Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

[Patranus]

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, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

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.

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


Nice to see the notion of PRIVATE PROPERTY still applies in this country.

 

[fskimospy]

While your link is bad, I assume that the bill has to do with some sort of 'national emergency' or whatever. In that case, the government has had the authority to seize private property in an emergency for a long.... long time. I can understand being mad about it, but if you're somehow thinking that it's new with Obama you're sorely mistaken.

 

[spidey07]

I can see the reasoning behind it - if some kind of cyberattack (god I hate that word) was going on or intelligence knew of when it would happen the government could take steps to combat it. That's all well and good and I would agree.

It's when the government actually has CONTROL that I don't agree with. If intelligence or some kind of an attack needed to be mitigated then work with the ISPs or owners of the offending or targeted networks. Collaboration and assistance, not control.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
While your link is bad, I assume that the bill has to do with some sort of 'national emergency' or whatever. In that case, the government has had the authority to seize private property in an emergency for a long.... long time. I can understand being mad about it, but if you're somehow thinking that it's new with Obama you're sorely mistaken.

Well, the cyber aspect is certainly a new twist.

The problem will be in defining what constitutes a "cyber emergency" and exactly what steps will they take to assume "control" of your systems...?

EDIT: Such actions would require an assumption that the Government is in a position to better manage or defend such networks, which is very debatable given the current security posture of Federal systems. If I were a business owner, I don't think I'd want agencies who often get C's, D's, and F's on their cyber security assessments to try and manage the defense of my networks. Private sector is light-years ahead of the Government in that area.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I can see the reasoning behind it - if some kind of cyberattack (god I hate that word) was going on or intelligence knew of when it would happen the government could take steps to combat it. That's all well and good and I would agree.

It's when the government actually has CONTROL that I don't agree with. If intelligence or some kind of an attack needed to be mitigated then work with the ISPs or owners of the offending or targeted networks. Collaboration and assistance, not control.

And what if an attack is happening, the government wants to do something to stop it, and the ISP says no?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Patranus

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, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

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.

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


Nice to see the notion of PRIVATE PROPERTY still applies in this country.

I can understand why. not sure if they are going about it right.


But the notion of PRIVATE PROPERTY went out years ago with the courts saying its ok to take private property and give it to private business if it increases the tax revenue of the state/county/city.


pretty much said we are just renting the property until a business wants it.

 

[jonks]

Word of advice, the author, Declan McCullagh, is a known alarmist. He would point out one sentence in 1000 page bills passed during bush's admin too. Nothing ever comes from any of his psycho rants. Read some of his earlier stuff about bills passed before the dems took over. He's a nut.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07
I can see the reasoning behind it - if some kind of cyberattack (god I hate that word) was going on or intelligence knew of when it would happen the government could take steps to combat it. That's all well and good and I would agree.

It's when the government actually has CONTROL that I don't agree with. If intelligence or some kind of an attack needed to be mitigated then work with the ISPs or owners of the offending or targeted networks. Collaboration and assistance, not control.

And what if an attack is happening, the government wants to do something to stop it, and the ISP says no?

Then they can go and get a court order.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
While your link is bad, I assume that the bill has to do with some sort of 'national emergency' or whatever. In that case, the government has had the authority to seize private property in an emergency for a long.... long time. I can understand being mad about it, but if you're somehow thinking that it's new with Obama you're sorely mistaken.

It doesn't surprise me that you would defend the taking of private property.
I private network is not private land that the gov needs to assemble supplies and rescue workers.

This is just another attempt by the political elites to trample on American freedoms and for some reason they have an agenda to destroy America. If I were a company i'd be real concerned because once the gov get's their hands on something it's almost impossible to get them to let go.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07
I can see the reasoning behind it - if some kind of cyberattack (god I hate that word) was going on or intelligence knew of when it would happen the government could take steps to combat it. That's all well and good and I would agree.

