Should Obama control the Internet
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.
Obama would never shut down the Internet. Most of the world’s traffic flows through the US. Obama cares too much about kissing Europe’s behind to piss them off like that. This would probably be used for silencing political opponents by shutting down anti-Obama websites.
He won’t cut off the USA, but this bill also allows him to shut down any organization he doesn’t like and access any data without any legal limitations.
These people have absolutely lost their minds.
Should Obama control the Internet
I think the question is: what is the government’s role in protecting “the internet”? For instance, if an enemy country is known to be launching a series of attacks that could disrupt communications within the U.S., should the government have a security/military role in taking action to stop it.
I think the government must have a role in protecting the country’s communication lines, whether it is from a physical bomb, a (fictitious) “super-magneto non-contact disruptive device”, or disruptive software.
Nick is right: it’s like the new Patriot act in this sense: the broad object is legitimate. However, the solution should not be to give the government whatever powers it thinks fit.
Power grab, the attack on Tax Havens seems more like an attempt to stifle laissez faire capitalism forever.
For instance, if an enemy country is known to be launching a series of attacks that could disrupt communications within the U.S., should the government have a security/military role in taking action to stop it.
You can’t fault me for being skeptical. The bill conveniently lacks the necessary restricting definitions.
I think the question is: what is the government’s role in protecting “the internet”? For instance, if an enemy country is known to be launching a series of attacks that could disrupt communications within the U.S., should the government have a security/military role in taking action to stop it.
Of course it does. It should send the Armed Forces to deal with such threats. But you don’t stop an attack on the Internet by shutting it down.
Think about a law that would give govenrment the power to shut down the freeways if someone threatened to block them.
Obama would never shut down the Internet. Most of the world’s traffic flows through the US. Obama cares too much about kissing Europe’s behind to piss them off like that. This would probably be used for silencing political opponents by shutting down anti-Obama websites.
I think we should wait and let him “make it perfectly clear”
Once again, acts by congress to give the President more power, and allowing him to define and set the terms of that power. That’s the modus operandi of congress these days, it seems. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the concept of the bill, but I think the definitions and limits should be set by the congress, before it’s passed, not to be set by the President whenever he so chooses to do so.
But you don’t stop an attack on the Internet by shutting it down.
Sure you might.
Think about a law that would give govenrment the power to shut down the freeways if someone threatened to block them.
If some type of zombie traffic was suddenly coming off route 260A and jamming up a critical bridge into NYC, one might want to stop all traffic from that route. The president probably has the power to do that today, so this bill is not much different.
The notion that the President will cut off anti-Obama sites is fear-mongering. This draft bill allows the President to act only if he declares that the US infrastructure is under attack – something like a mini war-declaration. Also, it authorizes him to act against infrastructure that is compromised or that can compromise critical infrastructure.
I suspect that the real negatives from this bill will come from the bulk of its provisions, not from the emergency provision. The bulk of the bill is about setting up a government body to plan for and reduce the chances of a cyber-attack. I’d like to see Mother Jones objecting to some of the details under that: for instance the 1000 “scholarships-for-service” given to students who will work in cyber-security. Another big negative will come in the way of government-imposed software standards: which will likely have the equivalent of what Sarbane-Oxley have in the accounting realm.
I’m not sure if people realize the seriousness of the threat here. Imagine, enemy saboteurs blowing up a few bridges and tunnels to stop the flow of food and goods into NYC. Well, if one could take down certain key information systems in places far away from NYC (one would need to know which ones), one could have a similar impact. You could have a situation where supplier’s systems that decide what to send to NYC and when stop functioning. Today, many of these systems are very distributed (e.g. data from shop flows to HQ, consolidated data from there flows to servicing bureau across the country, new orders calculated there flow to various vendors across the country, various information flows to transportation and logistics providers). Many of these connections rely on the internet being functional, in order to work. Falling back to more manual alternatives is possible, but will be disruptive: visualize the Taggart terminal when the signaling system failed and they went to manual.
We’ve seen examples where credit card transactions were paused for a day in some far-eastern countries. We have an internet that sees certain government-controlled entities as being trustworthy, which once led to a huge amount of traffic being routed to Pakistan (I think it was Amazon traffic), because of a mistake by someone there. A few times in the past couple of years, fishing trawlers and such have cut some cable in the sea, slowing down traffic to India (some US-based systems increasing rely on links to India being up and running). These were accidents, but if an enemy planned well, they could do damage that was a little more disruptive.
Of course, none of this means that this bill ought to pass in the form it is currently written. The bulk of the bill is about preparing and preventing such an emergency. As expected, this goes over the top in allowing the government to dictate standards. In the emergency provisions arena, what the bill needs is clearer definitions of the nature of an emergency, the nature of “critical infrastructure”, limitations on the duration of such emergency, mechanism to challenge the government’s declaration, and some type of Congressional oversight (e.g. confirmation of a state of war, within a certain period).
