BE AFRAID. "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009": This will affect YOU.

Today, while trawling the web and looking for nothing in particular, I came across this rather terrifying piece of proposed U.S. legislation: The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.

This piece is quoted from ( http://www.tech-faq.com/blog/obama-seeks-power-to-shut-down-the-internet.html ).

"The bill, misleadingly titled “The Cybersecurity Act of 2009″, allows Obama to declare an emergency based upon no hard criteria. Once he declares this emergency, he can effectively shut down free speech on the Internet.

Jay Rockefeller, the bill’s sponsor, said “I know the threats we face. Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest.” Unfortunately, it looks like the threat which Jay is most worried about is free speech from Americans who do not approve of Obama’s plans to impose national socialism upon the citizens of the United States."

Now I'm not a U.S. national so I have no particular opinion of Obama's domestic policy, except to suggest that it surely can't be worse than that of the the previous administration. This, however, is bigger than domestic politics: this is an attempted coup of global proportion.
The arrogance of U.S. politicians (not U.S. people in general, you understand) is second to none (I know, I know...all politicians...but U.S. politicians are, well, lets just say "they tend to over react in ways that really spoil everybody's day. Everybody in the world."). One has to wonder if Mr. Obama is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. The full text of the bill is available here

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text

Section 2, paragraph 3 is....well.....surreal: it suggests the banks are vulnerable to cyber attacks and potential major disruption. Oh really? The BANKS? Oh, the irony. I didn't think the banks needed any help from cyber attackers to get themselves all fucked up.

You have to know that if Obama shut down the internet, when it rebooted it would not be the same. Anything not approved of by the U.S. govt would disappear, just like people do in North Korea or China. Insidious control and monitoring systems would be inserted during the down time. Sites that we love would be branded "subversive" or "threats to national security" purely because they don't tow the party line. Kristallnacht (look it up) will be upon us, all of us. Ya here that Seph? That's the sound of your servers getting smashed to pieces by the secret internet police......that's the sound of Loonylion weeping as they drag him off to some hellish internet gulag...well...you get my point.

Anyway my extended Romulation family, read the bill, read the views and if you care, share your view.
Think on this: it isn't that long since a certain Mr. B. Gates tried to steal the internet but was prevented by the European high court. Would Obama be any better qualified to control the internet than Gates? No, No and NO.
The internet belongs to us all and sooner or later we are going to have stand up and fight for it. Probably sooner. Bring it on.

 

You really think Section 2, Paragraph 3 is the problem (hint: it's not, and banks are still subject to human error in terms of cybersecurity)? Christ on a bicycle, did you actually read the bill at all? THIS is what has me worried:

Under these prerequisites, the proposed panel may include individuals who are under corporate influence (either directly or indirectly) or other entities which may have a vested interest in the delaying of cybersecurity mesures or the implementation of questionable measures. Also included may be people with little knowledge of the technology being used (in all likelihood the liberties people). Those are the only things that would make me worry if I was an American national - vested interests and idiots fucking stuff up or delaying.

What this bill is actually doing is proposing a standardised cybersecurity system for federal systems and critical economic institutions (banks, universities etc.) as well as the creation of a funding bracket for universities to develop simulations of cyber attacks and defensive measures, scholarships for talented future specialists, distribution of new cybersecurity software and a standardised certification for cybersecurity specialists.

Section 18, the part of the bill that is creating all the panic, isn't nearly as bad as you make out. It gives Obama the power to shut down CRITICAL areas of American-based infrastructure - so federal servers, banks and such - only when there is evidence of a national security breach in that area. An ISP may possibly come under that jurisdiction, but the strictures are so tight there would need to be some sort of massive hacking attack or the like. I quote from Section 18, Paragraph 2:

So privately-owned servers don't come under that, nor do networks based in countries that are not the US. Hence, RomU is not affected by this at all and loony gets to live free of jail until they find that hooker's body (don't worry loony, me and Reider hid it REAL well ).

tl;dr Don't panic, this bill is making sure people don't hack your government and/or bank account.

 

Ya, definitely not an issue. I can imagine it being fueled by anti-Obama politicians and pundits like Rush.