It's when the government actually has CONTROL that I don't agree with. If intelligence or some kind of an attack needed to be mitigated then work with the ISPs or owners of the offending or targeted networks. Collaboration and assistance, not control.

And what if an attack is happening, the government wants to do something to stop it, and the ISP says no?

Then they can go and get a court order.

Pretty much. The US is a nation of laws, when the government tries to impliment ways to go around the laws, we all loose.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: eskimospy
While your link is bad, I assume that the bill has to do with some sort of 'national emergency' or whatever. In that case, the government has had the authority to seize private property in an emergency for a long.... long time. I can understand being mad about it, but if you're somehow thinking that it's new with Obama you're sorely mistaken.

It doesn't surprise me that you would defend the taking of private property.
I private network is not private land that the gov needs to assemble supplies and rescue workers.

This is just another attempt by the political elites to trample on American freedoms and for some reason they have an agenda to destroy America. If I were a company i'd be real concerned because once the gov get's their hands on something it's almost impossible to get them to let go.

How does anything in my post defend the taking of private property in any way, shape, or form?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07
I can see the reasoning behind it - if some kind of cyberattack (god I hate that word) was going on or intelligence knew of when it would happen the government could take steps to combat it. That's all well and good and I would agree.

It's when the government actually has CONTROL that I don't agree with. If intelligence or some kind of an attack needed to be mitigated then work with the ISPs or owners of the offending or targeted networks. Collaboration and assistance, not control.

And what if an attack is happening, the government wants to do something to stop it, and the ISP says no?

Then they can go and get a court order.

Aren't you one of the guys who defended Bush's warrantless wiretapping? Very interesting how going to a rubber stamp court for intel gathering was too cumbersome, but that we should go to a court in order to thwart a currently occurring attack on the US.

I would be surprised at this internal inconsistency, but you're Spidey. It's sort of par for the course at this point.

 

[BriGy86]

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.

In my opinion the Government should not be relying on outside organizations for anything.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Aren't you one of the guys who defended Bush's warrantless wiretapping? Very interesting how going to a rubber stamp court for intel gathering was too cumbersome, but that we should go to a court in order to thwart a currently occurring attack on the US.

I would be surprised at this internal inconsistency, but you're Spidey. It's sort of par for the course at this point.

I knew the but bush was going to come out.

This is VERY different.

 

[NeoV]

more desperation from patrANUS

maybe something he throws will eventually stick

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Aren't you one of the guys who defended Bush's warrantless wiretapping? Very interesting how going to a rubber stamp court for intel gathering was too cumbersome, but that we should go to a court in order to thwart a currently occurring attack on the US.

I would be surprised at this internal inconsistency, but you're Spidey. It's sort of par for the course at this point.

I knew the but bush was going to come out.

This is VERY different.

This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with you. I'm sure your brain is furiously working right now trying to figure out how to square these two positions. I have great faith in you though Spidey, you've shown an amazing ability for doublethink in the past, I'm sure you'll work this one out too.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with you. I'm sure your brain is furiously working right now trying to figure out how to square these two positions. I have great faith in you though Spidey, you've shown an amazing ability for doublethink in the past, I'm sure you'll work this one out too.

Recording or monitoring calls leaving the US = fine.

Intervening or taking control of the operation of a private company = not fine.

 

[MotF Bane]

So if there's a "national emergency", we should suspend the right of free speech too, and clearly right of assembly... and keep going? This is a dumb bill, but then again, nothing will probably come of it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with you. I'm sure your brain is furiously working right now trying to figure out how to square these two positions. I have great faith in you though Spidey, you've shown an amazing ability for doublethink in the past, I'm sure you'll work this one out too.

Recording or monitoring calls leaving the US = fine.

Intervening or taking control of the operation of a private company = not fine.

So you are okay with the government violating people's rights in one respect, but not another. Gotcha.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with you. I'm sure your brain is furiously working right now trying to figure out how to square these two positions. I have great faith in you though Spidey, you've shown an amazing ability for doublethink in the past, I'm sure you'll work this one out too.

