Troubling Thought — What, EXACTLY, Constitutes A “Cyber Emergency”?
That’s correct, folks — many of we “Civil Libertarian Liberal” types are more than a LITTLE bit concerned over a newly-proposed Senate bill (55 pages — S.773) designed to give the president “Our Pharaoh” the ability to clog the Internets and Blogospheres with White House propaganda whenever “The One”, who is piggybacking upon and CHEERFULLY following the paved path laid before Him by his predescessor, President “Surge” W. Bush. Who cares about “checks and balances” when OUR United States of America is fighting two VERY tough UNWINNABLE WARS — one upon a military tactic called “terrorism” and the other upon a vast catolog of substances called “drugs”? We’ve got to WIN, right? And the ONLY way to win is by killing ill-thinking folks, correct? The best weapon to “win” with? Propaganda, of course. Never mind the fact when “propaganda” is used on (The) One’s own people, it’s called “censorship”. As long as we “win” though, eh?
From CNet News (What? Where’s the Mainstream Media “MSM” on this one?) — Read and HEED:
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullaghInternet 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.
(Snip!)
“… 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.) …”
Okay, let the Republican-leaners and the Democratic-leaners fight all they want but I hold this to be a PERFECT example of what happens when my fellow Americans choose to SERVE an AUTHORITARIAN government as opposed to having a LIBERTARIAN government serve THEM.
Oh, sure — we can fight all day long about whether or not the Democrats are in search of a “Police State” or a “Nanny State” or vice-versa for the G.O.P. The fact is, our Civil Liberties are under attack in this BIPARTISAN EFFORT to silence our freedom of speech simply because “things seem frightening”.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — Give me twenty years of complete freedom over eighty years under “Right” or “Left” authoritarian rule ANY day of the week.
***
Curiously, none of my fellow lefty-bloggers seem to be concerned over this development, so let’s turn to the “right” for some commentary since we apparently have no choice (but — don’t expect them to admit this is a continuation of the Bush, Jr. II modus operendi): Allahpundit of Hot Air; QandO; John Hawkins of Right Wing News; Shawn Mallow of WizBang
Loading ...
1:31 am on August 29th, 2009 1
Wow, he was right during the campaign – he IS an agent of change we can believe in. I wonder if the blancmange we call a Congress will stand up to him.
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 3:45 am
@Joe Lovell, This is a bill in Congress, so it looks like Congress wants to give the President yet more power. Not change, Joe. More like the game is rigged. Status quo you can believe in.
3:33 am on August 29th, 2009 2
Hey there – long time no see, GTL. I come check your site from time to time out of curiosity to see how you are dealing with the new administration.
RE: your post. A continuation of Bush’s regime? Definitely. As selfish as this sounds, however, Bush’s Patriot Act never affected me. And until Obama turns off my internet and takes away my freedom to complain about him ACTUALLY happens, I will reserve my opinion.
The difference between Bush bashers and Obama bashers:
Bush bashers- basing their judgement on what he DID.
Obama bashers- basing their judgement on what he COULD do.
Mike 300 spartans Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
@virgomonkey, Yes, I bash Obama for what he could do. He could spend double in six months what Bush spent in a year. He could, and did, just that.
virgomonkey aka ticklebug Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
@Mike 300 spartans,
I’m sorry. I just cannot believe that you are upset about that. It sounds like you are grasping at straws.
Has it caused you to go bankrupt or lose your job? Exactly how much in tax dollars were you forced to pay — compared to under the Bush administration?
I still think it’s all about the “coulds” than the “dids”.
3:53 am on August 29th, 2009 3
This is TOTAL SH*T.
Apparently, the U.S. government studied what happened in Iran very closely, and decided not to let that kind of thing happen here.
Strange that conservatives will probably hate this and begin having fantasies about Hitler, but were okay when Bush and the Republicans did worse. But that’s another conversation.
I think all Americans who love liberty can agree that this is a crap bill that should be defeated in Congress.
For now, we should direct our anger at Rockefeller, not Obama, however. Unless somebody has real evidence that Obama requested the bill, the sole author and person responsible is Rockefeller.
But Rockefeller’s a Democrat, and today, he’s making me ashamed to be one.
JT Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 5:12 am
@bad dog, No, this is a crap bill that never should’ve been introduced in the first place.
