BlackBerry Forums Support Community

monkeypaw · 08-29-2009, 04:55 AM

From CNET. This "government knows best" mentality is out of hand. The attempt to give the Treasury control over companies posing "systematic risk" is still pending. Now they they're trying to grant controls over private networks.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

Quote:

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." ... Remainder of the article at CNET.

ezrunner · 08-29-2009, 05:45 AM

Wirelessly posted (overwhelmingly stressed)

This is not good

akosnitzky · 08-29-2009, 05:49 AM

Wirelessly posted (Its All About the U!)

Control may be okay with certain parameters.

angelbear1973 · 08-29-2009, 07:21 AM

Wow what are we China

Dubdub · 08-29-2009, 07:26 AM

Will be really tough to do since it isn't "our" to control. We only have a portion of it.

daphne · 08-29-2009, 09:30 PM

That's a damn scary thought. I think the government needs to secure their own networks as their first priority. Considering how many times government sites, servers, networks, etc. have been hacked and infiltrated, who could trust them to be in control of private networks, for one thing. The whole idea is just wrong on many levels.

fonejunkie · 08-29-2009, 11:53 PM

Obama and his crowd are out of control, out of touch with the populace and on a massive power grab. Flame me if you will, but before you do, consider what he has done and what he is trying to do. He and his agenda is bad for America, pure and simple. And most of all, it is in direct opposition to the US Constitution. All of the czars that he is appointing deliberately bypass the system of checks and balances that our founding fathers established within the framework of the Constitution. IMHO, he is treading on dangerous ground.

daphne · 08-30-2009, 12:14 AM

Well said, fonejunkie. I agree.

angelbear1973 · 08-30-2009, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fonejunkie

Obama and his crowd are out of control, out of touch with the populace and on a massive power grab. Flame me if you will, but before you do, consider what he has done and what he is trying to do. He and his agenda is bad for America, pure and simple. And most of all, it is in direct opposition to the US Constitution. All of the czars that he is appointing deliberately bypass the system of checks and balances that our founding fathers established within the framework of the Constitution. IMHO, he is treading on dangerous ground.

And this is the same stuff that the democrats said Bush was doing.

djm2 · 08-30-2009, 10:26 AM

Power grabs by politicians of either party, whether the BS of W or the crap we are seeing now, is completely reprehensible.

Dubdub · 08-30-2009, 10:33 AM

The people voted for big government and that is what they are getting. Heck, the Congress can't run itself, why do people think they can run the insurance companies, mortgage companies, bank industry, the auto industry, the health industry and now the Internet - and all at the same time!

kathrynhr · 08-30-2009, 12:13 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubdub

Will be really tough to do since it isn't "our" to control. We only have a portion of it.

I agree w Dubdub. This is arrogant and stupid. The Internet isn't ours to control. I mean, this proposed legislation is about as meaningful as proposing a bill that gives the president emergency control of the moon.

I'll bet all the nations that go nuts about ICANN will be thrilled with this...

daphne · 08-30-2009, 02:08 PM

No, the government cannot contol the internet world wide, but if they took control of the US backbone providers, they could seriously disrupt a lot of it.

wabbit · 08-31-2009, 02:58 AM

why do i feel like this U.S of A government is becoming more like Russia then the USofA.

we have czar's now internet control, whats next?

monkeypaw · 08-31-2009, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wabbit

why do i feel like this U.S of A government is becoming more like Russia then the USofA.

we have czar's now internet control, whats next?

I think next they'll have people start reporting their neighbors to the government. Oh wait...

audit · 09-01-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daphne

That's a damn scary thought. I think the government needs to secure their own networks as their first priority. Considering how many times government sites, servers, networks, etc. have been hacked and infiltrated, who could trust them to be in control of private networks, for one thing. The whole idea is just wrong on many levels.

While I agree that the .gov and .mil sectors need to have better security, it's not their choice. There's people that are higher up that won't release the funds needed to secure the networks the proper way. There's a LOT of very talented people working security for the networks but if they are handcuffed then they can't really do anything about it.

LunkHead · 09-01-2009, 04:11 PM

What's he gonna dew when he sees this???

The End of the Internet

jsconyers · 09-01-2009, 05:52 PM

Haha. Much like The Last Page of the Internet

daphne · 09-02-2009, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by audit

While I agree that the .gov and .mil sectors need to have better security, it's not their choice. There's people that are higher up that won't release the funds needed to secure the networks the proper way. There's a LOT of very talented people working security for the networks but if they are handcuffed then they can't really do anything about it.

Yes, I don't doubt that's the case at all. But are those higher ups the same ones who might be part of the decision making with regard to what government would do with private networks? I don't know, but if that were the case, we'd be in even bigger trouble.

jimbob_ · 09-03-2009, 04:58 PM

Ron Reagan was the first US pres to appoint "Czars". Back then the War on Drugs was promised to be a "2 years max" idea. 25 years later, you guys now want to complain about czars? W Appointed something like 10 of them, including Homeland security.

Where were you guys when he decided the Feds can read your email and listen to your phone calls?

Ignorance really is bliss.