Should Obama Control the Internet?

[Count Chocula]

okay, back for the rest of this thing.

So, what will this cost? What's the source of the funding? I dunno about the source of the $$$, since it's not stipulated. Here are the FY2010 estimated costs; others are at the link:

• NSF Grants: $150,000,000
• Centers: $ 50,000,000
• Buildings: $ 40,000,000
• Tech grants:$ 5,000,000
• Training: $ 20,000,000
• Scholarships:$ 50,000,000

Total for FY2010: $315,000,000. Chump change compared to the overall FY2010 budget $3.5 trillion or so. In an unintentional(?) bit of synchronicity, the budgeting for S.773 is on a Five Year Plan (trademark USSR). Odd, that.

Is any of this shit legal? Can we get away with it? FUCK IT, WE'LL DO IT LIVE! (from Elfdart)

a) IN GENERAL- Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President's designee, through an appropriate entity, shall complete a comprehensive review of the Federal statutory and legal framework applicable to cyber-related activities in the United States, including--
(1) the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 2000aa);
(2) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2510 note);
(3) the Computer Security Act of 1987 (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.; 40 U.S.C. 759);
(4) the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3531 et seq.);
(5) the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 9501 et seq.);
(6) the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.);
(7) any other Federal law bearing upon cyber-related activities; and
(8) any applicable Executive Order or agency rule, regulation, guideline.

So this shit goes live for a full year before any verdict is reached on its legality? What. The. Fuck? Shouldn't this shit be vetted for legality BEFORE it goes to a vote? I guess it doesn't matter, or as Darth Sidious said:

"I will make it legal."

Then we get to section 17, the "Authentication and Civil Liberties Report" which in actuality has fuck-all to do with civil liberties:

Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President's designee, shall review, and report to Congress, on the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program, with the appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections, for government and critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

Bye-bye anonymous logins on any government or "critical infrastructure" network! Hey, maybe that will cut down on government workers browsing for porn!

One of the Findings at the beginning of the bill cited foreign espionage as a reason for this bill's need. Logically, that would mean we should take action to keep foreign entities out of our government and "critical infrastructure" networks, right? WRONG!

The President shall--
(1) work with representatives of foreign governments--
(A) to develop norms, organizations, and other cooperative activities for international engagement to improve cybersecurity; and
(B) to encourage international cooperation in improving cybersecurity on a global basis; and
(2) provide an annual report to the Congress on the progress of international initiatives undertaken pursuant to subparagraph (A).

Which foreign governments? The Israelis, who had a spy in the CIA (Pollard)? The Chinese, our Most Favored Nation trading partners, who do this all the time? France? Germany? South Korea? Japan? Gee whiz, why aren't the nations conducting espionage against US firms named in this bill? Is it because they're "allies" of the USA? A puzzle indeed.

Now, earlier in the thread Darth Wong asked:

For the second time, show us the part where it says Obama can shut down the Internet and take information from any private network at will. Is English not your first language or something? Do you not understand a simple request of that nature?

Here it is:

The President--....
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

My initial impression that the Commerce Secretary would have carte blanche to snoop at will looks like it was wrong, and I'm more than okay with that. However, it's pretty fucking clear that the President can order the shutdown of pretty much ANY GOVERNMENT OR "CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE" network he wants, based on criteria and input that are defined by nobody but himself. Please note that I don't think Obama would do that on a whim, but as written that dictatorial authority exists. And there's no sunset clause, so any powers granted to Obama would accrue to future Presidents. I have T-Mobile as my only phone, and RoadRunner as my Internet/cable service; theoretically, I and everyone else on those networks could be cut off from external access at a word from Washington. Bam! No two-way communication and we are fuckee-fuckeed. About the only thing not included in this bill is the ability to control AM and FM or satellite radio transmissions (unless they're designated critical infrastructure).