The bill itself looks more like yet another illegal spying bill than any real attempt to seize control of the internet. (Though, make no mistake, it could be used for that too.) After all, how do we know what networks are critical to the operation of the country if we don’t know every single byte of data transmitted across them? How the hell is the internet vital to national security anyway? The military has other ways to communicate and the rest of us will survive without it for a while. (“Is it true you were there for the Great Internet Crash of 2010, Grandpa?” “I sure was Billy. It was terrible. I couldn’t blog about my cats and no one on Twitter knew what I was eating for lunch. I couldn’t even update my mood on Facebook. It was a dark and terrible time.”)
I’m starting to think we’re more or less screwed. Flattening civil liberties seems to be the only thing the two major parties can agree on. So what the hell do we do now?
I was (and still am) hoping for a republican split that would cause a democratic split. Maybe with a 4 way system we could finally elect people that actually think we should have some sort of rights.
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@JT, “So what the hell do we do now?”
Tell the birthers and deathers to get outraged about something real for a change and put pressure on their Congressmen to make this a Republican issue, while we on the Left do the same with our Congressmen.
P.S. There will NEVER be a viable third or fourth party in this country. The best thing we can do as citizens is push for laws getting money out of the political process, then work within our respective parties to influence their agendas. Honestly, in Canada, where I live now, money doesn’t factor into the process nearly as much due to strict regulations, public financing, and short election cycles, as the dates for elections aren’t fixed.
The GTL™ Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
@bad dog, I couldn’t agree MORE, man. Everybody who is concerned to email their Senators and Congressman about their feelings concerning even MORE expanded Executive powers…
Joe Lovell Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
@The GTL™,
OH, that’s rich, Guns. As if Diane “I’m important so I need a gun” Feinsteing, Babs “Don’t call me Ma’am, I have and important title” Boxer would go against giving him more power. MIke Thompson might, but I wouldn’t bet on it. He may be a Blue Dog, but can’t be counted on to vote against Pelosi.
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
@Joe Lovell, Okay, this is getting weird. This has nothing to do with giving HIM more power. There is no HIM. There is the office of the President of the United States. This was an argument we liberals used on right wingers all too happy to give Bush their rights and liberties as American citizens: One day, Bush will be gone and how would you like President Hillary to have these powers? Well, that day has arrived: We have a Democratic President with all of Bush’s powers, and now the right wing’s panties are in a knot so tight that Alexander the Great will never get it unraveled and claim the throne of Asia. I know you hate Obama’s guts, Joe, but try to have a little perspective. Those Blue Dogs that you think are your friends are going to be the first to vote for this. No, Joe, the only allies you’re going to find in the Democratic Party on this issue are to be found in the Party’s liberal wing.
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
@Joe Lovell, Serious question posed to you again. If you believe in state rights, meaning each state gets to do its own thing, and California is very liberal, then why do you live there? Why not move to Texas where you can live like a free man without your senator asking to be called by her proper title, which obviously is still keeping you up nights?
Gaia's Child Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
@JT, JT, I’m hoping for the same type of split. This country cannot afford the Democratic and Republican seesaw much longer. I am encourged by the huge increase in Independent registration.
I have a knee-jerk reaction to any bill of this type ever since the Patriot Act was passed in such panic and unread haste. This bill shouldn’t be passed. The Patriot Act should be repealed and redone. And Rockefeller’s aides shouldn’t be allowed to watch LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD more than once.
11:39 am on August 29th, 2009 4
Perhaps I can incur the wrath of everyone on this, but on its face, it doesn’t really scare me. I’m limited to a few minutes break but just a few things to think about.
1) What info do you put on and/or over the internet that you don’t assume can or is being accessed by unsavory charatures, including perhaps ones in government?
2) In the non-cyber- physical world, would you not accept, say a search of your vehicle at a highway roadblock if law enforcement knew there had been a child kidnapping in a small town you had just left? If yes, why not a little inspection on the cyber superhighway?
3) Given how wired in our banking systems, and virtually everything else under the sun seems so wired into the net, why not some…OH it is hard to say the next couple of words…government intervention..in the case of a crisis?
Joe Lovell Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
@Mike 300 spartans,
It isn’t that I really give a damn if some govt. thug or stooge wants to read the drivel I post. It is the principle of the thing – this is a power above what We the People cede to the federal govt. through the Constitution.
