Bill could give Obama control of Internet during emergencies

[rehearser]

Bill could give Obama control of Internet during emergencies

A new U.S. senate bill has been redrafted to give President Obama the power of control to shut down the Internet in case of emergency situations. The 55-page draft that was obtained by CNET appears to permit the president to seize temporary control over private-sector networks in a cybersecurity emergency.

If the bill is passed, it would allow control to temporary disable Internet traffic in private-sectors. "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."

Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which contains large Internet and telecommunication companies such as Verizon, Verisign, Nortel and Carnegie Mellon University said "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."

The bill is still unclear what power of control President Obama might receive until it is properly addressed after the Senate's summer recess.

The bill is to protect against cyber threats and attacks on critical infrastructures such as the power grid in case of an attack from a broadband connection. Such control over the Internet may never be executed but with hackers getting more creative, national security becomes top priority in emergencies.

[45ED]

IBTL, eh?

[rehearser]

huh?

[ali123]

hmm yes because shutting off the internet is going to protect us how?

[Squiggles]

They better not shut down the dirty picture websites!!!! The first thing I'd want to do in a major crisis is check out the latest celebrity sex tape!!!!!!!

[MrDisco]

i blame the Masons and the Illuminati.

[Emancipated]

IBTL, eh?

Smart move -- put the suggestion out there! *sigh*


Sen. Rockefeller, Conspiracy, The illuminati, New World Order??

[45ED]

Smart move -- put the suggestion out there! *sigh*

Sen. Rockefeller, Conspiracy, The illuminati, New World Order??

Look, I like debating politics as the next RFDer, but there's a reason that forum doesn't exist anymore. If the fiery-headed folks could keep their cool then I wouldn't have to put the acronym out there to indicate the end is/was nigh. But knowing how ... what's the word...passionate some are, it's inevitable.

They better not shut down the dirty picture websites!!!! The first thing I'd want to do in a major crisis is check out the latest celebrity sex tape!!!!!!!

In other news, adult entertainment companies - in particular Playboy and Penthouse - are preparing for potential internet blackouts by ramping up production of company products in order to supply the internet users with their daily dose of pr0n. Anonymous sources are also reporting that the National Enquirer is salivating at the thought of being a prime source for all things celebrity and salacious. :lol:

[rehearser]

Obama has got the power.

[bubble.tea]

as long as I can still akcess RFD I'm happy.

[YYZFA]

The OP cannot even bother linking citing his sources? Why do people do that? Are we supposed to take their word that these articles are true? Where is the context?

[45ED]

The OP cannot even bother linking citing his sources? Why do people do that? Are we supposed to take their word that these articles are true? Where is the context?

OP's "article" appears to be from, best I can tell, current.com (http://current.com/items/90807921_bill-would-give-president-emergency-control-of-internet.htm) (independent news source by Gore and Hyatt). Actual article (re: of substance) from Cnet (my bolds).

...(takes breath in)...

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT

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."

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.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

(Source (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html))


Take as you will.

[Chr1s]

The OP cannot even bother linking citing his sources? Why do people do that? Are we supposed to take their word that these articles are true? Where is the context?

+1 Entire source should have been posted.

They really should have added 'to protect the best interests of the Corporation (called the United States of America.)'

[MasterXan]

There's gonna be an "emergency" in 2012

:lol:

[BornRuff]

I love how to wording of a thread can really expose people's biases.

Why say it gives "Obama" the power to shut down the internet. It gives the office of the president that right. Right now it's Obama, if Obama dies it will be Biden, in 2012 it will be in the hands of Sarah Palin(:lol:), etc.

This kind of wording seems to make people think Obama is going for some big power grab.

[gordholio]

It's quite scary what the leaders can do during a supposed crisis (usually made by them).
Bills have been passed to take away all rights and liberties.
The elite are really the ones making the decisions though, not the President or Prime Minister.

[djniro]

Ladies and Gentleman....Welcome to the :twisted:New World Order:twisted:.

[inteliii]

The OP cannot even bother linking citing his sources? Why do people do that? Are we supposed to take their word that these articles are true? Where is the context?

Geez - you have been using the Internets how long?

Do this - Copy and Paster from OP "President Obama the power of control to shut down the Internet" into Google and you get a bunch of articles

One of them is

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

another is

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/