is worried about it, yet another means for the Leftists to get more control over the masses.....paraphrasing
Maybe they are, I don’t know.
They want to control internet content, they want the power to ban books and films and internet content, they want their own internal militia force controlled by the President himself, they want to shut down talk radio and TV shows they don’t like by instigating boycotts and they will hold rallies by paying to get them out. They want literally everyone to depend on government for something or other.
All of this points to One Party State.
They want to get this done because the window is probably 2 years. But then again, they might burn down the White House and blame Republicans next October to win the election if it looks bad enough.
I would NOT put them above them.
This is one more in a long line of unconstitutional proposals since regulating the internet is not expressly listed in Article 1 Section 8 as a power granted to Congress. Regardless of that fact, there are only three cosponsors for the bill!
sorry = (
Now there's a classic!
Patton? (if not, or another, then kudos, well said)
calling that bitch a Republican should be prosecuted as a fraud!
Yep.
"Shut 'er down, boys."
Since I’m on facebook and I’m still linked to Bob Barr.. I’m going to e-mail him and see what he says..
Just pull the power plug....
What's even MORE unbelievable is the DUmmies either haven't seen this yet, or they're ignoring it! They SHOULD be goin' APE-Sh*t over something like this, considering how they went ballistic over the infintesimal possibility of a potential wire-tap threat. That wasn't JACK-SQUAT compared taking control over the internet.
Woe to the man who thinks he can wait and hope things get better. It is getting worse. How bad do you want it to get before you all take action?
Stick to worrying about what you are doing and not what everyone else is doing.
It doesn't block out all content the Chinese government considers objectionable. It's actually pretty porous if you have basic technical knowledge to circumvent it. But the psychological effect of its existence has led to massive self-censorship by Chinese internet users--and that is far more effective, and much less expensive, than any content monitoring system.
Most people will grow timid, even in America, if they have good reason to suspect their internet use is being monitored by the government.
First, having a czar in charge of security will mean that there will be some wonderful system developed that will supposedly protect all government computers. After all, that is the reason for having all of the brains in the czar's head.
OK, then when a hacker figures out how to hack one government computer, he has the key to hacking all.
Like Microsoft windoz...hack one, hack millions with the same code.
The only way for government or any other machines to be secure is for each and every systems manager to develop his own security. That done, a hacker must go after them one at a time. Much harder, more time consuming and gives warning to the systems not yet hacked.
But that is a detail. The real bone here is that they really intend to control communication between the citizens.
If this does not scare everyone into action, then we truly are doomed.
The very first amendment is going to be trashed between the diversity czar and the cyber czar.
How can the press be so stupid as to not realize that they will eventually be controlled.
We have government totally out of control, led by Obummer, the Fascist.
What do we do about it?
Bill Gives President Emergency Control of Internet
****************************EXCERPT****************************
Why on earth would the president ever need (legitimate) emergency control of the internet?
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.
They already are banning old toys and children's books for resale because of the use of lead-based ink.
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.