Recording or monitoring calls leaving the US = fine.

Intervening or taking control of the operation of a private company = not fine.

So you are okay with the government violating people's rights in one respect, but not another. Gotcha.

It's not a violation if it's leaving the country. Everybody knows this and the courts agree.

-edit-
And on top of that it seems like you're saying this move is A-OK?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Ok. A national emergency occurs... doesn't the government immediately gain control of media outlets? Not that they have, but don't they have the power to? Isn't the internet a media outlet in a manner of speaking? If this were to be enacted and another 9/11 occurs, would not the government be able to seize control of the internet, potentially garnering much more information about the attack than previously available?
How is this different from the EBS?
This has been around for a VERY long time, now it's just jumped to the 21st century. Granted this bill needs to be seriously scrutinized and not have a 'patriot act' paint brush stroke to it. Bottom line, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc, are all private companies, national emergency occurs, those private companies HAVE to cede to the government, and let them use their airwaves to get information out to the public
CONELRAD --> EBS --->EAS

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with you. I'm sure your brain is furiously working right now trying to figure out how to square these two positions. I have great faith in you though Spidey, you've shown an amazing ability for doublethink in the past, I'm sure you'll work this one out too.

Recording or monitoring calls leaving the US = fine.

Intervening or taking control of the operation of a private company = not fine.

So you are okay with the government violating people's rights in one respect, but not another. Gotcha.

It's not a violation if it's leaving the country. Everybody knows this and the courts agree.

Wrong. If the call was intercepted at a point outside of the US it was exempted from the warrant requirement, if the call was intercepted inside the US (as in this program) then a FISA warrant was required.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with you. I'm sure your brain is furiously working right now trying to figure out how to square these two positions. I have great faith in you though Spidey, you've shown an amazing ability for doublethink in the past, I'm sure you'll work this one out too.

Recording or monitoring calls leaving the US = fine.

Intervening or taking control of the operation of a private company = not fine.

So you are okay with the government violating people's rights in one respect, but not another. Gotcha.

It's not a violation if it's leaving the country. Everybody knows this and the courts agree.

-edit-
And on top of that it seems like you're saying this move is A-OK?

so you think its ok to spy on a citizen of the US just because they call outside of the US?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with you. I'm sure your brain is furiously working right now trying to figure out how to square these two positions. I have great faith in you though Spidey, you've shown an amazing ability for doublethink in the past, I'm sure you'll work this one out too.

Recording or monitoring calls leaving the US = fine.

Intervening or taking control of the operation of a private company = not fine.

So you are okay with the government violating people's rights in one respect, but not another. Gotcha.

It's not a violation if it's leaving the country. Everybody knows this and the courts agree.

-edit-
And on top of that it seems like you're saying this move is A-OK?

I am most certainly not saying this move is A-OK, nowhere in a single one of my posts have I said that.

 

[BarrySotero]

It's a pattern with Obama that he wants to control as many things as he can. His new "diversity Czar" at the FCC praises Alinsky and Chavez and he wrote a book about how to eradicate talk radio using local weaponized diversity. Obama also appointed Cass Sunstein to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and he wrote a book about going after falsehoods and rumors on the internet. I am sure Obama would have liked to have been able to stop all those health-care rumors - maybe next time. Obama also said a long time ago he wanted a cyberseurity apparatus that would be directly answerable to him

Obama spoke about putting control of internt under one apparatus in the White House last Spring:

"Today's address accompanied the release of the long-awaited cybersecurity review Obama commissioned in February. Among other things, the review highlighted the inefficiencies and shortcomings of the current cybersecurity apparatus. Obama vowed to streamline the agencies' loosely organized efforts with a strong central office in the White House led by a new position of "cybersecurity coordinator."

http://www.internetnews.com/go...to+the+White+House.htm

Of course there are real cybersecurity issues the US has lagged on. In typical Obama fashion he mentions those and then uses them as an excuse for a power grab. Obama is the guy the founders warned about.