Comment #12

jarasan — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:29:01 GMT

@JX Your shallow understanding of what is taking place at any given time is clearly evident again. You voted for a Marxist. It's OK. GANGSTAPUPPETOTUSPOS is a lame duck already.

Comment #11

justxploring — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:32:43 GMT

Bush Administration to Propose System for Monitoring Internet http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html <br

Comment #10

time*treat — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:46:07 GMT

konane may have found what will be the excuse to switch to the "new & improved, more secure (and controlled content) Internet 2". Cheaper, faster, and as "informative" as mass media. Everything else will be left on the 'old' web, were the equipment will be allowed to degrade. Much like the way a certain vid site promotes the big money media cos. on their front pages and relegates the small independents to the backwaters (and freezes their view counts).

Comment #9

jarasan — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:47:28 GMT

That is the rub Konane, in order to control it they will take over the infrastructure, the physical part of the internet.

Comment #8

konane — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:54:37 GMT

How can the government protect the internet when they can't stop hackers getting into their own systems? Seems like security begins at the hub then radiates outward as things are secured. Would seem so in a rational universe where bad-is-good-down-is-up bassakwards reasoning is NOT present.

Comment #7

jarasan — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:43:11 GMT

"Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:" The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president... [ More ]

Comment #6

jarasan — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:30:53 GMT

There is a large number of people that just refuse to accept reality. The reality is this: The more govt. control (laws) the worse it gets for the citizens of the USA. It is a simple concept, more federal govt. BAD!; Less federal govt. involvement.................. GOOD. <br

Comment #5

time*treat — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:11:50 GMT

... social security numbers will only be used for social security purposes. ... only 1% of workers will ever pay an income tax. ... the housing crisis will be contained to the sub-prime sector.

Comment #4

justxploring — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:03:18 GMT

To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false.

Comment #3

TigerAngel — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:53:16 GMT

Just in case the dog passes gas I mean, ROFLMAO *konane

Comment #2

konane — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:18:37 GMT

Been in the works, been softening us up a long time beginning in earnest in the 70's.

Comment #1

time*treat — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:50:46 GMT

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text

Original Blog Entry: You think the Patriot Act was an infringement!

jarasan — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:01:34 GMT

What is this? Are we heading, step by step to control and censorship,

JUST LIKE IN CHINA??????

This is bad! Another POS done behind closed doors! These fascists are commited to destroying everything. This POS bill pales in comparison to any thing the Patriot Act did, wise up you BO lovers, GANGSTAPUPPETOTUSPOS is going after you too! All done in the name of protecting us! Liars! Grounding aircraft on 9-11 is one thing but this is ridiculous!

Cnet News

Politics and Law

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

by Declan McCullagh

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 of S.773 (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.

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a government shutdown or takeover of the Internet and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights; you can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site, or subscribe to the RSS feed.

... [ More ]