And finally, we get to a few definitions, such as the answer to "what the flying fucking monkey fart is a critical infrastructure information system and network?" And at long last, all is made clear:

The term `Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks' includes--
(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and
(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

Well alrighty then! I guess by this criteria Pasco County's Web site is critical infrastructure, since "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf lives in Dade City and may be called on to serve again! Or perhaps Hillsborough County, home to MacDill Air Force Base and CENTCOM, is critical! In a "cyber-Katrina" event maybe Bright House should just shut down to prevent dastardly access to Central Command's servers!

Frankly, this bill as it stands is simply breathtaking in its reach, scope and dictatorial authority, placed in the hands of one man. In scope, this is as far-reaching as the reviled Patriot Act but with more far-reaching ramifications in its ability to cut off access to information to wide swaths of the American populace.

I don't need calculus to figure this equation: Patriot Act + Cybersecurity Act = 1984 (if both are implemented to their full potential). If Obama signs this bill as it stands (assuming it passes the House unaltered), he'll be a one-term President, and the Congress and Senate will see unprecedented turnover in the next elections.

[Lord MJ]

I work in the cyber security field, and this is not surprising given how vulnerable cyber networks are to attack and exploitation, this legislation is not as bad as it sounds but it does have a lot of room for abuse.

Most of the proposals involving cybersecurity do mention that mechanisms must be put in place to ensure the protection of civil liberties. I haven't read the full text of the law, but isn't there a provision for a civil liberties review board?

Also the list of critical infrastructures has been defined by the government agencies (mainly DHS). A search on google can reveal the list. I believe that what is a critical infrastructure was defined before the agencies even began to consider the cyber impacts on those networks. So in general the government defines a physical infrastructure such as transportation systems and energy systems, defense systems (and their suppliers) as Critical Infrastructure. Whatever cyber networks supports those infrastructures is what the bill is targeting.

[Count Chocula]

That makes me feel a little bit better. This may be a bad example, but the Patriot Act has all sorts of potential for abuse, which so far (from my perspective as Joe Average anyway) has not happened. It's the PA's potential, and this bill's potential, that bothers me.

To your question of the civil liberties review board: it only takes effect after the bill has been law for one year, and then is reviewed for civilians against established legislation or regulation. The civil liberties impact on Federal or "critical infrastructure" (I'm coming to hate that phrase) workers is designated in the same time frame, but separate from established laws or regulations.

Also the list of critical infrastructures has been defined by the government agencies (mainly DHS). A search on google can reveal the list.

If I'm following your post correctly, the physical infrastructure was addressed by The Homeland Security Act of 2002, correct? If I'm correct, is this as you asserted the "soft" side of the "hard" act of 2002? I don't know if Jay Rockefeller or Olympia Snow were in the loop on this in 2002, so I'm asking out of ignorance.

[Lord MJ]

If I'm correct, is this as you asserted the "soft" side of the "hard" act of 2002? I don't know if Jay Rockefeller or Olympia Snow were in the loop on this in 2002, so I'm asking out of ignorance.

I think the initial list was defined a lot earlier than that, in 1996 with Executive Order 13010 I believe, but most categories have been added since then, I'll have to do research to make sure.

[Prannon]

Just to throw my two cents in, I want to encourage everyone not to freak out about such a bill until it is out of committee. Most bills that are submitted to Congress never make it out of the committee where they originate, so think of it as a kind of filter for bad ideas that often get floated around. Then it has to go through the floor process. It has to be scheduled for a vote by the various leaders of the chamber and their scheduling committees, and then both chambers actually have to pass it. Then the president has to sign it or veto it, and vetos are harder to override than one might think. There are many, many filters and obstacles that this bill will have to overcome before I'd even begin worrying about it.

I only browsed through this thread, so forgive me if I'm missing vital points, but I did see that no major actions have been taken on this bill yet, not even in committee. In fact, when Chocula started this thread, the text for the bill was still incomplete. It's barely even off the ground and people are freaking out about it? Not to mention Lord MJ's reassurances that this bill targets cyber-security for vital infrastructure.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

[Lord MJ]

When referring to "reassurances" I'm mentioning that the intent of this law is not anything sinister and actually addresses some critical needs.

