Bill Would Grant President Unprecedented Cyber-security Powers

[Shadowstorm]

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 introduced in the Senate would allow the president to shut down private Internet networks. The legislation also calls for the government to have the authority to demand security data from private networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.

What do you people make of this?

Source (http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Bill-Grants-President-Unprecedented-Cyber-Security-Powers-504520/).

You can view the draft here (http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf) (pdf warning).

[Inspector Fowler]

I am never in favor of giving one person a lot of power. I did read that the bill has some other, very reasonable elements to it, which is good. This nation does need to beef up its security awareness.

However, I am tired of the word "cyber". I am not living in Snow Crash. It is not 1997 anymore. In general I prefer terms like "internet" or "communications network security".

That's nitpicking, I guess. Although I am not usually politically aligned with Obama, I have been hoping that with his greater tech awareness will come greater reasonable attention paid to the internet by the government. The current approach of, "Crazy Ignorant Senator Hears About Some Problem (that may have been solved like, two years ago), Sponsors Retarded Bill" really doesn't do it for me.

[Dorkandproudofit]

I am never in favor of giving one person a lot of power. I did read that the bill has some other, very reasonable elements to it, which is good. This nation does need to beef up its security awareness.

I agree with almost everything you just said, but wouldn't the bad parts of this bill set a bad precedent for giving too much power to the Executive Branch? It's closing in on Orwellian as it is.

[ClannerDelta]

I agree with almost everything you just said, but wouldn't the bad parts of this bill set a bad precedent for giving too much power to the Executive Branch? It's closing in on Orwellian as it is.

Cyber-War is Cyber-Peace?

[ShivaX]

Any time you see a phrase like: "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy" you're looking at a Bad Idea.

[Raen]

Any time you see a phrase like: "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy" you're looking at a Bad Idea.

Yeah this felt very Patriot Acty.

[Spockrocket]

Wait 'til the ECA hears about this. Should be fun.

[Rakael]

Fuck. I really thought Obama would be different. That's what I get for letting my hopes get raised the tad bit they were.

[Shrinn]

I suppose the constitutional justification for ruling over EVERY private internet network or business is based on the commerce clause?

I'm cracking open the PDF now.

Edit: It really scares me that they're claiming China's use of internet security is the example to follow...

[Narradisall]

I read it and my first thought was of some Cyber-Obama.

I can understand the want for better security monitoring of the Internet, but I'm against this. The moment you start given up your freedoms for the sake of freedom, you've lost.

[Spockrocket]

Silly Big Brother, internets is for free exchange of ideas!

[jpc_theoneandonly]

Is anyone becoming more and more disturbed by obama's actions? He pretty much made the CEO of GM resign. Now comes this bill. Though it has not yet passed do you really thing Obama is going to oppose it? This type of stuff scares me.

[Shrinn]

Well to be fair this bill is coming from Congress.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Well to be fair this bill is coming from Congress.

Well, the big thing here would be the American people need to realize that congress is corrupt, not the Republican or Democrat party specifically (depending on which one your peers think is evil)

[Generation ABXY]

Well, the big thing here would be the American people need to realize that congress is corrupt, not the Republican or Democrat party specifically (depending on which one your peers think is evil)

I think most people would agree that power corrupts, so it's not all that surprising to me. That's one of the reasons I tend to support congressional term limits.

[OldeWolf]

If powers corrupts, how will human being survive as a society? Seems like power in itself is a necessary evil.

And I'm not surprise nor will be surprise if Obama lets this come to pass. If he has done this sort of things all around already in less than 1 year, imagine the next 3 years. And if he gets reelected *shudders*.

[DoctorFinger]

Imagine the uproar had Bush tried to do this...

[Ox]

Anybody got a link to the actual text of the bill? I don't have Lexis or Westlaw access at home.I am not living in Snow Crash.
Unfortunately.

[Raen]

Unfortunately.

I know! Wouldn't that rock? Stupid technology not advancing fast enough.

[Generation ABXY]

If powers corrupts, how will human being survive as a society?

I would say the fact that we're mortal has been one of our only saving graces. Thanks to that, it would seem there is always new, not-yet-corrupted blood being fed into to the system. Vive la Death! :D

[ShivaX]

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/136610

In a move that even the most nonchalant of privacy advocates is crying foul over, the UK has put into effect a European Union directive which mandates the archival of information regarding virtually all internet traffic for the next 12 months. The program formally goes into effect today.

Privacy concerns aside, another issue becomes one of how exactly to manage all this data. A report dating back to 2004 estimated that a single, large ISP in the UK would need up to 40 million gigabytes of storage capacity to store the traffic data from a year of user activity. Even in 2009, that kind of storage doesn't come cheap, nor does the challenge of managing it all come easy.

