White House seeks unpresidented power in Cyber-security

All you webmasters......take a look at this. This is currently on Digg front page.

http://digg.com/tech_news/Unplug_the_Internet_No_President_should_have_this_power
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Bill-Grants-President-Unprecedented-Cyber-Security-Powers-504520/

 

Should Obama Control the Internet?

Watch here as Jay Rockefeller laments the creation of the internet:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i8PCmLPPVnA

 

And we thought that it was only President Bush who was after our freedom.

 

So is this only for dealing with, say, government spies or could they also use this to easily shut down the warez & spammer networks operating in the US?

If it's the last, awesome.

 

I've read through this and it doesn't seem to be nearly as big of a deal as some are making it out to be. The paranoia does run a little deep sometimes.

"may declare a cyber-security emergency"

Why would anyone do such a thing unless there was a really good reason? Don't give me some conspiracy theory nonsense. The President can also do things like shut down all flight traffic (remember after 9/11) was that a freedom of speech issue?

 

unprecedented = without previous instance; unparalleled

 

This is not something you want the government getting into.

Here is the problem with the legislation. It is too vague. Anything can beconsidered "cyber-security emergency."

 

And anything can be considered an air traffic emergency as well. A flock of birds, or even "suspicion" that there may be a terrorist attack.

Would you like to take away the government's power to shut down all flights in case of those emergencies as well?

Geez I'm all for being reasonably suspicious and skeptical, but the tin-foil hat wearers are in over drive on this one.

And it's pretty obvious the first few responders in this thread didn't even read through it and see for themselves what this is all about before drawing a conclusion.

 

I've read it and I understand the implications of what it means. The government wants to be in total control of all domestic computer networks.

They want full access to all financial networks. It would enable them the means to spy on all financial transactions. They could also shut down any large (ie. "systemic") company that doesn't play ball with them - even the few that aren't under their thumb for accepting bailouts.

The Secretary of Commerce would not need for the President to declare any kind of emergency either.

Section 5.b.5 gives the Secretary of Commerce carte blanche to use the NSA as he sees fit to spy on domestic small businesses.

Section 14.b.1 is the killer though:

Tell me George B., did you read this bill?

 

Comparing the ability to shut down air traffic & shutting down the web is very melodramatic and even non-sensical to me. I can totally see how shutting down air traffic may save lives but how will shutting down the web help 'national security'? Surely it's a conspiracy theorists dream.

 

This bill is not limited to just the internet. It includes all private computer networks.

 

Guess which side the liberals took when George Bush was spying on the public.

Guess which side they took when they realized it was no longer George Bush spying on the public.

 

You're right about that Nate. Both sides seem to really only care about their so called principles when the other side is in power.

 

Exactly my point...

Although I did like Bush I did not agree with his handling of Guantanamo. More importantly I did not like a lot in the Patriot Act. But for all those who got on his case about those things (which were justifiable), they keep on making excuses for Obama.

If this wasn't bad enough Obama is asking Congress for the right to cease any business that he considers a threat to the American economy.

 

It goes both ways. The republicans were all about fiscal responsibility during the clinton years, then bush gets elected and they control congress and they seemingly piss away any care of fiscal responsibility while they double the debt and bush puts away the veto pen(maybe barney ate it?).
Now the dems are in control and suddenly the republicans are back to being fiscally responsible.
In times like these the government probably does need to spend, but it also needs a reasonable resistance to make sure that it's spent well and that it doesn't go overboard on stuff that doesn't make sense. So thanks a lot republicans for pissing away your credibility on the issue. Maybe if you'd stood by your principles when it mattered most you'd be in a better position to positively impact current fiscal affairs.

 

Republicans had their chance in 2002 when they controlled Congress and White House, they blew it - no surprise.

Both parties are corrupt from top to bottom. Democrats at least push forward with their agenda, there was so many things McCain could've said about Obama to win the election but he obviously didn't want to win.

The GOP is a group of lousy old fat men who are well at talking but lack the walking.

 

Neither I nor any liberal Democrats that I've seen have come out in support of this bill. I'm merely stating that most folks are jumping to conclusions while clearly not having researched the whole issue.

Bernard, the part that I bolded in your quote, from what I read is at best a gross exaggeration. The bill talks about giving the government the ability to shut down traffic to and from certain networks in the event of a security emergency. I.E. a global or national cyber attack. Nowhere does it state the government would have "full access" to anything.

Like you I am concerned about the broadness of the language but EVEN with it's broadness it doesn't go anywhere near the alarmist nature of what you're trying to pass off here.

"Full access" dude? Seriously?

From what I've read this is basically a bill that gives the government the power to shut down traffic to and from a network in the event of an attack. Like if China is pounding our electrical grid from networks outside the control of the government this bill would give them the power to stop it and keep your lights on.

 

I would certainly like limits to be placed on any executive authority. I fully support President Obama, but I don't want the government to have unlimited access to all computer networks. I would like some other branch of governemnt, or some sort of congress-presidential regulatory agency, or some limit on power in this bill.

 

Apples & Oranges.

First of all I didn't say I support this bill. All I'm saying is I think people jump to conclusions too quickly with things like this. I've seen a lot crazy headlines like this during the 2 and a half months of Obama's Presidency and usually it ends up being much less than it's made.

Secondly, with George W. Bush there were no conclusions that to be jumped to.

 

I think they need to come up with a little more specific language, and remove the Secretary of Commerce from the cards.

I could support a more specific bill, and one with some sort of bipartisan/neutral regulatory commission. Maybe some senior senators/representatives from the hosue and senate, something like 6 from each party or a 13th person acting as chairman with 0 voting authority even in the event of a tie vote. All he does is regulate the committe and make sure things are done in accordance with applicable laws.

However, this goes against the Electonic communications privacy act, the financial privacy act, as well as several other laws currently on the books.