Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

[Raineyrocks]

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

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.htmlby 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."

[Raineyrocks]

I hope this isn't a double post, my computer is working like crap again.

I'm wondering what in the heck is next and it terrifies me; regarding the article above.
I've been constantly sick in my stomach over so many things going crazy and the total destruction of freedom.  It's like I hardly enjoy myself anymore, a laugh here and there, otherwise my brain is constantly flooded with fear.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I won't go into technical detail but I can promise you this rainey, the internet isn't at risk. There's a large libertarian bent to a lot of the folks that invented and engineered the internet and a lot of things were designed to continue functioning if large chunks are taken out.

There's a wonderful quote: "The internet considers censorship to be damage and routes around it".

The internet is one thing I am convinced the government doesn't have the CAPACITY to damage, regulate and control.

[Raineyrocks]

I won't go into technical detail but I can promise you this rainey, the internet isn't at risk. There's a large libertarian bent to a lot of the folks that invented and engineered the internet and a lot of things were designed to continue functioning if large chunks are taken out.

There's a wonderful quote: "The internet considers censorship to be damage and routes around it".

The internet is one thing I am convinced the government doesn't have the CAPACITY to damage, regulate and control.

Thanks Kevin!      That is good to know, but it's not losing the internet that scares as much as these morons trying to take over every part of our lives.  The audacity,(sp?), of these damn bills they're trying to push through is sickening.

They already made the SF vaccine mandatory in Mass., where my son and grandson live and other people too, of course.  They have shit in the Patriot Act that is just disgusting, even stating they can just put us in "internment camps", like we are nothing.   I know we're nothing to them, but we are something to each other and ourselves, I hate them.

Remember that "internment specialist" or something like that, classified ad that was in the help wanted section in a newspaper?   How in our face are they going to take this?

Everyday someone else is being tazed by the pigs or beaten up, it's so gross and over-whelming.  Sure, I'm lucky it hasn't happened to me but I do care about those people it's happened to.

We have our house up for sale now, (if it will sell), so we can try to move down closer to the Keene area to participate in more activism.   That's if the house sells and Rick can get another job.

Up this way, I don't know what to do regarding activism, we tried as well as a few other people when we first moved here but nothing really happened.  I'm not good at knowing how to start things, I have trouble with direction and organization but I'd participate more if there was anything set up to participate in, but there doesn't seem to be up here.  I wish I had a clearly spelled out path and I knew what to do that would be effective, but I don't, my brain goes in all different directions all the time, it's so frustrating to be me sometimes.

Sorry for going on, and I don't mean to offend anyone that lives in the same area I do, maybe they have the same feelings/troubles I do with organization.

[Raineyrocks]

Is handing out Swine flu pamphlets really enough?  I want to put Kat & Russell's newspaper in Hannafords and donate to them as soon as I have some money.  What else?  Any ideas?

As far as traveling to Concord and participating more in scheduled activism events, I could do that as long as I don't have to drive home at night, I'm night blind.   So then, I have to wait for Rick but he doesn't get home until after 7 at night.  He was supposed to be working at home 3 days a week but his boss is telling him he has to come in everyday now and he's lucky to have a job in these economic times.

I know, I know, I'm bitching and whining, sorry!

I'm going to take a mental break right now, I'm way too stressed and the kids need me to get dinner ready.

I do know one thing and I woke up thinking about it today.   If it wasn't for everyone on this forum, I'd be in a mental hospital, probably.   

I am so thankful for everyone just doing what they do and helping me so much at times.  I'm thankful for the courage you guys/gals inspire too. 

I was going to write a poem about how I was feeling today but of course I procrastinated and focused on all of this "bad news" and worked myself up into panic mode.
I really love you guys/gals!    I also love a lot of people's sense of humor on here too, sometimes, these are the moments of happiness that I get.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

They already made the SF vaccine mandatory in Mass., where my son and grandson live and other people too, of course.  They have shit in the Patriot Act that is just disgusting, even stating they can just put us in "internment camps", like we are nothing.   I know we're nothing to them, but we are something to each other and ourselves, I hate them.

Remember that "internment specialist" or something like that, classified ad that was in the help wanted section in a newspaper?   How in our face are they going to take this?

Not enough people refuse.

They have no reason to be silent or quiet about it, and they won't stop until people refuse. I know lots of people get all kinds of angry over things like this, but they treat people like they are scum because people ACT as if the bureaucrats have "authority" and are superior.

There's a set of experiments that put some peaceful people as prisoners and some peaceful people as prison guards. The result? One-third of the prison guards displayed "sadistic tendancies". Despite not being criminals, the prisonER population accepted this treatment.

It doesn't matter how "right" or "wrong" those things are. It ONLY matters if people obey.

It's part of why I'm convinced that the internet is safe. The internet gives people the anonymity to resist the people and dictates they might normally obey.

[D Stewart]

The internet is one thing I am convinced the government doesn't have the CAPACITY to damage, regulate and control.

I disagree.  It is good at routing around and dealing with accidental damage, outages, packet loss, etc.  It was never designed to resist coordinated and thoughtful implementation of censorship, restrictions, monitoring and supervision.

I fear that under Comrade Obama's dictatorship, we may find ourselves in the situation of needing to build new packet networks and bulletin boards, perhaps based on pirate radio technologies and secretly strung cables, more likely based on steganographic back-channels on whatever public networks we are allowed to continue using.  I am, however, confident that the people of our great nation will succeed in this challenge, even as the government fosters a much less open internet and more secretive underground network.

[KBCraig]

The internet is one thing I am convinced the government doesn't have the CAPACITY to damage, regulate and control.

I disagree.  It is good at routing around and dealing with accidental damage, outages, packet loss, etc.  It was never designed to resist coordinated and thoughtful implementation of censorship, restrictions, monitoring and supervision.

Sadly, I agree. Given how quickly major companies roll over for government demands (AT&T warrantless wiretaps, anyone?), it would only take a hint of new "regulations" before MCI and Verizon would impose major blocks on MAE-East and MAE-West. Whatever the government wanted, they would get. I understand the geeks in charge would scream and howl and refuse and defy, but unless they own and actually control the hardware in question, it will get shut down if The Executive declares.

Censorship might be damage, but pulling the plug is also damage. There is some damage that just can't be routed around, for the vast majority of people.

[Ogre]

As one who knows a bit about how this stuff works, having worked with computers for many years, I'd say you got that right -- the way to control the Internet, which the US government can and will quickly do, is to control access to the Internet. They can leave the actual Internet itself alone and simply tell AT&T, Verison, Earthlink, and every other ISP what they want to happen, and those companies will absolutely comply in a second.

[AntonLee]

then someone should tell Bill to knock it off!

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Okay, actually, I agree. Lemme rephrase. As long as there is internet connectivity, the is very little that can be done.

I also agree about building a guerilla network. I've looked into the viability of it.

[Raineyrocks]

Okay, actually, I agree. Lemme rephrase. As long as there is internet connectivity, the is very little that can be done.

I also agree about building a guerilla network. I've looked into the viability of it.

Cool!