Thread: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

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."

Why?

LOL for security reasons thats fucking rich. Like they can't cut the internet to their buildings to begin with. Just another way the government wants to control us.

we are the liberal zealots that have a perfect explanation as to why the almighty and his apostles have put forth another great plan...can someone explain the stupid shit ideas behind this? This is like the Patriot Act garbage...total bullshit invasive government control bullshit

come on are there no more middle of the road people in Washington to fight this shit!

Isnt it Tom Clancy that put out the series NetForce? Careful ya'll or the cybercops will come calling.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

the almighty? you mean Obama? The guy who didn't propose the bill, and hasn't signed it yet (as it hasn't passed all the shit it has to)?

And i didn't realized a republican was part of his "apostles"


People wonder why i hate republicans more then democrats, and this forum often provides the reasons.

1.) I didn't realize that Olympia Snow was a republican....

2.) Nobody wonders why you hate republicans, they just point it out when you bang your paper independent drum.

3.) I can't say that I oppose the measure, it would be hypocritical of me, since I was a supporter of the Patriot act, and it reads to be born of the same logic. Drastic measures to ensure security.

Read into it, it appears to be setup to avoid being helpless in the event of a cyber attack, which sounds like steps to protect the homeland. Hats off to them for having the guts to forsee this and act. Hopefully the measure will have some protections in it to avoid abuse.

That said, you cut off the internet, its game over for your administration, and party if you use it for any other reason than to defend the homeland. People will be in the streets. So I dont forsee anyone abusing it.

The big question is whether the Messiah's drones will have the courage to protest this the same way they have protested the Patriot Act.

Originally Posted by packetshooter

It's not well thought out since it will take down vital communications like twitter, social networking, news sites, and government sites like FEMA.

News yes.

Twitter and FEMA are about neck and neck on the useful factor.

I know of the loss of privacy that comes with the Patriot Act. But I don't understand how this affects me. How is this an infringement on my privacy? Are they listening in on my calls? Are they spying my nightly cybersex sessions? Seriously, why should I be sooooo mad? I would like to hear from Kontankerous on this one, it seems he is the most mad, why should I be so mad as well?