Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Will bill give Obamination control of Internet?
#1
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=P ... geId=93966

Will bill give Obamination control of Internet?
Proposed new powers called 'drastic federal intervention'
Posted: April 04, 2009
10:35 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
WorldNetDaily


Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller, D-W.V.

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the Out House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a created declared "cyber emergency."

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National "Cybersecurity" Advisor, reportable directly to the resident evil and charged with "defending the country" from "cyber attack."

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

Who might be watching you without you knowing it? Get "Spychips" and see how major corporations and government are planning to track your every move!

Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm over the act's broadly drawn misgovernment powers.

"The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

"The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an Internet and print news source on technology issues. "I don't like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the King...err, president."

According to a Senate document explaining the bill, the legislation "addresses our country's unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure."

In a statement explaining the bill's introduction, Sen. Rockefeller said, "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on."

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill, added, "If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional bounds:

First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president.

Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information," including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the "critical infrastructure."

Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.

And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they object to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of government power.

"There are some problems that we face which need the weight of government behind them," writes Seltzer in eWeek. "This is not the same as creating a new federal bureaucracy setting rules over what computer security has to be and who can do it."

"It's an incredibly broad authority," CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim told the Mother Jones news website, troubled that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us."

According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the "critical" networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.

"What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are 'banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.' Let's think about this," writes Seltzer. "I'm especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash."

S. 778, which would establish the Office of the National Security Advisor, and S. 773, which provides for developing a cadre of governmental cybersecurity specialists and procedures, have both been read twice and referred to committee in the Senate.

Bookmark and Share

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today's WND Poll.

Related offers:

"Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government plan to Track your every Move"

"Who Killed the Constitution?"

"Legalize the Constitution!" magnetic bumper sticker

"Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws"

"The Patriot's Handbook: A Citizenship Primer for a New Generation of Americans"

Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

Previous stories:

Pigolice look to hack citizens' home PCs

Cyber pig cops on their way?

Freedom v. technology: New watchdog column

Google censoring anti-Obama bloggers?

Big Brother spy plan sparks revolt

WND traffic soars in 2nd half of 2008

Backlash to Obamination officials squelching political speech

U.N. to control use of Internet?

A U.N. grab for Internet control?
Reply
#2
Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller, D-W.V., who's pushing these internet nationalization bills is being quoted by Alex Jones as saying "It would be better if the internet never was invented."

It's proving difficult to find just what are Obama's internet plans.
One thing being pushed is to extend broadband into the most remote areas, and that the current FCC broadband spec of only 200kbps has long been obsolete. In practical terms it will mean people like Itdincor in the Aleutians will most benefit.
I haven't found out what kind of speeds are being talked about.

Jones is saying that "Internet2" will have only a few thousand sites.
I imagine that initially people won't see their favorite sites disappearing, but as federal network regulations are enforced...small servers may be shut down if they don't meet gov standards, including those mandating "content diversity".
For instance, anomaly sites may be forced to be polite to skeptical trolls or be subject to a post audit to gauge "fairness".
It sounds far-fetched, maybe...but there ARE laws in Texas(?) prohibiting saying anything bad about broccoli......
Reply
#3
Quote:Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller, D-W.V., who's pushing these internet nationalization bills is being quoted by Alex Jones as saying "It would be better if the internet never was invented."

It's proving difficult to find just what are Obama's internet plans.
One thing being pushed is to extend broadband into the most remote areas, and that the current FCC broadband spec of only 200kbps has long been obsolete. In practical terms it will mean people like Itdincor in the Aleutians will most benefit.
I haven't found out what kind of speeds are being talked about.

Jones is saying that "Internet2" will have only a few thousand sites.
I imagine that initially people won't see their favorite sites disappearing, but as federal network regulations are enforced...small servers may be shut down if they don't meet gov standards, including those mandating "content diversity".
For instance, anomaly sites may be forced to be polite to skeptical trolls or be subject to a post audit to gauge "fairness".
It sounds far-fetched, maybe...but there ARE laws in Texas(?) prohibiting saying anything bad about broccoli......

If that were to happen, it would have to be over a period of years. There is no way it will happen over night.
But the major problem with doing this are the other countries, the US isnt the only one using then net. So shutting down sites on servers here will mean a shift in servers over to europe, or god forbid, india. So in essence, the US would lose "control" over the net if they were to do this.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Reply
#4
Quote:If that were to happen, it would have to be over a period of years. There is no way it will happen over night.
But the major problem with doing this are the other countries, the US isnt the only one using then net. So shutting down sites on servers here will mean a shift in servers over to europe, or god forbid, india. So in essence, the US would lose "control" over the net if they were to do this.

"Professor Tarius...if I understand you correctly, given that security concerns prevent you from being more explicit, you're saying The Web CAN'T be shut down???"

Tarius sank back in his chair, carefully placing his fingertips together,
"Think of it, Rauch...we have designed into this..."Machine"...human engrams. It will react to any such effort as an act of war. If it traces the origin to a specific nation, it may well counter-attack by attempting to shut down power grids feeding hostile computers."

"But that...that's science-fiction, like the movie...COLOSSUS, The Forbin Project!!!"
Reply
#5
Quote:
Quote:If that were to happen, it would have to be over a period of years. There is no way it will happen over night.
But the major problem with doing this are the other countries, the US isnt the only one using then net. So shutting down sites on servers here will mean a shift in servers over to europe, or god forbid, india. So in essence, the US would lose "control" over the net if they were to do this.

"Professor Tarius...if I understand you correctly, given that security concerns prevent you from being more explicit, you're saying The Web CAN'T be shut down???"

Tarius sank back in his chair, carefully placing his fingertips together,
"Think of it, Rauch...we have designed into this..."Machine"...human engrams. It will react to any such effort as an act of war. If it traces the origin to a specific nation, it may well counter-attack by attempting to shut down power grids feeding hostile computers."

"But that...that's science-fiction, like the movie...COLOSSUS, The Forbin Project!!!"

That was amusing, but not what I meant. I am saying that if the US goes after the net then it will shift over to across the atlantic. Unless all the countries agree to shut it down, its not going away completely.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Reply
#6
(heh-heh) Tarius...when I wrote that, I had just watched Dr. Strangelove.
Yes, Fail-Safe was conceived as an analog system relying on feedback, but the consequences were no less dire.
I think it has to do with a cascade chain reaction along key decision tree nodes.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)