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."
Let’s see now, the following groups have turned against BO and the Dems:
1. Seniors
2. Health Insurance Co’s.
3. Middle Class
4. 9-21 yo’s ?
What will these young folks do when they can’t get their Youtube, Porntube, and everything else including INSTANT MESSENGER - OMG.
Just when you think I am being paranoid, BO and the Dems have found another way to show their true colors of Fascist-ism. Control speech and you control thought.
The only problem with controlling or attempting to control the Internet and private controllers is that it smacks against the 1st and 4th Amendment to begin with. Also, our economy is now about 50% Internet driven. If you want to tank the economy by taking over the Internet, then the Government will have open revolt on their hands. The best part of this, is I won’t have to be involved. The youngsters and geezers will burn DC before I will have a chance to get there.
Buy a Glock and spend the difference on ammo
Awesome!
Seems there’s even an iPhone version.
Congratulations, SE Mom!
Drudge and Rush put this up in no time!
YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!
Right out of the communist manifesto playbook.
Ping for later
That is how I viewed the C4C program. They taxed the destruction to boot. A socialist's twofer.
ping
Tyrants ought be careful where and on whom they step.
ping
From now on, at the Tea Party Parties, we need to make signs that say “ Leave Our Internet Alone Obama’s Gestapo “
What would be in it for them is the New World Order.
GWBush took emergency control of our phones, now this guy is taking our internets. That’s it! I’m moving to tahiti.
But notice the gallon of "Engine Seize" in the photo. American entrepeneurism cannot be destroyed nor contained. One man's loss is indeed another's gain.
ping
Hmm... an alliance between government and industry..sounds eerily familiar to BamBams reliationship with the UAW. I’d be worried if I thought the UAW could actual produce any piece of machinery worth a s***. And at the cost of union labor none of the masses would be able to afford it anyways.
Tried to post this earlier but the source is on our “Do not Post List” so I will sum it up here.
Top-secret Obama safe house leaked on LimeWire
July 30, 2009
Congressman Edolphus Towns (http://www.house.gov/towns/) wants to start regulating the file sharing industry because of all of the sensitive government info that has been leaked (although n mention is made of the NYT’s and their leaks during the Bush admin).
He is quoted as saying:
“As far as I am concerned, the days of self-regulation should be over for the file-sharing industry,”
“In the last administration, the Federal Trade Commission took a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach to the file sharing software industry. I hope the new administration is revisiting that approach.”
“For our sensitive Government information, the risk is simply too great to ignore,”
I have been busy this summer, so I did not know about the safe house leak. Of course I do not think any sensitive info should be leaked esp. when doing so could risk the safety of the President (regardless of who it is), citizens or our military.
I do have my doubts about it being the true reasn for this. I think it is about shutting down the free flow of information. They are approaching it on various fronts trying to shut down as many avenues of communication a possible. This one is wrapped in the American Flag. Maybe he thinks it will lessen the charges of trying to suppress the voice of the people. Not working for me.
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.