Cybersecurity act of 09
0
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Bill-Grants-President-Unprecedented-Cyber-Security-Powers-504520/
Cybersecurity act of 09(.PDF)
Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure.
So should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?
Problems with the bill are the broad and vague language it also grants the Secretary of Commerce access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.
This is in clear violation of what the Constitution promises us about privacy rights and this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation says "Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something,".
People believe that the powers and scope will be trimmed down as it passes through congress. I personally, don't have that much faith in the elected officials. Especially, ones who are driving the country in the exact opposite way that I believe is best for everybody. Granting the president power to shut down avenues of information or even private sectors I believe is a step too far. This seems to have the feel of the warrant less wiretaps from the Bush era. As long as there is an "emergency" the president should be able to do anything he need despite those pesky laws.
Cybersecurity act of 09(.PDF)
Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure.
So should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?
Problems with the bill are the broad and vague language it also grants the Secretary of Commerce access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.
This is in clear violation of what the Constitution promises us about privacy rights and this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation says "Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something,".
People believe that the powers and scope will be trimmed down as it passes through congress. I personally, don't have that much faith in the elected officials. Especially, ones who are driving the country in the exact opposite way that I believe is best for everybody. Granting the president power to shut down avenues of information or even private sectors I believe is a step too far. This seems to have the feel of the warrant less wiretaps from the Bush era. As long as there is an "emergency" the president should be able to do anything he need despite those pesky laws.
0
how would this benefit our security on the internet? are they trying to expose fraudulent sites and viruses to protect the masses, or just attempting to snoop around legally? i really dont see how any amount of people could control the everyday happenings of the internet anywho, it seems improbable. in short, i wouldnt support a bill like that. i cant see any reason why an emergency on any scale would require the immediate severance of information on the internet, lest it be technological terrorism or something.
0
(>'.')>¿;= wrote...
how would this benefit our security on the internet? are they trying to expose fraudulent sites and viruses to protect the masses, or just attempting to snoop around legally? i really dont see how any amount of people could control the everyday happenings of the internet anywho, it seems improbable.It's not really control in the traditional sense. At least that's not how I initially understood it. The powers given to the secretary of commerce seem like snooping without being bothered by laws. While giving the President the ability to just say "There is an emergency and this sector of the internet needs to be shut down or restricted". The vague language never really specifies anything as to what a emergency would be that would invoke these powers nor does it specify any details. Just anything they deem as a critical infrastructure would be placed under the presidents control without any review.
This concerns me over the fact that if the president is given these powers. As we all know "emergency powers" never really go away once they are enabled so today it's "critical infrastructure" then tomorrow it's "critical communications". That's a Pandora's box I would prefer stayed closed.
0
"Critical Infrastructure" already means they can shut down the ornery.
When they go for the final takedown, the first thing to go will be all of our "free press" and "blogs".
When they go for the final takedown, the first thing to go will be all of our "free press" and "blogs".
THE MAN wrote...
"These tubes are a direct threat to national security, and seek to cause unrest and violence in the American people. If they are not stopped, what is to keep them from leaking national secrets, exposing our children to transsexuals and other immoral people, or undermining the rational ways of thinking we've tried to promote for the last twelve years in the public schooling system?"
0
Aud1o Blood wrote...
"Critical Infrastructure" already means they can shut down the ornery.When they go for the final takedown, the first thing to go will be all of our "free press" and "blogs".
THE MAN wrote...
"These tubes are a direct threat to national security, and seek to cause unrest and violence in the American people. If they are not stopped, what is to keep them from leaking national secrets, exposing our children to transsexuals and other immoral people, or undermining the rational ways of thinking we've tried to promote for the last twelve years in the public schooling system?"Where is that quote from? It does have a certain grain of truth. Homeland security published a Lexicon recently pulled it back.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/05/homeland-pulled-back-extremism-dictionary/
Things like this make me wonder. If people who held peaceful protests against Taxes in April at the "Tea Parties" are considered extremists by homeland security. What to say that these powers couldn't be used to censor free speech in this country? Since "critical infrastructure" is never defined it could be anything related to the internet.
Hypothetically, if a president does something really unpopular lets say something along the lines of 9-11 turning out to be a cover up. People would be rioting in the streets over the lies we were told. Then the president could declare it an emergency of national security to shut down the internet to try and cut the fuel of the riots off. Hell, any large scale scandal that causes massive unrest could be used as an excuse.
