Bill would give President emergency control of Internet

[Sam Spade]

Headlining on Drudge.  Worth a discussion here, I think...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh

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."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

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.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

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.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

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.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

[Brittain33]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

I'm not going to tell that mother waiting outside her kids' pre-school to pick little Caitlin and Ethan up that we didn't do everything in our power to protect them from evildoers. Will you?

[Earth]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

This is a vague, and frankly childish rationale.

I'm not going to tell that mother waiting outside her kids' pre-school to pick little Caitlin and Ethan up that we didn't do everything in our power to protect them from evildoers. Will you?

Yes, because this isn't the solution.

[Brittain33]

This is a vague, and frankly childish rationale.

I was thinking "infantilizing" myself, but it seems to work with a large number of people. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

Be honest, when Bush 43 had this same sentiment, your reaction was.......?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

One of things I despised about Bush was his 'give up your freedom to stay safe......and trust me with what you give up' attitude.......

I won't trust any politician with that power.

[War on Want]

I don't see the problem here. Cyberterrorism is a very real and valid threat to our security.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't see the problem here. Cyberterrorism is a very real and valid threat to our security.

So we give such vast power to 1 man?  Sory, I don't see it being in our best interest.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

Be honest, when Bush 43 had this same sentiment, your reaction was.......?

I was thinking the same thing.
Reagan's motto (Trust but Verify) applies here.

[Mechaman]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

Be honest, when Bush 43 had this same sentiment, your reaction was.......?

I was thinking the same thing.
Reagan's motto (Trust but Verify) applies here.

Anybody still think that px75 is a closet partisan Dem?

[Lief 🗽]

Obviously I oppose this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't see the problem here. Cyberterrorism is a very real and valid threat to our security.

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

Be honest, when Bush 43 had this same sentiment, your reaction was.......?

I was thinking that exact same thing.

But I think some people are taking this to mean more than it does.  It's not that the President could take over the Internet and watch what we're doing.  It's that he could shut down the Internet traffic to/from gov’t and critical infrastructure networks and websites, as well as the periodic mapping of those networks.

The problem lies in the definition of the private critical infrastructure information systems: “nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.”  It could be argued (or at least this is why I think people are so worried about this) that the President could if he wanted define Internet Service Providers as critical infrastructure systems and networks, which I guess could ultimately lead to issues with privacy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I just found this on opencongress.org in the comments section.  Gosh, what a complete idiot - it shows how utterly stupid so many Americans are:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[War on Want]

Obviously if Bush was president I would be more distrustful of this bill but I'd still support this.

[Sewer]

Obviously if Bush was president I would be more distrustful of this bill but I'd still support this.

O_o

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't like this at all, but the headline is more than a little misrepresenting.

[Brittain33]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

I'm not going to tell that mother waiting outside her kids' pre-school to pick little Caitlin and Ethan up that we didn't do everything in our power to protect them from evildoers. Will you?

For the record, this was me trying to write in the mode of the Bush Administration, ca. 2003. I didn't support executive power grabs then and I disapprove of Obama continuing practices like signing statements, unauthorized wiretapping, and continued indefinite detention.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

I'm not going to tell that mother waiting outside her kids' pre-school to pick little Caitlin and Ethan up that we didn't do everything in our power to protect them from evildoers. Will you?

For the record, this was me trying to write in the mode of the Bush Administration, ca. 2003. I didn't support executive power grabs then and I disapprove of Obama continuing practices like signing statements, unauthorized wiretapping, and continued indefinite detention.

Aha.......that makes sense.  Had us fooled.......

[RI]

I thought it was a pretty obvious parody.

Anyway, I agree with brittain33. The centralizing of executive power, whether a Democrat or a Republican is doing it, is concerning, at the very least. I used to rail against Bush for things like FISA, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, and NSD-51, and I find this could be just as potentially alarming. I'd like to believe that Obama would be better than this, but perhaps the cynics are right about this one...

[Badger]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

Be honest, when Bush 43 had this same sentiment, your reaction was.......?

I was thinking the same thing.
Reagan's motto (Trust but Verify) applies here.

^^^^^ this totally.

Please remember if this bill passes Obama will not be the last president to use its authority.

[JSojourner]

If we know terrorists are using the Internet to plan how to hurt Americans, we need to give our President the tools he needs to keep us safe.

Be honest, when Bush 43 had this same sentiment, your reaction was.......?

I was thinking the same thing.
Reagan's motto (Trust but Verify) applies here.

^^^^^ this totally.

Please remember if this bill passes Obama will not be the last president to use its authority.

Correct.  I think, frankly, he would use the power quite timidly.  He's been timid about everything else since his election.  But no, we can't have this.  It's bad business.

[aaaa2222]

Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

[Citizen James]

I looked through the bill - both found through the link in the article (Thomas guide) as well a by an different government website (GOV TRACK) and did not find anything giving "emergency control of the internet".  I really thought that CNET was above the whole 'series of tubes' mentality.

On specific points: "the cybersecurity workforce plan": the bill does not require implementation in 6 months - it requires a plan to measure security within 90 days, and implementation within a year.  The review is more comprehensive, regarding all cyber-policy.  It's like saying that all agencies must have an building evacuation plan within 90 days in case of fire, and a full review of OSHA standards within a year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no section 201.  Although the phrase "direct the national response to the cyber threat" quoted in the article does not exist in the bill, there is somewhat similar language in section 18(2):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem with this comes in defining what is a critical infrastructure information system or network.  Unfortunately, the bill defines it as being whatever the president says it is - per section 23 DEFINITIONS (3):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would like to see some sort of safeguard or oversight on that.    I understand in a real crisis time is of the essence - but accountability is also vital.   I may trust the current president, but I shudder to think how such power might be abused in the hands of someone like Bush or Palin (or even Romney).

[War on Want]

I don't really know why I am so comfortable with this bill, but why I am not with FISA, GITMO and other Bush failures. I just don't see any President abusing his power here, without there being an extremely large threat against American security. I can see scenarios where a President might use this for all of the wrong reasons but they seem to have such of a low chance of happening.

[Vepres]

So, a bill concerning the internet written by an old white guy, great...