Cybersecurity Act would give president power to 'shut down' Internet

[hippie_hunter]

Just how does Robo Nixon violate Photobucket's policy

 

[Matt]

Whatever the case you should send them an email that says,

"WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES ITS NOT ILLEGAL!"

 

[LastSunrise1981]

So your recommendation is to sit by idlely and grant the government this power because it won't get used anyway? Brilliant, man. Brilliant. We should get rid of the Second Amendment as well, because the citizens will never need to form a milita because the government can't possibly ever do bad things to warrant it. Also, we should forget about the free media, because the government will always tell the truth so lets just cancel that and create a federal media agency that controls all television and radio. And free speech? Let's X out the First Amendment too! Because surely there is never anything bad to say about the government, so why should we allow it?

You honestly can't see why any one would get upset over a law that gives the president sole discretion to block out the largest source of information and communication in the world? Are you really that blind?

If they didn't use it when Obama was having death threats, HIV laced letters, and other forms of harm hurled at him before he was elected what makes you think they would use it now? You can file this under the list of things that can't happen and won't happen.

All you're doing is putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying that people are getting fearful of something that will NEVER happen. Plus, if they didn't shut down the internet when 9/11 happened, what makes you think that will transpire now? If ANYTHING was to shut down the internet that is one tragedy that would've done so I feel.

 

[Matt]

Because they didn't have the authority to order private servers to shut down then, this bill will give the president sole discretion to do so.

 

[Paradyme]

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

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.

.....

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

Follow link to read the rest.

 

[DreamScape]

I wonder what the response would have been if Bush had tried this...

 

[Backdrifter]

Guys, we can trust Obama. He is, like, totally a cool dude. He would, like, never abuse this power. Like, seriously, I'm, like totally ok with this.

 

[Kurosawa]

I wonder what the response would have been if Bush had tried this...

The left would have screamed bloody murder and the right would have downplayed it...just the opposite of now because so many people are blind party followers and just root for their "team", like this was Yankees/Red Sox.

 

[Nivek]

The left would have screamed bloody murder and the right would have downplayed it...just the opposite of now because so many people are blind party followers and just root for their "team", like this was Yankees/Red Sox.

That is what a lot this crap comes down to. People rooting for their team.

 

[chaseter]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

How am I going to e-mail the White House the untrue health care bill e-mails that I get if that happened?

 

[Handsome Rob]

Didn't the Iranians shut down access to the Internet during a period of protests against the government? They did it to try and control information.

Oh, but that would never happen here, right? American politicians are completely above reproach.

 

[Backdrifter]

Didn't the Iranians shut down access to the Internet during a period of protests against the government? They did it to try and control information.

Oh, but that would never happen here, right? American politicians are completely above reproach.

Especially ones from Chicago....

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, because nothing would happen if they tried it here.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

this might be a shock you all you tin foil hatters out there but the govt has always had the power over communications systems. I hear they also have nuclear launch capabilities too.

 

[SuBe]

Guys, we can trust Obama. He is, like, totally a cool dude. He would, like, never abuse this power. Like, seriously, I'm, like totally ok with this.

 

[SuBe]

this might be a shock you all you tin foil hatters out there but the govt has always had the power over communications systems. I hear they also have nuclear launch capabilities too.

I hate to tell you this, but that is not true. They seized power after the invention of the Radio, but they did not "Always" had power over the communication systems. Infact, the First Amendment was supposed to Guarentee they don't. But, unfortunately, they didn't have the Foresight to see the invention of Radio, TV, and the internet.

But, can you actually say that if the Founding Father's were around during the invention of these things, that they would Empower the Government to control them, or would they want those things to be free forms of communication?

 

[Bob ROARman!]

this might be a shock you all you tin foil hatters out there but the govt has always had the power over communications systems. I hear they also have nuclear launch capabilities too.

Shouldn't that be the other way around? Isn't this the kind of thing the "nutball tin foil hatters" have been talking about for years?

But really it shouldn't be seen as some kind of conspiracy, it already exists. The entire mainstream media is owned by a handful of corporations.

 

[Shemtov]

I wonder how long it will be until President Obama decides to use these emergency powers he is putting in place which would give him control over nearly ever facet of our lives.

that's why i'm republican.

 

[Nivek]

this might be a shock you all you tin foil hatters out there but the govt has always had the power over communications systems. I hear they also have nuclear launch capabilities too.

Shhh, your gonna ruin the surprise!

 

[Marx]

The Republican Party does not represent smaller government either.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Only robonixon can save us from this peril. There, got this thread back on track.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nobody represents smaller government.

RoboNixon 2012!!