Things like this are the reason why I think the government should be confined to a cage. Just like the founding fathers started us out as.
0
I guess I can see the point that advocates of the bill have. We will need to do something to protect cyberspace infrastructure as it becomes more and more important in life and allows access to more and more valuable information. I do agree, though, that this bill seems far too broad.
I think there is definitely historical precedent here with how military action by the whim of the president has developed. It doesn't matter if war is declared because the president can deem it a police action. The Iraq War technically isn't a war. Congress can always pull funding, but Teddy Roosevelt put forth a very effective model on how the president can combat that with his "Great White Navy," and Bush was able to use the same ideas to paralyze congress with regards to the Iraq War.
It's just too easy to twist the terminology or situation every which way to justify extreme action. And having a Czar simply makes it worse. Putting so much responsibility in the hands of one person makes it even more likely power will be abused.
Personally, I think this could be better addressed with a bill containing more explicit restrictions as well as creating and Independent Regulatory Agency instead of appointing a Czar. That way, there would be a board of people that would be making such decisions, which makes it harder for one person or agenda to easily seize power. Additionally, the board members could not be dismissed at the whim of the president or unelected(though congress could alter the agency via a new law), granting a good degree of autonomy. And, of course, the agency's actions would be subject to judicial review.
Granting the president power to shut down avenues of information or even private sectors I believe is a step too far. This seems to have the feel of the warrant less wiretaps from the Bush era. As long as there is an "emergency" the president should be able to do anything he need despite those pesky laws.
I think there is definitely historical precedent here with how military action by the whim of the president has developed. It doesn't matter if war is declared because the president can deem it a police action. The Iraq War technically isn't a war. Congress can always pull funding, but Teddy Roosevelt put forth a very effective model on how the president can combat that with his "Great White Navy," and Bush was able to use the same ideas to paralyze congress with regards to the Iraq War.
It's just too easy to twist the terminology or situation every which way to justify extreme action. And having a Czar simply makes it worse. Putting so much responsibility in the hands of one person makes it even more likely power will be abused.
Personally, I think this could be better addressed with a bill containing more explicit restrictions as well as creating and Independent Regulatory Agency instead of appointing a Czar. That way, there would be a board of people that would be making such decisions, which makes it harder for one person or agenda to easily seize power. Additionally, the board members could not be dismissed at the whim of the president or unelected(though congress could alter the agency via a new law), granting a good degree of autonomy. And, of course, the agency's actions would be subject to judicial review.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Aud1o Blood wrote...
"Critical Infrastructure" already means they can shut down the ornery.When they go for the final takedown, the first thing to go will be all of our "free press" and "blogs".
THE MAN wrote...
"These tubes are a direct threat to national security, and seek to cause unrest and violence in the American people. If they are not stopped, what is to keep them from leaking national secrets, exposing our children to transsexuals and other immoral people, or undermining the rational ways of thinking we've tried to promote for the last twelve years in the public schooling system?"Where is that quote from? It does have a certain grain of truth. Homeland security published a Lexicon recently pulled it back.
I don't know how the interned really works...but shouldn't it be impossible to actually shut the whole thing down?
My understanding is that it is a network of private servers connected to be accessed by the public (until net neutrality was raped), and since they are scattered on an international scale, no one entity can shut all of them down.
(Just popped into my head: OOOOH! Terminator 3... I get it!)
0
Aud1o Blood wrote...
I don't know how the interned really works...but shouldn't it be impossible to actually shut the whole thing down?My understanding is that it is a network of private servers connected to be accessed by the public (until net neutrality was raped), and since they are scattered on an international scale, no one entity can shut all of them down.
The government would have the authority to demand that ISP's shut down their servers. Since I doubt you can surgically "cut" certain areas of the global network. It's basically, a veiled attempt to give themselves power to say "It's an emergency, turn off the internet" in the most general of terms. They guise this as protection, which I completely understand. We are so vulnerable that I can't come up with a metaphor. Our electrical grid, water systems among other things are basically defenseless. So protecting these things is perfectly accept. A country needs to protect itself but, not at the expense that the secretary of commerce can read every email or scrap of data belonging to a private company.
Since this bill is so vague and so broad in spectrum. Only an oblivious, and completely asinine, dumb ass would think this is a good idea. Sure, lets give the president unrestricted powers! Only so long as he claims there is an emergency. What? Politicians twisting words to achieve their agenda? No, that doesn't happen. You're thinking of some Hollywood movie. That sort of stuff doesn't happen in real life.