I suppose its too late to open a hard drive/storage media company in England?

[MagGnome]

Before we all jump on the Obama hate-wagon and start tooting the horn, does anyone know if he is actually involved in this bill whatsoever?

Let's not let our bias show or anything. :p

[Generation ABXY]

Before we all jump on the Obama hate-wagon and start tooting the horn, does anyone know if he is actually involved in this bill whatsoever?

Let's not let our bias show or anything. :p

To be honest, I'm not sure where you're coming from with that, Mags. I really don't see all that much Obama hate in here; in fact, I see a number of people who actually blame it on Congress and knee-jerk politicians. Is he mentioned in here? Sure, but I'd hardly say these people were ready to board any hate-wagon.

Now, if he actually signs it, that's another matter completely...

[Shadowstorm]

Anybody got a link to the actual text of the bill? I don't have Lexis or Westlaw access at home.

Link (http://static.arstechnica.com/tech-policy/CYBERSEC5.pdf).

Ars picked it up. Source (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/sens-introduce-bill-to-federalize-cybersecurity.ars).

A new bill would create a "cybersecurity czar" who would oversee the government's computer security programs. More controversially, the czar would have power over some private networks if they are considered to be "critical infrastructure."


The "czar"—more precisely, an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor within the White House—is established in a separate short-but-sweet bill (http://static.arstechnica.com/tech-policy/CybAdvisr1.pdf) running a mere three pages. It specifies that the post will be subject to Senate confirmation, and it gives the cybersecurity advisor a backstage pass to all of the federal government's cyber-related "special access programs," a designation given to highly secret initiatives.


Most of the action is in the much longer Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (http://static.arstechnica.com/tech-policy/CYBERSEC5.pdf). In case a lone cybersecurity advisor doesn't seem like enough, that legislation provides for the creation of cybersecurity advisory panel to be staffed by stakeholders from the governmental, private, academic, and nonprofit sectors.


The bill establishes a dizzying array of programs, administered by a variety of agencies, over the course of its 51 pages. Perhaps most significantly, the bill tasks the National Institute of Standards and Technology with developing a set of security standards and vulnerability tests that will apply to any information networks or software used by federal agencies and contractors—but also by any private entity designated as "critical infrastructure" by the President. The President is also empowered to order the disconnection of any federal or private critical infrastructure network, either during a "cybersecurity emergency" or for reasons of national security more broadly.


Also, somewhat related (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/obama-adminstration-pledges-transparency-on-acta.ars).

[Ox]

Before we all jump on the Obama hate-wagon and start tooting the horn, does anyone know if he is actually involved in this bill whatsoever?

Let's not let our bias show or anything. :p
I agree with Generation that there hasn't exactly been a ton of Obama-slamming (particularly not from the folks like Generation and me, the people who would presumably be the prime suspects in the Case of the Unfair Criticism of the President), but for your edification:

According to a number of media reports, the bill was crafted with the cooperation of the White House.
Now, there are a number of people in the White House. But to my knowledge, everyone there is either sleeping with Obama, related to Obama, working for Obama, or Obama himself.

Perhaps most significantly, the bill tasks the National Institute of Standards and Technology with developing a set of security standards and vulnerability tests that will apply to any information networks or software used by federal agencies and contractors—but also by any private entity designated as "critical infrastructure" by the President.
This, if anything, concerns me even more than any conceivable privacy concerns raised by the Presidential authority over "critical infrastructure." The czar is ordered to "enforce compliance" with the federal security guidelines on all software distributors and vendors. Having the federal government in charge of all crypto and firewalls strikes me as a bad idea -- not simply due to government abuse, but just because I'm skeptical that a federal bureaucracy is really the best place to put all of our innovation at defeating malware.

Plus, I'm annoyed at the notion of yet another advisory council that reports directly to the President. Terrorist attacks on information infrastructure is worrisome. So are terrorist attacks on our food supply, water supply, medicines, highways, and strategic helium reserves. We don't need an advisory council for each of these threats to report directly to the President and waste his time; that's what the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA director, and any number of other advisors are for. Just because something is important doesn't mean we need a whole new federal bureaucracy to deal with it -- and even if it does, those bureaucrats don't necessarily need a direct line to the Oval Office. I am completely confident that we've already got 84 advisory groups working on this issue, and I fail to see how an 85th group is going to make a huge difference.

P.S. Thanks, Shadow, you're a good 'un.

