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."
“Taking control of the Internet is like taking control of sharing sugar with your neighbor.”
How do you get your internet service? Through an ISP. There are a variety of tiers to ISP service. As fascism increases, the ISPs will be under increasing government control. Think ATT/Sprint/Level3. Those are Tier 1 providers - they run the internet backbone. Your local ISP likely purchases bandwidth from the Tier 1 providers. They could very easily take it over by controlling the Tier 1 providers.
“Maybe Ham radio?
Or is that something that just worked in old movies?”
It’s still there. Contact http://arrl.org . Do it quick and get a license. There’s no way it would be as fast as the internet as the bandwidth isn’t there but it would allow for communications, both digital and voice. Morse code is no longer required for testing purposes but in bad times, nothing beats morse.
It’s too decentralized to fully control. Zero could institute one program of control and it would be hacked within days.
It’s too decentralized to fully control. Zero could institute one program of control and it would be hacked within days.
Guess who defines “temporary” and “emergency”...
A bunch of highly pissed off citizenry take out the rope, tar, and feathers. Too many businesses around the WORLD rely on the internet being completely unrestricted. Then of course all the other foreign companies in a full blown snit demand Zero be dragged onto the White House lawn and be shot.
>Time for “The UNDERNET”.
It already exists. It’s called FreeNet. http://freenetproject.org/
It still requires the existing internet but does provide some privacy.
“In theory, yes. However, the main servers the gov is likely to go after are the top-level domain controllers.”
These are called “root servers” They serve at the root of the DNS (domain name service) tree. There are around a dozen root server sites in the US and more are distributed around the planet. DNS is much like a phone book. One looks up a name like freerepbulic.com and DNS returns the IP address of the server(s) associated with the domain. You can see where some of the root servers are located by going to http://www.root-servers.org/ . Take away the root servers and really bad things happen to the internet.
For a very good video on how the internet and TCP/IP works, go to http://warriorsofthe.net/ . This video is standard viewing in the first Cisco CCNA course.
So, what’s to complain about?
I mean, don’t other “Democratic Party”-controlled countries do it?
i.e. China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Iran, etc?
Thank you, Myrddin. Ernest, you KNOW I'M a blonde...can you help here??? :)
def. “emergency & threat”: 2010+ elections where the vote is going against the “United Democrats for Fascism” Party.
Such news must be suppressed and the 70pct against vote needs to be “recounted” to become a 70pct for vote, ala Chavez.
Only 55 pages?
Should be at least 1,000 to insure no Dem legislator reads it and so little items like seizing all private property, establishing State Communes, and creating Gulags for non-Dems, can be snuck in.
Also with Obama’s massive and powerful “civilian army”, to be named perhaps, the “S.S.”, “Hitler, er Obama Youth”, or other inspiring title.
My now-deceased WW2 vet father used to say that back in the early to mid-seventies. I scoffed at him....
Sorry, dad.
I've sincee figured out that this is a tactic of the left. They screamed "Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Hitler," so loud and so much that when the real power freak shows up the cries of their opponents (us) that "_________ is Hitler" are ignored.
The Hitler comparison has become cliche'.
Same with "The Republicans are going to take away your Social Security!"
Okay, now whose really taking away SS?
They accuse the right, in advance, of what they themselves are planning on doing in the future, so by the time they do it nobody's shocked.
Cyber-Reichstag Fire
What if one takes over internet service providers? Will that not control internet communication in large part?
Can we plant people to post this stuff on DU?
I’m Bill and this is news to me.
Until a new revolution errupts.
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.