I would think that software standards/uniformity would have a negative effect on security and possibly security innovation and thus overall industry standard (because if it not feasible for everyone - it would not be approved and implemented). Also it relieves private sector from assuming the responsibility for adequate level of internet security - as long as government body approved it - they are fine. (we have seen what this approach of dictating “standards” has done to the banking industry).
Also, this legislation, under the umbrella of free-exchange of information about vulnerability gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to access “all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.”
Shutting down of the entire system is probably rather unlikely and if it happened it would only be temporary (least of my worries). But this is about control and it is an illusion that the government makes things more safe via such regulation. Security crisis, under this set up, is just a matter of time.
I agree with this opinion:
… misconceives the nature of Internet-based threats and the best way to respond to them. The bill succumbs to the tendency to take a national, hierarchical and centralized approach to problems that are best met through the organic evolution of decentralized, flexible, adaptive and transnational, private sector-based cooperative solutions that leverage the peer production capabilities of the Internet.
… creating a centralized advisory panel and empowering the President with emergency powers does little to address problems such as botnets and viruses, which rely on the dispersion and decentralisation of ICTs. That battle will really be fought in the marketplace by firms offering security products and services and by ICT professionals in Internet service providers and at the organizational and agency level.
I agree with this opinion:
Sophia, I don’t support this bill.
However, the criticism (by some posters – not you) that this is somehow an Obama bill to stop anti-Obama sites is scare-mongering. It is extremely unlikely that Obama will ever get to use this bill to restrict web traffic for political reasons. That’s not how these things work. One gives in on the principle, but usually takes a few years before the notion of national security can be expanded within the domain (the internet, in this case).
Yes, political and anti-privacy usages are a threat in this bill, in principle. Therefore, they ought to be fought. However, this is not the primary threat in a bill like this.
Your criticism about the bill grossly overstepping authority is correct. That should be the primary criticism of this bill; and, it should be made in the context where we recognize that the government does have a certain (clearly delimited) military interest in the issue. Most of what the government needs to do is threat-assessment, planning of responses to potential threats, and some liaison/publicity with non-governmental entities. In addition, the government ought to have powers to declare certain types of emergencies (well-defined and with oversight) and take certain actions in those conditions. Such actions may well include ordering some people cut off from the net.
My concern is that it is wide open for abuse, regardless of who wields power. It violates the very spirit of our founding.
I think the question is: what is the government’s role in protecting “the internet”? For instance, if an enemy country is known to be launching a series of attacks that could disrupt communications within the U.S., should the government have a security/military role in taking action to stop it.
I think the government must have a role in protecting the country’s communication lines, whether it is from a physical bomb, a (fictitious) “super-magneto non-contact disruptive device”, or disruptive software.
Nick is right: it’s like the new Patriot act in this sense: the broad object is legitimate. However, the solution should not be to give the government whatever powers it thinks fit.
If some type of zombie traffic was suddenly coming off route 260A and jamming up a critical bridge into NYC, one might want to stop all traffic from that route. The president probably has the power to do that today, so this bill is not much different.
I think I’m missing something here, because it sounds like you are suggesting the government has some role in regulating the internet rather than simply responding to threats on the internet.
I think I’m completely against this bill to give the government the power to shut down the Internet as it is proposed in a news story. At this point, the Internet is a bastion of free speech, and I don’t think we ought to give the government any powers over that, with the excuse that some maniac might come up with a virus that will destroy the entire network. I think fighting things like computer viruses and other hazards are best left in the hands of the private companies running the Internet, and I think the only powers the government ought to have in that regard is to track down those virus makers and throw them in jail for destroying private property. My fear is that once the government has an in regarding usage of the Internet, that will expand until one has to get government approval before posting anything onto the Internet. Besides, the article also talked about the government setting protocol standards, which I think are now handled quite well with private companies.
Comparing the issue to the government having the power to shut down roads is a non sequiter, as our roads are not privately owned and operated. Under capitalism, the government would only have the power to crack down on the initiation of force (which the virus makers are doing), but the government would not have the power to tell you not to go onto the Internet because there might be hazards. Besides, in an emergency, I want total access to the Internet as a news source, as it has been shown to be more reliable than conventional news sources during times of crises.
I think the bill is filled with potential abuse regarding the Internet, and we ought to tell the government to keep their hands off it!
I think this news story about cybersecurity regarding our military establishment is a legitimate use of the government to ward off threats to our national security. If they can find an effective way of warding off intelligence piracy and other cyber attacks to our military establishment, that would be good.
Obama would never shut down the Internet. Most of the world’s traffic flows through the US. Obama cares too much about kissing Europe’s behind to piss them off like that. This would probably be used for silencing political opponents by shutting down anti-Obama websites.
Um, gee folks, that’d be us.
Or to quote an old song: “The safety you have demanded is now mandatory. Shut up! Be happy!”
<Φ>aj
Of course it does. It should send the Armed Forces to deal with such threats. But you don’t stop an attack on the Internet by shutting it down.
Think about a law that would give govenrment the power to shut down the freeways if someone threatened to block them.
Just out of curiosity…how exactly do you propose that the military is going to deal with a cyberattack? Are they going to blow up the internet?