If a cop asks if I would mind if he searched my car, the answer is always, “Yes, I do mind. No, I’m sorry, but you may not search, Officer.” Now, that may get the cop pissed off and have him ask me to step out of the car. But unless he places me under arrest, or sees something through the window to give him cause, he has no authority to search.
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
@Joe Lovell, Well said.
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
@Joe Lovell, It’s not about inspection, Mike. The government can read public information on websites all it wants; it’s public. What we’re talking about is seizure and control. For example, if the government declared an emergency and didn’t like what this site was saying, it could simply deny anybody access to it. Sadly, this is a case of the U.S., a supposedly free democratic country, learning authoritarianism from Iran.
By the way, this is what net neutrality is all about–keeping the Internet free instead of handing it over to the private sector so that service providers can, for example, differentiate how fast each website loads for users based on how much the website’s owner can pay. (Crap, huh? Well, that’s capitalism.)
If you care about free speech and avoiding private sector censorship as well as public censorship, then support net neutrality.
Mike 300 spartans Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
@bad dog, I’m not completely following what you are saying B.D., I suspect it is my lack of technical knowledge, in my imagination on this (which perhaps is far from reality) is that cyber-invaders either hit us with a stream of viruses and/or jam-disrupt services and the government “seizes” what it needs to to filter out the bugs, unjam the system, or perhaps counter jam the attacker’s computers. But I admit, I’m pretty clueless on such technical aspects.
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
@Mike 300 spartans, You might be right. I guess it all depends on how the legislation defines a “cyberemergency.” I’m so used to the President being given broadly defined and seemingly entirely discretionary powers that I’m naturally wary anytime new powers are created.
@All, Has anybody actually read the legislation? Are we overreacting?
Mike 300 spartans Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
@Joe Lovell, Cool, that sounds consistant to me. I have no beef with someone that asserts their rights and wants to protect them. I think the government constantly oversteps their authority in many areas, but I believe law enforcement, be it against cyber-crime or some other type, is a legitimate role of government. You may agree with me on that, but where I differ is, given my acceptance of their intent, in this case, enforcing the law, I’m going to voluntarily let them search my car or search/control the internet to the extent that they can. It wouldn’t surprize me if the proposed law accomplishes little to none of that, but in principle, it doesn’t bother me like when they try to spend money on things that they aren’t (or shouldn’t be) in the business of doing.
1:21 pm on August 29th, 2009 5
All I can say is thank goodness we have a tech-savy president. Remember, this is a senator behind this legislation, not the president. Unless I missed something, I haven’t even seen Obama endorse or back this thing in any way, shape, or form.
To be honest, whether or not some loony in the U.S. Senate crafts up this piece of b.s., I doubt Obama would sign it. It’s just so ridiculous, it’s laughable. For one thing, the bill completely disregards the way the Internet works. For one thing, hackers don’t attack the Internet itself. They use the Internet to attack other computers and/or systems on the Internet. For another thing, the Internet is a medium that the entire world has access to. To kick off everyone but official U.S. government computers would not only require some pretty expansive technology but also would require international law. Considering how many large scale attacks come from China, that’s going to be a tall order.
I mean… Look at this guy’s picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Rockefeller
He looks like he knows about as much about how the Internet works as Ted Stevens and his “series of tubes.”
Now, considering that the Internet was a creation of the U.S. government, I could see why they’d have wanted to do something similar BACK THEN, but there’s no way on earth they could enforce something like this now.
Kat Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
@Alabama Moderate, I’ll be very surprised if he doesn’t sign it should it make it out of committee, get through the congressional channels, and land on his desk.
Just because it appears to be practically unenforceable doesn’t mean it’s not going to get passed.
Alabama Moderate Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@Kat, Keep in mind that they were unable to pass Ted Steven’s little idea even under a Republican administration.
Joe Lovell Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
@Alabama Moderate, “All I can say is thank goodness we have a tech-savy president. Remember, this is a senator behind this legislation, not the president. Unless I missed something, I haven’t even seen Obama endorse or back this thing in any way, shape, or form.”
Why “thank goodness we have a tech-savy president?” I didn’t know that was a requirement for the job. It also seems to limit his thinking and reasoning. Remember how he whined and almost threw a tantrum when the USSS wanted to take his gadget way from him?
And, do you think a Dem. Senator would introduce something like this without his imprimature?
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
@Joe Lovell, Not well said.
