The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 Passes Senate Panel 367
An anonymous reader writes "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel, giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval. The bill, written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV] and revised by Sen. Olympia Snow [R-ME], was drafted in an attempt to thwart internet-based terrorist threats, and gives the president this 'kill switch' without oversight or explanation. The bill is up for Senate vote."
Uh huh, terrororists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh huh, terrororists (Score:5, Insightful)
Better than the alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch? You're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting > 90% of the economy, making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people, and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society. The damage would be severe and significant and I just can't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good.
Bye, bye freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh huh, terrororists (Score:3, Insightful)
This does explain the sudden rise in the number of times that bullshit term "cyberwar" has been turning up in headlines.
Oh and those designed-to-fail excercises where they put a few doddering old politicians in a room and had them defend against a fictional cyberattack which they of course couldn't handle.
They've got to pretend there's a real war/threat to get people to hand over power.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Re:Better than the alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch? You're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting > 90% of the economy, making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people, and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society. The damage would be severe and significant and I just can't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good.
Depends on who the "better" is for. I know if I was in the government and the people were trying to over-through me and my cohorts that the ability to stop all the communications networks they're likely to use (internet + cellphones) would be very useful in preventing anything coordinated.
Need to have a fast method if needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but.. (Score:1, Insightful)
How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?
is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?
Re:Better than the alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on your definition of "harm" and "good". An revolt with widespread popular support by a significant minority or even majority of citizens could require the internet to be shut down to prevent the people from organizing to rally against an oppressive regime. It worked out pretty well for Iran.
Control (Score:2, Insightful)
He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing
Re:Bye, bye freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James Madison
Dangerous and disturbing this is (Score:4, Insightful)
This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason. IMHO, this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way. Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last? Oh, yeah, Hugo Chavez. Oh yeah. the Chinese government. Oh yeah, the Iranian government. Oh yeah, the Burmese government (scuse me Miranmar). If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power, this will do the same in the other direction. "Oh, but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias (that nobody ever heard of until now)." Yeah, keep thinking that. Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power?
Re:It's ok people (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws like these tend to have a long life. Who in their sane mind would give that out of his hand again? Once granted, it will stay. Even if you eventually get someone that makes Dubja look like Mahatma Ghandi.
To avoid Godwin, I'll pull a Dollfuß [wikipedia.org]. He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich. Think of him as Mini-Hitler. He ruled with a law from the first world war that allowed the administration to make laws without oversight in case of "need". He simply declared the perpetual "need" and thus circumvented the government.
Once such power is granted, it will not go away. And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.
Oh shut up. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is no different then the presidents power to issue martial law.
Even during the most oppressive moments of our government, martial law has never been declared.
NO one s on the no fly lists for 'no reason'. Some people are mistakenly put on it. HOWEVER no fly lists are far worse then this; they assume guilt and punish innocent people.
2 different things.
And no, this doesn't have anything to do with Obama. Nice try.
Re:Dangerous and disturbing this is (Score:3, Insightful)
Those of us who have heard of the Hutaree before are scratching our heads.
Yeah, they're extreme, but they're also committed. If they were as dangerous as they are made out to be now, don't you think one of them would have started shooting by now?
They don't know WTF is going on either. I find that far scarier than a "criminal militia".
Re:Uh huh, terrororists (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this really what the bill is about? My assumption is that this is intended to give the President the authority to shut down botnet controllers during DDoS attacks. Waiting for the courts in such a scenario is unreasonable. The police can immediately respond to a crime in progress; this would make something similar possible in a botnet/DDoS scenario.
As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement) I don't see any issue with this thing.
Re:Oh shut up. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, too bad Obama publicly stated he wanted this. He also publicly stated that he wants a federal police force that answers only to him. Besides, since people think Bush was so evil, why didn't he do this? He certainly had enough time and a congressional majority to do it.
The difference between martial law and this is that martial law takes a lot of time and manpower to implement on a national scale. This takes a few hours.
And martial law violates Posse Comitatus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act [wikipedia.org]
I'm sure this cybersecurity thing does too. Communications lines aren't federal property.
Re:Bye, bye freedom... (Score:3, Insightful)
First step? Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures. When they have to actually represent the States they have come from and not their own self-interests (who *really* pays attention to what they did 5 years ago at election time), then some of the dumber legislation items might die on the vine.
Ain't saying its perfect, but we gotta start someplace.
Re:Need to have a fast method if needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:STFU (Score:4, Insightful)
While US did create ARPA in the 50's for military use, most of how Internet is used now a day has been actually created in Europe. US got the ball rolling, Europe polished and finished it.
On 6 August 1991, CERN, a pan European organization for particle research, publicized the new World Wide Web project. The Web was invented by British scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.
Same goes for almost every other major protocol and technology.
Re:Where are the technical people on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?
This bill is not about a kill switch.
From the summary:
...giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval.
Giving a strong legal power (such as power to shut off the internet in an emergency) makes it much easier to control individual websites.
A few years ago, during the big debates on the legality of wire-tapping and torture, many of the counter arguments ran along the lines that the president was within his legal rights because of similar and more massive powers he had during "emergencies" or "war time". And those arguments worked.
No one cares about the practicality of a kill switch, least of all the politicians intelligent enough to understand the bill. A kill switch is not the main goal.
Re:STFU (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet is an invention of the USA, so why shouldn't we have control over it, you eurotrash piece of shit?
DARPA created the Internet, so why shouldn't they have control over it?
More to the point, a very small number of individuals at DARPA created the Internet, so why shouldn't they have control over it?
In fact, only some PARTS of those individuals created the Internet, so why shouldn't those parts have control over it?
But wait, HUMANS created the Internet, so why shouldn't we all have control over it?
Why exactly are you picking one particular level of abstraction out of the infinite multitude of possible ones and declaring that it is the only one that we should all pay attention to? What makes the nation-state your entity-of-choice with regard to causal efficacy and moral supremacy? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Re:Uh huh, terrororists (Score:3, Insightful)
The current means of court intervention, tort, does take weeks, actually.
Controlling a DDoS is a crime in progress, actually.
So you are incorrect on both counts, actually.
Actually.
Re:Dangerous and disturbing this is (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you forgetting Oklahoma City? Are you forgetting Atlanta? Are you forgetting the abortion clinic bombings? Are you forgetting the return of lynchings, hangings and church bombings in the south?
Re:Subject to court oversight (Score:3, Insightful)
1984 - a little late (Score:3, Insightful)
they're not as bad as the last administration, right?
Do as I say, not as I do. Bush BAD, BO GOOD.
Re:Obama certainly deserves criticism here, but.. (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Bye, bye freedom... (Score:2, Insightful)
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James Madison
A better quote would be Franklin imho, and I'm paraphrasing here, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re:Not so terrible (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh huh, terrororists (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm talking about USING the legal system as a check. The check being that they need to get a warrant or something similar from a court before pulling any sort of kill switch if by some chance this makes it into reality.
Re:It's ok people (Score:3, Insightful)
hahahaha. Nice rose-colored reading glasses you have there.
Since when has it been any different? The people with money and connections have always wielded the most power and influence. This was as true, if not more so, in the 1820s as in today. Only the availability of cheap land in the west made the 1820s possibly more egalitarian than today.
The power structure has never changed. If you think that two hundred years ago we had some utopia of equality, even among white males, you're sorely misinformed.
Re:Dangerous and disturbing this is (Score:3, Insightful)
None of these were militias. And lest we not forget that it was southern Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights legislation.