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."
O’s way of shutting down Free Republic.
Just thought I would mention how Texas has it's own power grid, we're not hooked up to the rest of the country.
First, thank you for your reply, succinct, factual and thought provoking.
As to what to do? I hope that it can be done within the structure of the Constitution. If not, so be it, but I doubt it would be allowed to come to that through interaction of other countries. They have something to lose also.
However, recall the earliest of production lines operated and what they manufactured (no, it was not Henry Ford).
Just as black powder rifles were manufactured in sub assemblies, an information network can today or in the future be made.
I'm sure that it would most likely take nothing more than a roofing tar heater and a couple of pillows to chase most of the scum from or into hiding.
(should they forget that they are supposed to REPRESENT us, not LECTURE us) (if they don't like it, get out)
The WH already has a list, remember ‘flagged@whitehouse.gov‘? That was just a piece of the puzzle.
Ergo, control. Most packets are routed thru a few trunks. Turn those off, and the ensuing traffic jam would crush the rest of the network. Oh, it might not be completely shut off, but cut to 10% of capacity with everyone banging on their "refresh" key, it's as good as turned off.
The Internet is built to route around failures & blockages, but cannot instantly expand remaining capacity.
The ACLU may indeed get involved. This could affect the public’s access to free porn.
If they didn’t shut down “allied” sites like DU, KOS or HUFF PO even they would have trouble....
A. Keeping up with the admin/mod work needed to compensate from messages in such a case from getting out/around.
B. They’d start losing segments of support.
Call me too optimistic but I would truly like to think that at one point that if our government was shutting down opposition even the left would say “Whoa, what are you doing? This isn’t America!”
I know perhaps there are always those that would turn in their neighbors and family members. I also like to think that rhetoric would never surpass action.
” O’s way of shutting down Free Republic. “
Tinfoil thought — JimRob, along with many other leaders of our movement, are going to be together on a bus, and/or in various locations, for quite a few days...
Just sayin’....
Exactly. It’d just turn even more current supporters against him. I think he’d get a good dose of “American ingenuity” too - software engineers would revolt, making a 1000 ways around things. I’m a software engineer, written plenty of software drivers (ethernet, graphics, usb, etc.). It’d definitely put me on a mission - one I’d take more seriously than anything else I’ve ever done.
The Data listening project (Was it called CARNIVORE?) was introduced to us, and proven after the attacks on 9.11.01. Many suspected terrorists were found and brought in during the week that followed, with a lot of mention of how they were found using this technology.
This is a system that is costly to run, with little results (At least during some research of it). When the Whitehouse decided to shut down the flag@ project, I suppose they shut it down with such little resistance because they had a more effective, nay, _sinister_ system ready to go.
I also have no reason to doubt that system is in play today, now, with a focus on FR.
Fascism. It’s all the rage today.
Is there data on this or just somebody's opinion?
You can't believe everything you read on the internet.
bttt
The MSM wants their monopoly back.
BTW, Glen Beck spoke about this earlier in the week. Watch him!
sic semper tyranus.
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Government out of control by We the People Ping.
We dont use a computer.
We have since 98 had MSN Webtv.
We do not get streaming video/u tube.
But we primarly use it to read FR and check Earthquake/recipes/google and some email.
So nothing for the Gov to snatch up.
They could I suppose block FR at the MSN Webtv headquarters.
The same place as the anti-war protestors obviously.
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.