|
Obama "internet kill switch" approved by Senate Panel
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ziptnf |
| quote: | A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.
Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.
The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.
Obama security review gets mixed reception
The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.
The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.
The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month.
"Our responsibility for cyber defence goes well beyond the public sector because so much of cyberspace is owned and operated by the private sector," he said. "The Department of Homeland Security has actually shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks like utilities and communications could bring our economy down for a period of time if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber terrorists."
Other sponsors of the bill are Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat.
One critic said Thursday that the bill will hurt the nation's security, not help it. Security products operate in a competitive market that works best without heavy government intervention, said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank.
"Policymakers should reject such proposals to centralize cyber security risk management," Crews said in an e-mail. "The Internet that will evolve if government can resort to a 'kill switch' will be vastly different from, and inferior to, the safer one that will emerge otherwise."
Cybersecurity technologies and services thrive on competition, he added. "The unmistakable tenor of the cybersecurity discussion today is that of government steering while the market rows," he said. "To be sure, law enforcement has a crucial role in punishing intrusions on private networks and infrastructure. But government must coexist with, rather than crowd out, private sector security technologies."
On Wednesday, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors. The bill gives the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered, the letter said.
Without a definition of critical infrastructure there are concerns that "it includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free speech and to access information," said the letter, signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups.
"Changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests," the letter added. |
Source: http://news.techworld.com/security/...senate/?olo=rss
I ing hate Lieberman, but the concept isn't so horrendous, especially in this age of instant information. This bill needs to be expanded upon, however, there aren't enough details, and I'm sure no Republicans will vote for it just because it's a Democratic congress. |
|
|
| atbell |
I understand where this is comming from but it sounds rather broad.
Protecting the electricity grid - excelent.
Shutting down twitter if being used to organize a riot - good.
Shutting down a server being used to criticize the administration - suspect.
Shutting down a server in another country - an act of aggression.
I was more concerned by Bush increasing presidential powers than Obama, but none of this is particularily good. The last thing that the world needs is for Palin to get in to office to find she's a dictator in all but title.
'don't retreat, reload' - thanks ms. palin. |
|
|
| atbell |
| PS. has anyone read the bill? I would but I don't have time really. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
Shutting down a server being used to criticize the administration - suspect.
Shutting down a server in another country - an act of aggression. |
Wait, what? Where did it say anywhere that Obama would shut down a server in another country? I'm pretty sure that Congress wouldn't allow that.
| quote: | I was more concerned by Bush increasing presidential powers than Obama, but none of this is particularily good. The last thing that the world needs is for Palin to get in to office to find she's a dictator in all but title.
'don't retreat, reload' - thanks ms. palin. |
You're out of your mind if you think Sarah Palin is going to be the president.
There won't and can't be a way to shut down the entire internet, all this bill is for is for shutting down critical sections of important networks in the administration's infrastructure. This means hardly anybody except stuff like the Department of Defense, The Pentagon, The White House, etc. It's good for Homeland Security, I really hope that you aren't denying the possibility of cyber-terrorism. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
PS. has anyone read the bill? I would but I don't have time really. |
I'm sure no one in the senate read it. |
|
|
| we_R_DNA |
QUICK LETS SHUT DOWN ALL OF THE INTERNET THAT ISN'T HELPING THE CORPORATIONS OUT AND THEN SUBSTITUE THAT WITH THE SAME COPY OF HTML EXCEPT IT HAS A CORPORATE NAME
QUICK LETS SHUT DOWN WIKILEAKS CAUSE THEY BE POSTIN LEGIT MATERIA
QUICK LETS SHUT THE AMERICAN MASSES OFF FROM THE REST OF THE FREEDOMS THAT DECENTRALIZED ACCESS TO INFORMATION HAS TO OFF
Pirate Party all the way!!! CONTROL OVER THAT WHICH NEVER NEEDED TO BE CONTROLLED
CONTROLLING THE internet when those who gain control do the same exact thing except make it mandatory to charge people money; the same people that print the money |
|
|
| trancypantzzz |
| would suck if you were in teh middle of jerking during the massive riot |
|
|
|
|
