Of course it all depends on what your definition of “emergency” is.
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency…
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”
This seems to be typical of Urkels’ administration. Make obtuse and ambiguous language part of laws and Exec powers so that he can make up its meaning as needed. Much like his campaign of “hope and change”.
Emperor Nero is at it again.
Well, I guess this is pretty transparent. Good God. They certainly don’t seem to be trying any longer to hide their Fascist agenda. Between this bill and the pro-Chavez FCC Diversity czar, Mark (Marx) Lloyd who will backdoor in the equivalent of the “Fairness Doctrine” I hope more people will wake up but it does make me wonder if this is more than just hubris; what do they already have going on that makes them so confident that they will be able to get away with this. Maybe we should all learn how to send smoke signals — that may be the only means of free communication left to us. Oh wait, I suppose the environmentalists would blame the smoke signals for global warming…
What a joke. Yeah, good luck with that, looks good on paper, but there is absolutely no technical way they could implement it. This is about a boatload of money going to some IT consulting firm in a big glass building parked along the DC beltway somewhere. It’s payback, that’s all.
This reminds me of the California Public Utilities Commission wanting to have the power to remotely control private home and businesses’ thermostats in an undefined “emergency.”
Senator McClintock proposed SB1491 to prohibit this, but it hasn’t been passed. WHY?
Oh right, there are freaks in CA that think that Daddy Government knows best. Remember what Barry said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXIvmJ8xenc
“We can’t tell [other countries], don’t grow. We can’t — drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country’s going to say OK.”
I don’t know about you.. but it’s been pretty hot in LA the last two days. My house was nice and comfy. Come try to control my thermostat. Dare ya.
No surprise here. The first thing you do in any National Socialist framework is to control speech.
They could just call it “The Internet Fairness Doctrine”.
This is just another step in the march toward total control and thought police. The emergency will be on-going. They will then allow snooping of your computer for unlawful content like music files from sharing websites, or “pornography” and finally as it allways does, it will end up on how many times you click on “right-wing” articles or websites or anything else they don’t like in your favorites list. If they decide your an enemy, with sophistocated cloning or “zombie” software they can go on line as you, download some really bad illegal stuff, and then “find” it on your computer. In the end we all look like creeps, sleazes and criminals when we’re rousted out of bed, tazed, and shoved in front of a mug-shot camera, don’t we?
This administration is drafting up laws like Nuremberg is back in style.
The White House is going to be about as clear on “cybersecurity emergencies” as it is on interrogating terrorists: “Uh, the CIA won’t be in charge of interrogations anymore—-it’ll be a multi-agency……..thing. We don’t really know which agency is going to be in charge—-or like, who’s actually going to run it or anything……..but, uh, we’re gonna do it and it’s gonna work just fine. And that cybersecurity thing—-we’ll do that the same way too. It’ll be cool. No worries.”
If I set aside my distrust of Obama, I might concede there’s a good reason to be prepared to cut Internet access in a certain kind of emergency. Cyber-attacks are a reality, and they are launched from virus-infected computers that act as zombie warriors, taking commands from whoever created the virus. So it’s a realistic scenario that a sudden attack would be launched from a million domestic civilian computers, and the only instant defense would be to cut the active nodes off the net. (Tammy mentioned the alternative defense of isolating the .gov and .mil sites, but that wouldn’t be technically feasible unless .gov and .mil had independent backbones, which I don’t think is the case.)
Maynard, I understand the thinking, but if the law is too vague and not specific enough, it could result in abuse. It reminds too much of a couple of things: 1. Star Wars pre-quels where the way the Emperor gained power was b/c of an “emergency” and 2. The first feature length X-Files movie where Martin Landau’s character explains to Mulder what FEMA is all about – the shutting down of the Constitution in case of a so-called “emergency”.
Why is this bill being introduced now? Hasn’t this always been a concern? In other words, I like to look at the whole picture and kind of “follow the money” to see where it leads.
It’s pretty difficult for me to put aside my distrust of Obama and his followers.
They’ll have to take my mouse and keyboard from my cold dead hands.
‘Doesn’t quite have that C.Heston ring to it.
The possibility that this administration might be able to effectively shut down free speech on the internet scares me more than anything else they are trying to do!!!! I recently listened to an audio-book copy of “1984” , and the idea that the White House might gain the ability to shut down our access to the internet sounds way too much like the Thought Police of Oceania. May God help us all if we ever let it come to that! It might just spark an armed revolution.
I waited years for Bush to take over the internet,but the guy just refused to fully embrace facism – finally, responsible one party control of all mass communication! Now who wants to take a wag at what the next Reichstag Fire will be?
As Reagan said, there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government program. Social Security was supposed to be temporary (and supplemental to private savings). Hosni Mubarak’s 29-year-old police state in Egypt exists on the legal basis of a “temporary” emergency declared when Sadat was assassinated. This couldn’t be much more blatant.