Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
UncleKev

Obama's Cunning Plan To Control Bad News

Recommended Posts

I suppose that this is what happens when people elect a communist to run their country.

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.

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."

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They really don't get it, do they?

:lol::lol:

So maybe we in the UK can use gary McKinnon as a bartering chip :lol::lol::lol:

worked pretty well with magrahi didn't it!!.

I don't dispute there is likely to be a problem with cyber-crime(although I do believe many of these corporations are complicit in the problem)

But the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut mentality of our leadership is quite stupid.

Take mandelson for example.....all for cracking down on the pirates,but more than happy to back up the companies who wish to profit from restricting the channels of free media.

so much for a bunch of commies who preach "sharing"......I detect more than a touch of hypocrisy.

a substantial number of people will view the attempt to shut down the web as the 21st century equivalent of hitler's little burning book festival.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the US govt shouldn't be able to respond to a threat that could bring it's economy to its knees.

Haha. You believe that's what they'll use the powers for?

Haha. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of the public telephone network, the fiber-optic underground cable network and mobile communication is to provide a communication infrastructure for the government/ military/ emergency services. The public are basically along for the ride and are cut off in the event of a national emergency like a major war or a natural disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the US govt shouldn't be able to respond to a threat that could bring it's economy to its knees.

shynet? yeah right....the whole idea of the internet was that if one bit was infected or taken out, another bit would take over.

so what threat do you envisage that could A: take an economy to its knees, and B: help matters by turning the thing off!! Its like cutting your legs off because you have an ingrown toenail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the link in the first link

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10200710-38.html

"top recommendations"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10117856...l?tag=mncol;txt

"Giving the White House cybersecurity responsibility was one of the top recommendations of a commission that produced a report last year to advise President Obama on cybersecurity issues."

Especially as Obama wasn't president then .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Giving the White House cybersecurity responsibility was one of the top recommendations of a commission that produced a report last year to advise President Obama on cybersecurity issues."

Especially as Obama wasn't president then .

They already know what's going to happen!!!!!!

you've been given so much predictive programming via the movies that it should be fairly obvious biblically what is coming up next.

The two witnesses in revelation are britain and america!!(aka babylon!!!....has fallen,has fallen)

...making us preach the gospel in sackcloth......nice and easy.Computer virus disables our mostly electronic banking system......no cash from ATM's!!!!....barter economy.....etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sen. Jay Rockefeller..........."

That's all you need to know from that article.

Rothschilds running our end and Rockefellers running their end. As per f*cking usual. :rolleyes:

Edited by MOP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite
The whole point of the public telephone network, the fiber-optic underground cable network and mobile communication is to provide a communication infrastructure for the government/ military/ emergency services. The public are basically along for the ride and are cut off in the event of a national emergency like a major war or a natural disaster.

Exactly. If there's any trouble with serious civil disobedience, riots, etc., the first thing they'll do is shut the internet down to stop people communicating. The internet gives far too much power to the general public. We are living in the Wild West days of cyberworld, and in ten years it will be more heavily regulated than a Labour-run county council political correctness seminar.

Edited by D-503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. If there's any trouble with serious civil disobedience, riots, etc., the first thing they'll do is shut the internet down to stop people communicating. The internet gives far too much power to the general public. We are living in the Wild West days of cyberworld, and in ten years it will be more heavily regulated than a Labour-run county council political correctness seminar.

The more they try to influence, the more they show their hand...

Eventually the shadows cannot hide them. Parasites only survive if you don't know they exist

They think they have won, arrogance takes over, they step out into the light to take their place and world will see them.

It's already starting, Mandelson, Obama, the scales are falling from our eyes...

Edited by Krackersdave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   323 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.