Congress Giving Obama Emergency Control over the Internet; Power for Pulling the plug on American Networks and Servers under Guise of National Defense

Congress Giving Obama Emergency Control over the Internet; Power for Pulling the plug on American Networks and Servers under Guise of National Defense:
By Marc Chamot

“And no wonder U.S. congressional approval ratings are lower than the biggest men’s sized shoes. OK, if you want me to be more politically incorrect about it, their congressional approval ratings are lower than whale DUNG.”

As if President Obama doesn’t have enough on his plate already, it looks like he wants to be in control over the Internet. This hopeless president can’t even create new jobs for the millions of unemployed Americans. Now wants to curb ‘freedom of speech.”

There’s a bill in congress that will give the president more power to pull the plug on American networks and servers under emergency decrees. Mind you folks, not just foreign, they are talking about ours, American.

Where have we seen this kind of power grab before? Oh yes, with the previous moronic administration. Yes, Mr. President, we’re seeing the change and hope that you were talking about during your campaigns.

They ALL know that the Internet has supplanted traditional media in influence over American politics; they want to target conservatives, just like they tried to do with talk radio.

I think this congress, mainly Democrats, and this administration have gone totally bonkers and are way out of control. Something has got to be done to STOP these lunacies, these anti-free speech mongers. First it was an attack on conservative talk radio, with the “fairness doctrines,” and now it’s the Internet.

So in other words, let me see, if a network or a server is dedicated in attacking Democrats, to place qualified Republicans or Independents in office during the 2010 midterms elections, will Obama and the democrats use their power to pull the plug on these servers and networks under national security?

This is a very serious political matter folks. Those powers should only be used for foreign cyberspace attacks, those coming from Russia, North Korea and China not OURS.

Its just mindboggling what people did when they voted for these inept power grabbers in Washington. As the days go by it gets worse and far worse, can any body think what I’m thinking, a revolution of some sorts? I think its coming, it won’t be long, but it’s coming.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
by Declan McCullagh
August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT

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 cyber-security 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 "cyber-security 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 cyber-security. "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 cyber-security. 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 cyber-security coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff.

Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cyber-security aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cyber-security 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 "cyber-security workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cyber-security 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 security perspective."