The potential for abuse is very real and can be exploited by less than ethical parties in the government. Hopefully those loose ends can be shored up.

You can't really fault Obama for pushing a cybersecurity law, and I am uncertain if at this stage of the game he has even read the full text of the proposed law in full detail yet, (not sure how much the POTUS is directly involved in the "i's and the t's" of proposed legislation) or has fully vetted all the implications of the law. I would like to think that this the first draft and that the end product will be a law that addresses cybersecurity concerns without all the loopholes for abuse.

It could be considered a good thing that it's the President that has to give the order to have a network shutdown. I don't want one of the agencies to be able to decide on their own authority to have a private network shutdown...

[bilateralrope]

Just to throw my two cents in, I want to encourage everyone not to freak out about such a bill until it is out of committee. Most bills that are submitted to Congress never make it out of the committee where they originate, so think of it as a kind of filter for bad ideas that often get floated around. Then it has to go through the floor process. It has to be scheduled for a vote by the various leaders of the chamber and their scheduling committees, and then both chambers actually have to pass it. Then the president has to sign it or veto it, and vetos are harder to override than one might think. There are many, many filters and obstacles that this bill will have to overcome before I'd even begin worrying about it.

The sooner Americans start making it clear that they don't like a bill, the more time there is for the bill to be adjusted or canned. So the sooner people start making noise against it, the better.

So why should we wait ?

Which step is the easiest one to stop the bill at ?

[Count Chocula]

It could be considered a good thing that it's the President that has to give the order to have a network shutdown. I don't want one of the agencies to be able to decide on their own authority to have a private network shutdown...

You do make a good point, assuming the President in question has the probity and integrity to make a good decision; such may not always be true. Furthermore, the prospect of a President, any President, having the autocratic authority to shut down a network directly affects interstate commerce, which ability is delegated solely to the Legislative branch, not the Executive. Again, I have to wonder what Rockefeller and Snow were thinking or learned in commitee that would make them willing to grant Legislative power to the President.

[Prannon]

The sooner Americans start making it clear that they don't like a bill, the more time there is for the bill to be adjusted or canned. So the sooner people start making noise against it, the better.

So why should we wait ?

Which step is the easiest one to stop the bill at ?

The best place to stop it or make it more amenable to your interests is in committee. That is where the bill is actually written, its intent crafted, and the nitty gritty details worked out. You can imagine that it's a lot easier to write a bill in a closed, informal setting than it is in an open, formal setting. As I said, most Congressional bills don't even make it past committee to begin with, either because no one gave a shit or it was a bad idea to begin with.

If you, bilateralrope, wanted to actually do something about this - and this goes for anyone on this board who has concerns - you would a) find out which committee this bill is in (it's in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation), b) find out which SUBcommittee the bill is in (I'm not sure if it has been referred to one yet, since Committees operate on schedules too), and c) find out if any senators from your state are in that sub-committee. If not, find out if you have any senators on the main committee. Write an angry email to their office, or a letter or a phone call. I interned for a while in a local Congressional office, and I can tell you that taking phone calls is part of their job, and they really do listen. It's mostly to get a feel for the general attitude, but they do listen.

Again though, I have to say that there is no reason to freak out or be angry. Wait until the bill is actually out of committee before freaking out and getting furious. I say that purely because so many bills really do die in committee. More than half, if I recall correctly. Just going off of that, chances are this bill will die too.

[Darth Wong]

Chocula doesn't know how to read. He keeps screaming that it puts unfettered power in the hands of one man. Sorry, I mean ONE MAN with fifty exclamation points. But he ignores the part where the bill stipulates that actual formalized rules will have to be submitted within 90 days of passage, and the entire bill will be reviewed at the 1 year mark, so it's not going to be simply left up to one man's arbitrary judgement.