Sen. Bond Disses Internet 'Kill Switch' Bill 171
GovTechGuy writes "Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) has introduced his own cybersecurity legislation with Sen. Orrin Hatch, and he had some harsh words for a competing bill sponsored by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. Bond said that bill, which has been criticized for allegedly giving the president a 'kill switch' over the Internet, weighs down the private sector with mandates and puts too much on the plate of the already overburdened Department of Homeland Security. Sen. Bond's bill would create a new position in the Pentagon, reporting directly to the president, in charge of coordinating all civilian cybersecurity. Any private-sector involvement would be voluntary and free from legal challenge, rather than mandated."
Princes of Darkness (Score:5, Informative)
No good news here. Bond's concerns about a cyber security bill can only mean he feels it isn't harsh enough. If he's in league with copyright's Prince of Darkness Orrin Hatch, who not too long ago wanted to scan all PCs warrantlessly and without judicial oversight automatically destroy those found with "unauthorized content" (read: entertainment), it shouldn't take too much in the way of imagination to predict his response to information he defines as threats to security.
- js.
Re:How about this... (Score:4, Informative)
Our energy sector is insanely regulated also. The BP oil spill wasn't caused because of deregulation but because the morons "we" elected to congress thought it was a good idea to artificially cap liability.
Likewise, the problem we've had with the net is a lack of regulation rather than too much of it.
So what are these problems with the internet that are because of a lack of regulation that will magically become better with regulation? In almost every single case regulation simply leads to corporations screwing the public even more because they can game them and the public losing in higher prices and less choice because it makes it harder to start up a business or to compete with established companies.
The firms like MS and the ISPs that do very little to curtail the soft targets aren't going to get better knowing that they'll face even less regulation.
MS pretty much lives on the regulation we call software patents and copyright. ISPs got the way they did by screwing the public by taking money to provide internet access and then unilaterally changing the definition of the internet to their own interests.
We don't need regulation there, we need sane patent reform, we need a return of sane copyright, we need a correct definition of internet, we need to end all public handouts to businesses, etc.
When consumers have choice they will be more effective than "regulation" ever will be. The problem is regulation almost always reduces chocie.
Re:How about this... (Score:3, Informative)
Likewise, energy companies haven't gotten the message that they're being regulated. The recent BP debacle is hardly the only major accident in recent years due to a lack of care. There was the on down in Texas and one up here in WA, and those aren't the only ones. They also charge us more for gas in Seattle than they do in pretty much any other part of the state, even though the only reason is that they're not being told that they can't do it.
As for MS, they've seen some regulation granted, but it's obviously not enough, they're still engaging in unsafe practices like that patch Tuesday bullshit and pretending like vulnerabilities don't exist.
But, yes, clearly they're being regulated enough, right?
Re:How about this... (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, around NYC, I would rank them as USPS > UPS > FedEx, and in Silicon Valley, FedEx > USPS > UPS . The libertarian idea that USPS is a failure usually comes from people that have never actually used it. I ship and receive about 90 packages per week so by now I would know...
Re:it swings both ways (Score:4, Informative)
If "conservatives" believe the intent of the Constitution is as it's stated, then why did the five-member conservative majority in SCOTUS just give corporations free speech rights superior to those of actual human beings? Ever since Justice Alito changed the court to a five to four conservative majority, the Supreme Court has become increasingly activist, striking down key laws that limit the power of corporations, government executives, and well-heeled criminals (the less well-off criminals still get the shaft, though).
One of the reasons we've got to be really careful about any sort of "internet kill switch" bill is, even if the legislature makes it voluntary, the newly activist conservatives in the Supreme Court are sure to take the "voluntary" part out, if they can.
Re:How about this... (Score:3, Informative)
Its a rarity if government regulation actually helps
Bullshit. I'm sure you're too young to remember, but before the EPA, the US's air and water were filthy, particularly near factories. Since the Clean Air Act you can actually drive past a Monsanto with the windows down and not burn your lungs, and eat fish from formerly poisoned lakes.
Before OSHA my grandfather fell four stories down an elevator shaft because Purina was too cheap to install doors on the elevator. There are now regulations against this sort of negligent homicide. I'm sure Purina's stockholders don't like these regulations much, valuing money over human life.
Before the FDA they could sell you any kind of snake oil, whether it helped or was even harmful. I think the FDA's regulations should be tightened and there should be more inspections; Subway just poisoned a bunch of people in Illinois a month or so ago, and there was the filthy peanut factory (whose owner is now in jail iirc) that poisoned so many people last year and caused dozens of other companies to recall product.
When California deregulated the power companies, the result was blackouts and brownouts.
And monopolies should ALWAYS be regulated, and tightly so. Comcast is my only "choice" for high speed internet, should they decide to block or slow certain sites there's nothing I can do about it; there is no free market for high speed internet access here, and to call for non-regulation of this monopoly is just plain stupid. Net neutrality regulations are sorely needed.
While you're at it, why not remove those regulations against burglary and armed robbery as well? Afetr all, government regulations always make matters worse, right?