LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER!
Will bill give Obama control of Internet? Proposed new powers called 'drastic federal intervention'
By Drew Zahn
2009 WorldNetDaily
> Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller, D-W.V.
> A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White
> House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the
> cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a
> declared "cyber emergency."
> Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-
> W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of
> 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity
> Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with
> defending the country from cyber attack.
> A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy
> group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access
> to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to
> the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law,
> regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."
> Who might be watching you without you knowing it? Get "Spychips" and
> see how major corporations and government are planning to track your
> every move!
> Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the
> alarm over the act's broadly drawn government powers.
> "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, president of
> the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S. 773, "but such a drastic federal intervention in private
> communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."
> "The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an
> Internet and print news source on technology issues. "I don't like the
> chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over
> generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this
> authority by putting it in the direct control of the president."
> According to a Senate document explaining the bill, the legislation
> "addresses our country's unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber
> crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our
> critical infrastructure."
> In a statement explaining the bill's introduction, Sen. Rockefeller
> said, "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from
> our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and
> electronic health records – the list goes on."
> Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill, added, "If
> we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
> Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe
> propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional
> bounds:
> First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor,
> shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure"
> networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and
> health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate – if they are
> found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill,
> however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency,
> and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the
> president.
> Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the
> clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information,"
> including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part
> of the "critical infrastructure."
> Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional
> licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity
> professional.
> And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they
> object to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of
> government power.
> "There are some problems that we face which need the weight of
> government behind them," writes Seltzer in eWeek. "This is not the
> same as creating a new federal bureaucracy setting rules over what
> computer security has to be and who can do it."
> "It's an incredibly broad authority," CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim
> told the Mother Jones news website, troubled that existing privacy
> laws "could fall to this authority."
> Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is "contrary to what the
> Constitution promises us."
> According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of
> the "critical" networks, such as banking records, would grant the
> government access to potentially incriminating information obtained
> without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution's
> prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.
> "What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided
> are 'banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control,
> telecommunications.' Let's think about this," writes Seltzer. "I'm
> especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks
> off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is
> comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about
> going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash."
> S. 778, which would establish the Office of the National Security
> Advisor, and S. 773, which provides for developing a cadre of
> governmental cybersecurity specialists and procedures, have both been read twice and referred to committee in the Senate.
---------------------
So y'all - how does this grab ya? Hope y'all will be happy with this legislation unless you let your congressmen and senators to torpedo these bills!!
Hattie!
Home 