Alabama Moderate Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
@Joe Lovell, I say thank goodness for a tech-savvy president because he’d know that this is a stupid piece of legislation. I wasn’t implying that it was a requirement for the job, and I don’t appreciate words being put in my mouth.
And yes, I think any senator (Dem or Republican) would introduce an idiotic piece of legislation without running it past others in the party. It happens all the time.
Joe Lovell Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
@Alabama Moderate,
I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth, I had NO idea what you meant by that phrase. The last “tech savy” POTUS we had was Carter, and look at the mess he left.
Joe Lovell Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
@Joe Lovell, Sorry, I don’t know what I typo that equates to Send, maybe I stutter on the enter key. Anyway,
Just because he is “tech savy” doesn’t mean that he will “know that this is a stupid piece of legislation.” For all we know, he may think it is the greatest thing since perfed, two-ply toilet paper.
Alabama Moderate Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:07 am
@Joe Lovell, There’s no way that you can be tech-savvy without knowing that “shutting down the Internet” is a ridiculous idea. Either he knows how the Internet works or he doesn’t.
Joe Lovell Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:31 am
@Alabama Moderate, True, but he also wants to shut down the coal industry. A rediculous idea that he embraces.
“Either he knows how the Internet works or he doesn’t.”
I’d expand that to “either he knows how the Constitution works or he doesn’t.” Given his record, both voting and talking, I would say that he doesn’t.”
Alabama Moderate Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
@Joe Lovell, What on earth does the coal industry have to do with the tech industry or the Internet? That aside, I’d like you to point out which part of the Constitution protects the coal industry from being heavily regulated and/or “shut down.” I’m sure the “drug industry” would like to know the answer to that question as well as the “prostitution industry” and various other “industries.”
Joe Lovell Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
@Alabama Moderate, That coal industry reference was an example to show that he is not opposed to embracing “rediculous ideas” no matter how smart he is supposed to be.
I expanded your comment “There’s no way that you can be tech-savvy without knowing that “shutting down the Internet” is a ridiculous idea. Either he knows how the Internet works or he doesn’t.” to show that a man who supposedly knows the Constitution well enough to teach it, that is “constitution-savy”, doesn’t seem to know or care about the limits it places on the federal government.
Oh,by the way, “I don’t appreciate words being put in my mouth.” Nice try at misunderstanding and redirct though.
Alabama Moderate Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 10:34 am
@Joe Lovell, I didn’t put any words in your mouth. You specifically mentioned restrictions on the coal industry and then said that he either knows the Constitution or he doesn’t. That’s why I asked you to specify. As for ridiculous… Well, one of these things can be done and one of them is an impossibility. When I say that shutting down the Internet would be “ridiculous,” I’m referring to something that would literally be impossible to enforce.
When you say that regulating the coal industry is “ridiculous” (which happens to be Sean Hannity’s current favorite talking point, coincidence?), I’m referring to something that is completely possible and in fact is rather reasonable considering that blowing the tops off of mountains as opposed to mining not only reduces the number of mining jobs but also has resulted in a 70% higher cancer rate in states like West Virginia. So maybe we have a difference in opinion on what the word “ridiculous” means, but I don’t find the idea of providing better (and more) jobs with less health risk to fit that definition.
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
@Alabama Moderate, Bama, you’re usually the voice of reason on this here little blog and I love your posts, but I’m going to have to agree with Kat on this one. Congress will pass it if it’s security related because national security has become so politicized (o_O I’m looking at YOU, Republicans). Obama will sign it if it lands on his desk. I can’t think of any President who has ever refused more power other than George Washington, our first.
Alabama Moderate Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
@bad dog, You might have a point on the national security thing, but I don’t see him signing this particular piece of legislation. In fact, he now has the opportunity to address it before it’s gone through voting. Again, he’s tech-savvy and the voters know he’s tech-savvy. He’s going to lose a lot of “nerd cred” if he says, “We’re gonna shut down the Internets.” Remember how much George Bush was ridiculed for showing his stupid on that one? However, I could see this somehow morphing into a piece of legislation that addresses cyber security in some way, and that may not be a way we like. Of course, we’re still speculating on something he may or may not do rather than something he’s actually done.
