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."
These same youths on hearing about this will turn against Obama.
You read my mind. Jeff, what is the military offensive maneuver for a multi-pronged attack, coming from several far-away locations ... unseen from the target?
So far, over on DU, there hasn’t been a peep about this.
No, it’s some guy named Joseph Goebbels. But it might just as well be Rahm.
Maybe dui thinks this won’t apply to them.
They may be in for a big surprise when their messiah turns on them.
Good luck with that...there are no sunspots....
Sunspots are at a low point not seen in perhaps a hundred years, no doubt, and a lot of HF communication is not always as easy as we'd like it because of that, BUT...
80M & 40M are still very reliable for comms ranging from local areas to 1-2 states away with barefoot 100W rigs & simple wire antennas, and 20M is open at some time almost every day with transcontinental coverage using equally simple and portable equipment. This year I have been experimenting and practicing with my own station to get a good feel for it's usefulness with the possibility of govt. comm shutdowns in mind, and my HF gear is about as bare-bones as it comes. It doesn't take all that much to have a very functional station.
Sunspots do affect radio propagation to some extent, but 14 MHz and below are not so dependent on them to be functional. In the cycle highs, propagation does most of the work, but in the lows we have to rely more on operator skill and antenna design.
One of the most active groups of like minded Ham Radio operators interested in individual readiness, you'll find here:
Well, we’re definately in the ‘occupied’ zone.
Olympia Snowe has got to go. She lends the Republican stamp to every horrible piece of legislation out there.
LOL
The Dems in TX are conservative compared to the rest of the country.
Please insert joker/socialism poster here, thanks.
Bingo.
Sean has been talking about this today also.
What is ALAR?
BO and the Dems will have a REVOLUTION on their hands and it will not be pretty, for they will be on the recieving end of it.
Bingo.
...And it, everything of the NWO will go down in flames.
All this will backfire BIGTIME in his face.
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.