0
It's a "what if" question, I don't personally believe "they" will openly suppress bloggers and whatnot, but I do think someone will pay someone else off, and use this power to forward corporate or political aims.
I go by a "Government should be afraid of it's people"(more movies, I know) type philosophy, I'm just saying, we're making a solid foundation for the wrong person in power to stand on.
I've heard, what I think is a rumor, that China is training hackers, maybe instead of a destructive plan like this, we should put together an organization (on or off the books) to protect, or retaliate, against a energetically based attack.
Or, at least, stop discouraging people accessing the training to become private ones.
I go by a "Government should be afraid of it's people"(more movies, I know) type philosophy, I'm just saying, we're making a solid foundation for the wrong person in power to stand on.
I've heard, what I think is a rumor, that China is training hackers, maybe instead of a destructive plan like this, we should put together an organization (on or off the books) to protect, or retaliate, against a energetically based attack.
Or, at least, stop discouraging people accessing the training to become private ones.
0
Aud1o Blood wrote...
It's a "what if" question, I don't personally believe "they" will openly suppress bloggers and whatnot, but I do think someone will pay someone else off, and use this power to forward corporate or political aims.I go by a "Government should be afraid of it's people"(more movies, I know) type philosophy, I'm just saying, we're making a solid foundation for the wrong person in power to stand on.
I've heard, what I think is a rumor, that China is training hackers, maybe instead of a destructive plan like this, we should put together an organization (on or off the books) to protect, or retaliate, against a energetically based attack.
Or, at least, stop discouraging people accessing the training to become private ones.
Thomas Jefferson wrote...
When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.We have the same philosophy when it comes to government but, this isn't a "what if" situation. You can see it in media everyday. Anybody who criticizes Obama or the administration is dismissed as either hateful, idiotic or even racist. A example from the past is the attempts to shut down talk radio. Blogs are just the newer version of talk radio and the powers that be wish to take tear down those who criticize or oppose their methods.
0
Anyway, it's a bullshit law, I probably agree with you, and I haven't really slept in the last two weeks.
Also, would this give legal precedence to break down doors over blog posts and whatnot?
Also, would this give legal precedence to break down doors over blog posts and whatnot?
0
I don't know how the interned really works...but shouldn't it be impossible to actually shut the whole thing down?
My understanding is that it is a network of private servers connected to be accessed by the public (until net neutrality was raped), and since they are scattered on an international scale, no one entity can shut all of them down.
My understanding is that it is a network of private servers connected to be accessed by the public (until net neutrality was raped), and since they are scattered on an international scale, no one entity can shut all of them down.
Loads of people fall for that fallacy - all too often you hear "the internet will heal itself" - "you can't censor the 'net" - "the internet finds its own way around blockades".
And then you look at the things the good people at, say, IronPort are working on, and add that up with the laws being passed, say, all over Europe (especially UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia) you wake up and realize the internet as we realize it is a walking stiff already. It's being converted into a giant primary-colored shopping mall with no room for obscenity, talkback or other thought-crime. The joke is that you don't NEED to shut all of them down, you can simply render them inaccessible to your subjects.
0
gibbous wrote...
I don't know how the interned really works...but shouldn't it be impossible to actually shut the whole thing down?
My understanding is that it is a network of private servers connected to be accessed by the public (until net neutrality was raped), and since they are scattered on an international scale, no one entity can shut all of them down.
My understanding is that it is a network of private servers connected to be accessed by the public (until net neutrality was raped), and since they are scattered on an international scale, no one entity can shut all of them down.
Loads of people fall for that fallacy - all too often you hear "the internet will heal itself" - "you can't censor the 'net" - "the internet finds its own way around blockades".
And then you look at the things the good people at, say, IronPort are working on, and add that up with the laws being passed, say, all over Europe (especially UK, Germany, France, Scandinavia) you wake up and realize the internet as we realize it is a walking stiff already. It's being converted into a giant primary-colored shopping mall with no room for obscenity, talkback or other thought-crime. The joke is that you don't NEED to shut all of them down, you can simply render them inaccessible to your subjects.
A good example is internet use in Iran and china. Those countries have either secluded themselves on the internet or outight limited bandwidth output within the entire country. Another fallacy is that the internet gives anonymity. If it was like that then people would never get caught "breaking the law" on the internet nut, I digress. This is just another power grab under the veil of the common good by a politician.