[MagGnome]

To be honest, I'm not sure where you're coming from with that, Mags. I really don't see all that much Obama hate in here; in fact, I see a number of people who actually blame it on Congress and knee-jerk politicians. Is he mentioned in here? Sure, but I'd hardly say these people were ready to board any hate-wagon.

Now, if he actually signs it, that's another matter completely...

There are already two posts in this thread talking about how "scary" Obama is, because he's obviously come to take away all of our rights, etc. That's more than enough silly postings for me. :p

I guess I'm willing to cut the guy a little slack after the last president was such a disaster, but I know not everyone feels the same way.

I thought it was strange to bring him up in such a context when he isn't even connected to the bill. Rather, I didn't see such a connection mentioned in the OP/article. Not every bill that comes up in Congress was drafted or supported by the President.

[Ox]

There are already two posts in this thread talking about how "scary" Obama is, because he's obviously come to take away all of our rights, etc. That's more than enough silly postings for me. :p
Congratulations, now you know exactly how I felt for the past eight years. ;)

I guess I'm willing to cut the guy a little slack after the last president was such a disaster, but I know not everyone feels the same way.
Fair enough. Now that you know he is connected to this bill, are you still inclined to cut Obama slack?

[MagGnome]

Congratulations, now you know exactly how I felt for the past eight years. ;)


Fair enough. Now that you know he is connected to this bill, are you still inclined to cut Obama slack?

I'm not going to get into the whole Bush vs. Obama argument, especially since Obama has been in office for such a short time. Suffice it to say that I can't imagine Obama will ever be anywhere near as terrible as George W. Bush was.

As for him being connected to this bill, that's disappointing if true. It may surprise you, but I'm not a brainless cheerleader for our current president. :p

[Generation ABXY]

I'm not going to get into the whole Bush vs. Obama argument, especially since Obama has been in office for such a short time. Suffice it to say that I can't imagine Obama will ever be anywhere near as terrible as George W. Bush was.

Didn't it take old George at least nine months to attempt his egregious overstep of boundaries? Obama doesn't dilly-dally, I'll give him that. ;)

It may surprise you, but I'm not a brainless cheerleader for our current president. :p

No, just a tireless defender from imagined wrongs. :D And, yes, I'm just heckling you.

[Ox]

I'm not going to get into the whole Bush vs. Obama argument, especially since Obama has been in office for such a short time. Suffice it to say that I can't imagine Obama will ever be anywhere near as terrible as George W. Bush was.
I don't mean to spark a Bush v. Obama argument, partly because Obama's only been in office for a few months (none of the things you hate Bush for had happened yet in April 2001), and partly because it would be a stupid argument anyway. I just wanted you to reflect on how you feel about people freaking out about how Obama is "gonna take our guns," or other ridiculous (often maliciously false) accusations. And then I would like you to reflect on the fact that people on the other side of the political divide felt the same way during the previous Administration.

Ultimately, I'm making a point that has nothing to do with Obama or Bush. One day, there will probably be a Republican President again. And after that, there will one day be another Democratic President. We're going to switch sides from party-in-power to opposition and back again many times over the course of our lives. It would behoove us to remember how irritating and silly the other party was the last time it was in opposition, and resolve that -- no matter how justified we think our righteous indignation is -- we will calm down and try to be a more dignified opposition than the last one. No matter how strongly I might disagree with a particular President, I should* always try to say, "This is a bad idea," rather than, "This is an evil idea." I'd probably add something about how the party-in-power should reflect on its opponent's behavior the last time roles were reversed, but since I'm not currently in power, anything I said would be suspect. So I'll restrain myself to criticizing my fellow Loyal Opposition.

*Acknowledging, of course, that I often fail to live up to this standard.

[MagGnome]

Didn't it take old George at least nine months to attempt his egregious overstep of boundaries? Obama doesn't dilly-dally, I'll give him that. ;)



No, just a tireless defender from imagined wrongs. :D And, yes, I'm just heckling you.

You're right - all of the injustices and crimes that Bush committed were really just made up by the liberal media. :p Heckler!

[Iron Past]

Imagine the uproar had Bush tried to do this...

There are a number of recent happenings that have made me utter this. Politics is a funny thing.

Note that I am not slamming nor do I oppose Obama--though I think this is a bad idea and will probably be torn to shreds in the media--just making an observation.

[alienmastermind]

Fuck. I really thought Obama would be different. That's what I get for letting my hopes get raised the tad bit they were.

No offense, but how it works is, a President can introduce bills into Congress. However, Obama didn't draft or sponsor this legislation. According to the article, the White House has offered support (which it does when Democrats sponsor or draft legislation during a Democratic or Republican Presidency, or do we not remember the bills supported and rushed through Congress by Presidential Fiat, basically...The Banking Bailout comes to mind during Bush's administration.). The Internet (sic) Czar (part of the White House) expressed support in response to concerns over cyber-terrorism, not Obama. It's Olympia Snowe (R) and Rockefeller (D) who are the sponsors of the bill.