Mike 300 spartans Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
@Alabama Moderate, I love your point about some of the attacks being from China. My wife had done spouse abuse counseling for many years, a spouse who is getting hit by someone who makes most or all of the money in a marriage is in a tough spot. Get your spouse arrested and the money they make is likely to go down or go away. One sometimes has to choose to become independant or just shut up and keep getting slapped. Maybe the U.S. should become financially independant, living within its means rather than begging from China and getting slapped around like a… a spouse that takes abuse.
Alabama Moderate Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
@Mike 300 spartans, I have no idea what you’re talking about, to be honest, but if you’re suggesting that we can somehow take the Internet away from the Chinese, I’d suggest that you have no idea how the Internet works. Not even the Chinese government has been fully successful on censoring content and restricting web use of its own citizens. Hackers have been getting around it for years, and that seems to be the very people they’d want to stop.
As for the amount of money we’re getting from China… I don’t see how that fits into this conversation.
3:12 pm on August 29th, 2009 6
Upon reflection, perhaps being admittedly ignorant on the underlying issues of this bill, I should, as they say: “zip it.” But daggumit, it has been about two days since the previous article, how long can a blabber mouth like me remain silent?
bad dog Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
@Mike 300 spartans, No, Mike, actually you raised some good points.
6:38 pm on August 29th, 2009 7
Has anybody actually read the legislation or at least the relevant parts?
To me, the crux of this is what constitutes a cyberemergency. How does the bill define it?
If it’s very vaguely worded, and the President is given broad discretionary latitude, then it could be misused, and therefore all American citizens should be against it in my opinion.
8:01 pm on August 29th, 2009 8
I have not seen a copy of the proposed bill, and I’m not sure if it is even a bill yet technically. The best I have been able to find so far is that (1) technically the president already has the authority to do the things mentioned in the bill during an emergency, and (2) it seems that the main purpose is not to seize information or anything like that, but to order private companies to physically disconnect their computers from the internet.
One example cited was a scenario where power generating plants would be ordered to disconnect from the internet because an outside threat was detected that was trying to disrupt their operations.
We’ll have to wait for more information/details to become available, but it might not be as nefarious a plot as presented so far.
Fandb Reply:
August 29th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
@Fandb, A copy of the proposed bill can be found here .
The most controversial thing that I have found so far is the ‘mapping’ and identification of computers considered to be critical to national security. Those would be the computers that fall under potential governmental authority during a ‘cyber crisis’.
Alabama Moderate Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
@Fandb, That particular technology already exists and is used often in cyber crime investigations. That particular wording could be one of two things. Like you said, it could be defined as a government computer or a computer containing government information(which is critical to national security), or it could be interpreted to tracing the computer(s) responsible for the attacks. Both of these things would seem relevant.
Removing a banking system from the Internet if it appears that they may come under attack seems reasonable enough.
Though I still expect plenty of ridicule for the senator who says he’s going to “shut down the Internet” for the private sector. Of course, that could just be the interpretation of the person who wrote the article. If he actually said something of that nature, I want a t-shirt to match my “series of tubes” t-shirt.
Gaia's Child Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
@Fandb, That example cited is right out of LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. We really are living in a reality where truth and fiction are hard to tell apart.
Fandb Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
@Gaia’s Child, I took the time this morning to read through the bill. In my opinion, there are some good things in it, like scholarships for cyber security, requirements that people providing cyber security to the government meet a certain minimum set of requirements, national programs to improve security, among others. I still didn’t see anything in there that looked threatening. It even includes a requirement for periodic review to make sure that civil liberties are not being trampled on.
Removing critical systems from the internet in the case of a cyber attack could happen under the bill, but as I said before, the President has the authority to do that now during a crisis.
I am not familiar with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. What is it?
Gaia's Child Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
@Fandb, The fourth movie in the Bruce Willis Die Hard series.
In it a home grown cyber terrorist takes over the Web, including all communication systems. His first target is the electrical plants which he shuts down. Awesome watching the lights go out as one by one each power plant shuts down or is overloaded. I have really simplified the plot but it could happen.
I was all for President Obama wanting to strenghten the system because from what I’ve read our government’s computer sytem, on the whole, is out of date and unprotected. As for a cyber terrorist being able to take over the entire net and every computer on it, I don’t know. Maybe still a little science fiction but maybe not.
The back door win for the good side in Live Free or Die Hard was our communtication satellites, a reworked cell phone and a super nerd with, of course, Willis supplying the muscle. I loved all the Die Hards but especially this one because Willis showed his pain.