Declan McCullagh, CNET (San Francisco), August 28, 2009
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.
{snip}
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.
{snip}
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.)
{snip}
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.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on August 28, 2009)
Comments
I thought no one - including the government - owns the internet.
In 1952, SCOTUS ruled against Harry S Truman who seized steel mills after steelworkers went on strike. I feel that if the Obama regime were to try to seize control of the Internet, SCOTUS would also rule against him. There is precedent.
I wish I had something profound or witty or insightful to say in regard to the proposal to give regulatory power over the internet to the President, but I don’t. I am too astounded that it’s even a consideration. I should not be surprised, what with the takeover of private businesses and incomes, confirmed communists and terrorists as part of the government, and constant assaults on the 1st and 2nd amendments. Things are getting ugly, and it promises to get much worse before it gets better.
When this passes, it will open the door to selective prohibitions of internet web sites, etc. Time to dust off your walki-talkis and get short-wave broadcasters stations set up. Morse Code guides should be obtained and hoarded.
Even without this, it is a good idea.
I am of the opinion that in times of real emergency, government takes emergency powers even if it’s not ordained in the country’s constitution, and nobody blinks or takes pause. Using formal law or constitution to give government emergency powers is dangerous, because it gives a government an incentive to provoke emergencies.
As for the subject matter at hand, that “emergency” isn’t defined raises a lot of red flags. I have two possibilities on what the Obama administration would consider an emergency:
(1) Too much right wing content on the internet, as defined by the ADL or SPLC
(2) The RIAA and MPAA’s pressure on the administration to stop downloading of music and movies.
However, people will think that the reason for these powers is Johnny Jihad over in Iran playing around on his computer.
In order to implement they would need to have valve like control of each ISP. Problem is that such a system would also allow easy monitoring of all traffic at any time from each ISP.
The control of information is exactly what we might expect if today’s America is compared with regimes we once condemned.
I don’t trust this current president one inch with our basic civil liberties.
I never even heard of “attacking the electrical grid” from a broadband connection. The rationale is absurd.
Its about control. The government fears the internet because it doesn’t control it.
I think the United States federal governement has no right whatsoever to be able to shut down the internet! it is a means of communication and information exchange, and it belongs to everyone!
Will Barack Obama’s governement try to gain total control over the telephone lines, too? Will it create a system that will jam or scramble the signals of cell phones? Will it make owning a Citizen’s Band radio or a walkie-talkie into a criminal offense?
This is becoming a real nightmare come true. Like 1984 or The Matrix! I wish we had never heard of that Barack Obama.
Soprano fan is more than likely correct that SCOTUS would stop a take over.
My fear is that one or all of the four current justices the nation can still count on will retire or worse.
These four men: Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are the most important men in the United States currently and we should add Kennedy to that as well.
I actually say a silent prayer from time to time that these men stay in good health and remain safe. I fear they are the main force between Americans and the socialism of Obama at least until next year at the earliest.
May God protect them.
Tim - sorry, but our electric utilities are at least partially controlled through the Internet (which is insane, but true). See http://tinyurl.com/lp5ysr for a synopsis and 11 references you might want to check out.
“I thought no one - including the government - owns the internet.”
“Soprano Fan wrote at 6:41 PM on August 28:
Good luck on that one, Obama has seized the banking industry and the automotive industry and not a peep out of SCOTUS. Now that Obama is packing SCOTUS with left wing radicals, the chances of SCOTUS doing anything is even less.
Remember how Google rolled over for China? Remember how Bush pressured the phone companies into spying on Americans? The phone companies are the major internet players.
First the government will shut down talk radio using the Fairness Doctrine or Community Standards, then the talk shows websites along with others such as American Reconnaissance.
Considering the government’s track record for protecting their own computer from hackers, I expect them to outsource internet security to China or some other Third World country.
Did the Viet Cong have the internet?
Nope
On 9/11, did the illegal alien Arab terrorists depend on the internet?
Nope
The internet is not an ESSENTIAL part of maintaining our liberty.
Use of the internet is crucial for millions of businesses today. Stopping all traffic would result in millions of businesses going out of business - something that the marxists in Washington would be very happy with.