It might cause a small hiccup on the US networks if a big node got shut down due to it falling under the government umbrella, but I don't imagine it being anything big. I don't know enough about the US Network and all the ISPs and who owns what, but I imagine that many of the larger routes are owned and maintained by the big telecom companies like Charter, Comcast, etc.

 

I don't really find it scary at all.

My thoughts as well.

 

Why does this seem to be in some ways similar to that damn filter they're trying to bring in over here in Australia, the one they're hoping to implement at the ISP level in the hopes of "removing child pornography" and in turn banning any site that those who control the filter deem "inappropriate". This includes sites like eBay if they're caught selling hard copies of games rated R18+ (something we don't have because every Aussie over 15 is apparently a child molesting murderer waiting to happen).

With any luck though, our one won't get through, but in the case that it does, it looks like my backup plan of escaping to the U.S. might be a failure waiting to happen as well.

 

Good point well made Loonylion. You can't shut down the internet as such but you can shut down individuals, you can shut down isp's, you can confiscate equipment and you can, up to a point, prevent people from obtaining hardware without a government issued license: it amounts to much the same thing (in my view). How long will it be before you need a license to own or supply a server? The U.K. govt is currently looking at ways to "license" internet users and i fear this is just the tip of the iceberg. I know the origins of the internet from my uni (web design) days and I accept that "shutting down the internet" is at best simplistic or even crass as a proposition but, putting that aside for a mo, I think the core of my point is good despite being phrased a little over-dramatically. Control can be asserted in a variety of different ways and no ship is unsinkable.

As for the Chinese govt - I suspect they like to give their citizens just enough rope with which to hang themselves.

I will look at the U.K. c.c. act - I expect it follows along similar lines to the criminal justice act passed in the 1980's which is essentially "We, the government, can do whatever we like and you, the citizen, will do as you are told when you are told, and you will do it in groups of no larger than twelve people or you will be arrested for gathering illegally."
I expect with the civil contingencies act, you would be shot rather than arrested.

Martial law? Ya think? You think Gordon Brown would have the balls? Surely not. Loonylion, your level of paranoia is admirable. Kudos.

Suiseiseki that section doesn't worry me - I was just struck by the irony of banks being attacked by external forces when the biggest threat to them seems to be from self harm

 

It's not. Also, I heard 4chan was on that list. Sucks to be you guys.

First of all, they specified that only critical infrastructure could be shut down under this Act. ISPs aren't at any risk, minor server owners aren't at any risk, the private user isn't at any risk. I don't see this as a forerunner to any civil-rights-breaching bill, it's simply a measure to lower the threat of hackers by increasing federal data security. That is all.

Also, banks and other major corporations are at huge risk from external forces. I recently talked with a security consultant for BP's head office in regards to this, and he mentioned the huge number of attacks that occur on his systems every year, most targeted at phishing data from gullible employees. So in a way, it's kind of both, although I agree it's highly ironic. It's simply concerning for me that this large "force for security" will be (at least in part) answerable to a panel of people who may include those with vested interests.

 

This thing seems like something that a bunch of white-supremesist-Obama-haters would assssainate him over.

But I always thought the internet was basically computers connecting together. Doesn't seem like something that can be "shut down". And when you count all the other computers everywhere else in the world...

 

Well, the Chinese hasn't done such a good job keeping the internet and its oh-so-insecure-info (sarcasm) out of it's country. Let's see if the Obama administration can pull it off. I relish the challenge.

And for those that don't think private isp's will be affected (and I'm not trying to be mean here) let me pose a question:

What's to stop them and not call it an 'accident'? If anyone hasn't noticed, American politicians are notorious liers and thieves.

 

With all the professional hackers, engineers and techies I don't think they'd stand a chance at keeping this long term even if they did pull it off.

 

Quite ignorant, have you even bothered reading it, even the bits and pieces posted here?
It's not meant to act as a way to stop the public from getting info, it's merely a way to disconnect government systems from the internet if any major security breach happens.

You know the easiest way to keep a hacker out of a compromised system? Remove that system from the network completely.

If the government really did want to disconnect the public from the internet and then claim an "Accident" they wouldn't need a law to do so. They could just do it and then claim an accident. How paranoid do you people have to be...

 

He speaks the truth. They have could if they wanted to, I just think the gov is toying with us.

 

Im not afraid. Im livin' in a third world country and luvin' it! > the hell with cyber security.