Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh
CNET

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."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.


Jay Rockefeller "Internet should have never been invented"

Jay Rockefeller Confronted by WeAreChange NYC & LA

Views: 49

Reply to This

"Destroying the New World Order"

TOP CONTENT THIS WEEK

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE SITE!

mobile page

12160.info/m

12160 Administrators

 

Latest Activity

Tammy is now a member of 12160 Social Network
yesterday
Less Prone commented on cheeki kea's photo
Thumbnail

The Cartel

"In his 1995 book; Bloodlines of the illuminati, Frits Sringmaier listed the following 13…"
yesterday
tjdavis posted a photo
yesterday
tjdavis posted a blog post
yesterday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post What Four UFO Whistle Blowers All Suffered in Common?
"This falls in the category of political assassination, a very shameful policy of eliminating people…"
yesterday
Doc Vega posted blog posts
yesterday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post The Forest Devil
"cheeki kea Thank you, just one thing. The Choctaw Indian who came to the rescue was a war veteran…"
yesterday
cheeki kea commented on Doc Vega's blog post The Forest Devil
"Well that is one fine story you've got going there Doc V. with a very interesting roll up. I…"
Monday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post “Night of Horror” Finland WWII 1939 and a Russian Massacre
"Just another bizarre chapter in WWII that seems more suspect as paranormal."
Sunday
Doc Vega's 7 blog posts were featured
Sunday
Burbia's blog post was featured

Former President Trump?

When was this article written? It is attributed to Victor Davis Hanson. He is a Fellow at Hoover…See More
Sunday
Less Prone commented on Burbia's blog post Former President Trump?
"It must be an unintended mistake "former". But that Trump demanded to keep Khan away is a…"
Sunday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post The Mistake We Made in America
Sunday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post “Night of Horror” Finland WWII 1939 and a Russian Massacre
Sunday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post “Night of Horror” Finland WWII 1939 and a Russian Massacre
"Quite an uplifting story of the winter war. Finland was overpowered by ten to one and could still…"
Sunday
Doc Vega posted a blog post

Elon Weighs in on Charlie Kirk's Assassination and How it is an Instrument of Social Control

For a very long time now there has been in place mass population behavioral control operations that…See More
Saturday
Doc Vega commented on Doc Vega's blog post The Forest Devil
"Less Prone Thanks Buddy I worked on it for 3 days! "
Friday
Less Prone favorited Doc Vega's blog post The Forest Devil
Friday
Less Prone commented on Doc Vega's blog post The Forest Devil
"You have spun a great story, congratulations!"
Friday
cheeki kea commented on Bob of the Family Renner's photo
Friday

© 2025   Created by truth.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

content and site copyright 12160.info 2007-2019 - all rights reserved. unless otherwise noted