“The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.” Sounds like baloney. Why should computers controlling the “electrical grid” even be reachable via the internet? Secure, dedicated communication lines aren’t all that expensive.
Anyone here shocked to see a member of the Rockefeller clan pushing a bill to hand control of the internet over to Barack Hussein Mugabe?
I didn’t think so.
Thomas Jackson is wrong. Since the press and television are liberal-controlled the internet is vital to a free and informed society, especially if the liberals and blacks get control of radio. Just notice how the horrific torture/rape Knoxville Murders get NO national coverage yet if a white woman looked cross-eyed at a black thug it would dominate the news for months. We need a free internet.
Stupid as it may be to allow control over the power grid to be accessible by internet, I’m not too surprized. Big executives are often ignorant of computers, and give the techies free rein. Some railroad locomotives have substituted computer controls for manual controls. That is, they have replaced a hand operated valve directly controlling the air brake lines with a valve operated by electricity, which in turn is directed by a computer, which in its turn is operated by the engineer. That’s what happens when large technical enterprizes are run by businessmen with no technical background, they don’t know enough to keep the geeks in check.
A government of the people, by the people for the people.. as I see it can only be maintained IF the people take it upon themselves to be current in world affairs/knowledge..,articulate and couragous in expressing and defending their views and ways of life etc. Amren is one of the solid forums that enables honest intelligent discussions concerning our (self defining) and fate as a race, individuals and culture. The internet is a massive global communication of FREE associations. We can see there exist groups that would like to do away with both as there always have been.. We that love truth, freedom and reason as always have our hands full! We see our heritage, idealogically and genetically from Homer to Marathon, through Rome and England to the US constitution… we cannot drop the torch…
“Thomas Jackson wrote at 7:33 AM on August 29:
The internet is not an ESSENTIAL part of maintaining our liberty.”
Actually, it is. It is the only way of getting first-hand information about current events.
From the moment the Internet was created, the fathers of the Internet, were constantly warning against all government interference and censorship, because they knew what it would lead to.
The lefty newsmedia would love to shackle the internet, wouldn’t they? Maybe then the financial fortunes of the newsmedia would stop circling the toilet bowl.
The government would like to control everything about every person’s life if possible. That’s why government needs to be restricted.
Why is everyone surprised? Don’t you all know that this is part of Obama’s marxist TAKEOVER of our country??? EVERYTHING will be controlled - the press, the airwaves, phone systems, and yes, the Internet. They don’t want anyone to have the freedom to criticize the guv’m’t, plan against it, much less ACT against it. You better start joining groups to fight this and the rest of the BO agenda, such as http://teapartynation.com . It’s going to take super organizing to fight the super organizers!!!
It’s only fair for Democrats to take over the Internet. Al Gore invented it, you know.
To Madison Grant:
I’m not surprised that a Rockefeller scion would do that. With David Rockefeller on the Trilateral Commission, it only reinforces what I’ve been saying all along, that Obama is a sock puppet of the Illuminati.
Madison, I also note that Obama reappointed Bernanke as head of the Fed. This is the “hope” and “change” he promised? Don’t the Fed members serve 14 year terms?
The pieces are falling in place. The puppeteers are being unmasked.
The internet cannot be “controlled” due to it being a decentralized system with multiple nodes. If the present “occupation” government were to try to do such a stupid thing, just think of all the havoc that would be caused by the inability of internet based surveillence and control systems to function. Internet-based financial transaction systems would be affected. Yes, it is true that internet gateways (such as earthlink and aol) could be shut down; alternative (black market) gateways would spring up. There is no way to put the genie “back in the bottle”.
Oh please, if Obama took control of the internet, down go the “hate” sites first. That includes: AmRen, VDare, NCoal, CoCC, Stormfront, VNNForum, etc., etc. Of course, ObamaForums will stay up, as will every single black separatist site, sites devoted to anti-White propaganda and race-mixing parents, sites devoted to bashing “dead White males,” sites devoted to overthrowing “White” rule, etc., etc. You can bet your last dollar that would happen, exactly like that. These people are totalitarian terrorists who will stop at nothing, and it’s also terrifying to think that so many liberal White Americans would support this infringement, let alone not even balk at it.
Questioin Diversity 5
— Unemployed WASP wrote:
Either way, we lose!