You may stop freaking out now, a little. It still has to pass, and Obama could still veto it....Oh wait, it's more fun to be a reactionary locked in 1955. :)

AIEEEEEE! The Pod Peeple! AIEEEE!

[alienmastermind]

I(none of the things you hate Bush for had happened yet in April 2001),

April 2001? Hmmm....

Let's visit the Wayback Machine (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=the_bush_administration_s_environ mental_record_224&scale=0#the_bush_administration_s_environmental_re cord_224), Ox. :)

There's one thing about the Bush "Legacy" I disliked the man for. Surely there would be more but luckily for his record, by April 2001, Bush had logged quite a bit of vacation time. Maybe he had a covered illness under FMLA. (Thanks, Clinton! ;) )

[Ox]

However, Obama didn't draft or sponsor this legislation. According to the article, the White House has offered support (which it does when Democrats sponsor or draft legislation during a Democratic or Republican Presidency, or do we not remember the bills supported and rushed through Congress by Presidential Fiat, basically...The Banking Bailout comes to mind during Bush's administration.).
Huh? I don't think the White House automatically supports any proposal made by a Democrat. Moreover, the article didn't say that the White House supports the measure. It said the White House cooperated in crafting the measure. How much cooperation and on what points is of course open to debate (and maybe the article is simply wrong), but it sounds an awful lot like the White House was involved in drafting at least part of the bill.

The Internet (sic) Czar (part of the White House) expressed support in response to concerns over cyber-terrorism, not Obama.
Well, okay. I'm not sure what the point of this is unless you want to say that the czar's actions are not attributable to Obama. But then we get into a broad discussion of where the buck stops in the Obama Administration (of which the czar is indisputably a part).

I'm happy to concede that Obama probably did not personally look over the bill and decide he liked it. Obama won't do that with any legislation, however, including his budget (do you really think he's sitting there with a calculator and green visor and adding machine?). I think it would be fascinating to discuss when and why a President is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, but I doubt you want to open that can of worms.

AIEEEEEE! The Pod Peeple! AIEEEE!
Yeah, basically. I think this is an unwise and mildly concerning bill, but I'm not setting fire to cars in the street.

[ShivaX]

Well, okay. I'm not sure what the point of this is unless you want to say that the czar's actions are not attributable to Obama. But then we get into a broad discussion of where the buck stops in the Obama Administration (of which the czar is indisputably a part).

Well from what I've seen of the guy he tends to take responsibility for what people in his administration do. I doubt he was directly involved in this particular item, but its not exactly getting much press either so its entirely possible he doesn't even know about it. I'll save my outrage for when this thing passes and he signs it into law.

[Generation ABXY]

You're right - all of the injustices and crimes that Bush committed were really just made up by the liberal media. :p Heckler!

Actually, I'm more than willing to recognize some of the criticism against Bush is legitimate; I mean, I think I can hardly be considered a fan of the Patriot Act. The imagined wrongs I was talking about were the (at the time) practically nonexistent attacks that you were protecting Obama against. But, we digress.

To the main point: I think this is a bad idea, but I won't attack Obama until his full involvement is revealed or he signs this thing.

[MagGnome]

I wasn't trying to protect Obama. I was merely pointing out that we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I've seen a lot of that when it comes to the new administration. Of course that happens anytime there is a new president, but I wish that people could be a little more open-minded. I wasn't attacking anyone on this site by any means.

[Ox]

I wasn't attacking anyone on this site by any means.
I'll take you at your word on this one, since I've generally found you to be an honest person. But for future reference, it's a bad idea to say something like "Let's not let our bias show or anything" unless you mean to accuse your interlocutors of being biased. People get the wrong impression.

[MagGnome]

I'll take you at your word on this one, since I've generally found you to be an honest person. But for future reference, it's a bad idea to say something like "Let's not let our bias show or anything" unless you mean to accuse your interlocutors of being biased. People get the wrong impression.


I'm glad that you find me to be an honest person. I think that a lot of the time my tone of "voice" doesn't translate well to the written word, and people think I'm actually upset or serious when I am not. My comment about being "biased" was mostly in jest, although I can easily see how it would be taken to be an attack on others.

I do find though that a lot of people are biased against Obama and inherently distrusting of everything he does. This isn't exclusive to Obama, of course.

[LongStepMantis]

What do you people make of this?

NOFZ5fv_pb8
Obamadan?

I'm sorry, I simply couldn't resist.