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."
You too, mine were lost in a freak boating accident
Your theory makes sense ...
though McCain is a fool to believe he would get a seat at the table. He will be rendered useless by that time. They need him to help shove 0’s agenda through congress. After that, it’s adios Juan.
Had the Republicans and G.H.W.B. proposed this then it would have looked like Vlad Drakul had come to Washington with all the impaled corpses along the Beltway.
But does it have sufficient capacity? The core is already congested; imagine the congestion on paths not designed for that load. Can the side roads handle rush-hour traffic if the freeways are shut down?
And don't underestimate the destabilization of 30% of the 'net being cut off.
All the useful idiots that move his agenda along will be discarded once he has the power he desires.
“And why does Sen Snowe ...a Republican ... sponsor this ....?”
calling that bitch a Republican should be prosecuted as a fraud!
___________________________
I loathe that bitch. Collins too.
If Bush did this, heads would be exploding and eyes bleeding.
For the most part, the press is part of the DNC. They want their monopoly back.
No Mention.I wonder how those ridiculous persons would have responded had the previous administration bee drafting a bill like this? If this is enacted I will hold all Democrats (and RINOS) equally responsible. Ignorance is no excuse.
MrB,
I completely agree with you. Here is a post I wrote wondering about the Internet Czar shutting down the Internet.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2325684/posts?page=50#50
” When the justification for a law is clearly a lie it’s time to worry. “
Tarp; Porkulus; Cap ‘n’ Tax; Healthcare Reform...
Your point is very well taken....
The Tinfoil hatters are going to be really scared shiftless when they read this because of one name deeply associated with this bill: “Jay Rockefeller”.
You know I used to laugh at the Tin Foilers, but even they get it right once in a while.
I do not like the Rockefellers, they can all go pound sand.
Not for long ... have a nice day! -Rahm
Many people I know are considering moving to Texas.
Exactly!....Time to find an alternative to comcast.....and get some HAM radios
VERY cool pic! Wish there was a wallpaper somewhere of it (1920x1200)
Great idea but I’m clueless as to what you mean or where to get these things.
Why would Texas be immune? Lotsa Dems there (I was born there..used to be a bit liberal a decade ago but thankfully saw the light).
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.