Power Sellers Unite

elgato · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 17235 Location: Texas

Two bills introduced giving the President the power to deem a private network part of the nation’s critical infrastructure and shut it down for cybersecurity reasons also gives the Commerce Secretary the power to access network data outside of oversight.

The Big Brother vibe coming off both is reminiscent of a demanding report submitted before Obama even took office. About a month after Election Day, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) issued a report called Securing Cyberspace for the 44th President.

Heard of the military-industrial complex? The CSIS is likely where they meet to carpool.

The recommendations in the report, ignored by the previous administration, are sweeping and demanding. The principle minds behind it hailed from the CIA, the US Navy, Microsoft, Sun, AT&T, ICANN, Lockheed Martin, Cisco, and GE—among a slew of others—and likely those minds felt confident they’d get a more sympathetic ear from the new President. And they were likely right. They’d get that from Congress, too.

Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe introduced legislation last week echoing much of what the CSIS report was looking for, which is primarily a set of standards network operators are to live up to—more on that in a bit. One bill creates the office of cybersecurity czar, called a National Cybersecurity Adviser, who will oversee national network security. Confirmed by the Senate, the cybersecurity czar will have the highest security clearance necessary to monitor infrastructure networks and will be a party to secret initiatives.
more.. link to news article

PKC Direct

Should Obama Control the Internet?
A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.
—By Steve Aquino
Thu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

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. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. 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 means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

Link to Article:

dlrane · Joined: 03 Jul 2008 Posts: 2406

Welcome to AmerChina!!! 8)

elliemay · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1259

Remind me again....why aren't we all on the White House lawn?

dlrane · Joined: 03 Jul 2008 Posts: 2406

Because very few care any more. Many Americans want Socialism for more Food Stamps, Health Care, and the House Payments Obama promised to make for them. :roll:

elgato · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 17235 Location: Texas

Thanks for the article Paul! Surely makes things a bit scarey IMHO.
No wonder folks are gathering food, water, guns and LOT'S of ammunition :shock:
Don't forget the U.S. electrical grid was hacked the other day by either China or Russia. It will also be interesting to see what Obama does with the kidnappers over near Somalia.

elgato · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 17235 Location: Texas

Update:

"Time to Put the Brakes On the Cybersecurity Act of 2009"

What is essentially a federal government power grab combined with a giant money grab for industry is a real and perhaps unnecessary threat to your privacy and personal security. On top of that hole in your privacy, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 plants a big, potentially exploitable hole on the network.

It’s hard not to think immediately of President Eisenhower’s farewell address warning of the influence of the military industrial complex when one also notices the swift path from CSIS proposal to sweeping legislation granting unprecedented power to the federal government over the Internet.

It is true that the US government’s approach to cybersecurity over the past 20 years has been relatively atrocious, and that smart people with certain expertise are needed to ward off cyber attacks from foreign as well as domestic sources. It seems appropriate also that you see organizations like the Navy, the CIA, the NSA, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, Cisco, GE, Verizon, et cetera et cetera et cetera ad nauseum working on the issue together.

But when the CSIS issued its report (with all of the above and more signatories) it was both jaw-dropping for the collective might behind it and appalling for the tone of demand it carried directed toward the newly elected President and Congress. If you or I had written up the same report and signed our relatively puny names to it, we’d have been laughed and pshawed out of the room for our delusions of grandeur and audacity to think we could boss the government around.

Just a few months later, there it is in Congress, giving the President the power to shut down the Internet at his discretion, and the Commerce Secretary backdoor access to all of it without the slightest bit of oversight or restriction. (These guys like lack of oversight and accountability, just ask Hank Paulson.)

Who’s to say a President couldn’t decide, with the excuse of national security and protecting of the nation’s infrastructure, to shut down the one uncontrollable information dissemination source available to the public?

Who’s to say the unfettered back door access to the entire network granted to the Commerce Secretary couldn’t itself be exploited? Who’s to say it won’t be abused (power is always abused) for any number of reasons by the federal government?

more.. link to news article

cohibastore.com · Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 4908

elliemay wrote (View Post): › docWrite("quote")Remind me again....why aren't we all on the White House lawn?

Because most Americans are stupid idiots and will remain so as long as there is the NFL and Entertainment Tonight and Oprah to distract them.

purple_reading_giraffe · Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 5485 Location: Indiana, USA

You forgot Cooking Shows - Give them Bread & Circuses! :twisted:

withavengeance · Joined: 27 Apr 2008 Posts: 160

If the point is to be able to disconnect the US internet from the rest of the world we are all for it. The next big war will reek havoc on every part of our infrastructure unless we can disconnect from the chinese and russian command system thats going to topple and disrupt every aspect of our lives.

elgato · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 17235 Location: Texas

Update:

"Lieberman defends emergency Net authority plan"

Sen. Joseph Lieberman on Tuesday defended his proposal to grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or shut down portions of the Internet.

It's vital that the president can "say to an electric company or to say to Verizon, in the national interest, 'There's an attack about to come, and I hereby order you to put a patch on this, or put your network down on this part, or stop accepting any incoming from country A,'" said Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who caucuses with Democrats.

Lieberman's bill, introduced last week, could force companies such as broadband providers, search engines, and software firms that the government selects to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action" decreed by the Department of Homeland Security.

Because there are virtually no limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill has encountered criticism from industry and civil liberties groups, which have worried about the ability to shut down parts of the Internet and raised concerns about "the potential for absolute power." (The sole limit is on warrantless wiretapping.)

more.. link to news article

elliemay · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 1259

there are virtually no limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely

That statement is enough to determine this is a bad idea. No one person should have complete control. Most of the time the internet is the only place to find the real story as it's happening. I think that is the true motivation behind this.

elgato · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 17235 Location: Texas

Update:

"Obama 'Internet kill switch' plan approved by US Senate panel"

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.

The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.

more.. link to news article

edwardvettori · Joined: 12 May 2010 Posts: 80

Well bills are approved one after the other but no one really knows where Obama is .. Strange..

RatherRuss · Joined: 05 Mar 2008 Posts: 135

Hell, you folks worried about socialism make me laugh. What the US is/has been for so many years is Corporatism or Oligarchy, where corporations run your financial, business and as much of your social life as they can get away with, from left wing to right wing, the lies keep coming.

If you don't think it has much to do with you, check ebay's and paypals latest "changes" or usurptions over the last few years....as for me, if they turned off the internet tomorrow, I would take a deep breath and start to live again. Peace...as if.