New CyberSecurity Bill Raises Privacy Questions 319
Nicolas Dawson points out coverage in Mother Jones of the early stages of a new cybersecurity bill that conveys sweeping powers on the President. Quoting: "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to 'declare a cybersecurity emergency' and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any 'critical' information network 'in the interest of national security.' The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president. The bill ... also grants the Secretary of Commerce 'access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.' This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws."
A whole bunch of bad ideas (Score:3, Informative)
The headlined tyranny is only the start of the ugliness with this bill. The first part smells heavily of pig product, but it gets worse.
Some lowlights:
Section 5 introduces a 747-load of red tape related to "cybersecurity standards" for anyone doing business with the Federal Government.
Section 6 goes beyond that and introduces some requirements for "private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks". Which, if I'm reading it right, means the Feds get to dictate to e.g. Google (assuming someone classifies Google as critical) how they set up their networks and what software they run on it.
Section 7 introduces a federal license for a "provider of cybersecurity services". All contractors and employees providing "cybersecurity services" on any Federal or designated network would be required to have these. Want to install antivirus software on some "critical" network? Sorry dude, need a license. *shudder*
Not introduced to Senate [STAFF WORKING DRAFT] (Score:5, Informative)
Not to rain on anybody's paranoia parade (OK, yes I am) but this is a [STAFF WORKING DRAFT] and has not been introduced to the Senate. It doesn't even have any sponsors. You won't find it on THOMAS, nor in the list of active legislation posted to senate.gov.
Re:LMAO @ "Liberal Fascists" (Score:3, Informative)
Do you even read what you post? From your own wikipedia link: "Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all."
Re:Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that (Score:4, Informative)
Google News currently links to 43 related stories [google.co.uk].
Here's the WSJ [wsj.com]'s take.
Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously....those that voted for "O" and were adament supporters. Is THIS the change you were wanting?
Did you even read the article? The bill was introduced by a Democrat and a Republican. Obama was not involved.
Re:LMAO @ "Liberal Fascists" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wow (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not introduced to Senate [STAFF WORKING DRAFT] (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. This bill was introduced April 1st as S.778 to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
THOMAS link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:10:./temp/~bdcFpU [loc.gov]::|/bss/|
Here's Rockefeller's press release: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=311060& [senate.gov]
Run, don't walk, to call your senators.
Re:Sounds familiar (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is.
Yet it is also an old tactic, documented as far back as 656 A.D.[1]
More insane politics have probably happened by way of "waving the bloody shirt" [wikipedia.org] than any other tactic.
[1] From the above wiki link:
The term "bloody shirt" can be traced back to the aftermath of the murder of the third Caliph, Uthman in 656 AD, when a bloody shirt and some hair alleged to be from his beard were used in what is widely regarded as a cynical ploy to gain support for revenge against opponents.