Bill Would cede control of the internet during a "Cybersecurity Emergency"...

[artherd]

http://gizmodo.com/5348063/bill-woul...rity-emergency

A revised version of a bill first introduced in the Senate this past spring would give the President power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency."

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

Section 201 of the bill also seems to imply that the government can reserve the right to regulate "critical" private networks, which could include the disclosure of information.

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.

[locosway]

WTF, seriously...

What is with the government? The internet does more than allow people to play games or cause cyber threats.

How many people and businesses would be without telephone service? TV service? News service? Camera service?

This is just insane.

[bomb_on_bus]

Whats more alarming is the fact that there are tons of dumb people that would be convinced that this would be a good idea and vote this bill into reality.

[Telperion]

Cross-posted from the OT forum:

I skimmed the bill and it does authorize the President to declare and emergency and shut down traffic to and disconnect government networks and other so-designated "critical network infrastructure". I don't read this bill as allowing the government to "shut down the Internet" which is of questionable practicality and would be economic suicide. I'm wary of this bill (it's mostly pork and bureaucracy growth) but in looking at how elements inside Russia were able to cripple networks in Estonia and Georgia, it makes sense to develop plans to sever hostile networks in a real emergency.

[locosway]

Originally Posted by Telperion

Cross-posted from the OT forum:

I skimmed the bill and it does authorize the President to declare and emergency and shut down traffic to and disconnect government networks and other so-designated "critical network infrastructure". I don't read this bill as allowing the government to "shut down the Internet" which is of questionable practicality and would be economic suicide. I'm wary of this bill (it's mostly pork and bureaucracy growth) but in looking at how elements inside Russia were able to cripple networks in Estonia and Georgia, it makes sense to develop plans to sever hostile networks in a real emergency.

I've worked as a network engineer. You don't cut off the internet from the public. If the government had half the brain of some of these companies in the US they'd know there are much better ways to handle a cyberattack.

The only attack that would cause a service interruption would be a DDOS, which can be handled by large pipes and proper routing.

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

This sounds so oddball to me. I would think if there were some sort of internet emergency that necessitated things getting disconnected, that the network people whose job it is to run this stuff would do it, not the president. It sounds like saying that if there's a forest fire, the president has the ability to shut off power through the high voltage lines in the area. Why the hell would the president be remotely involved?

[artherd]

Exactly - let private self-interest fix the problem cheaper better and more efficiently - without expanding gov power un-nessicarily.

[locosway]

Not to mention that the government doesn't own the backbones, and the U.S. doesn't own the Internet.

Can you imagine the backlash from not only US customers of hosting companies, but from people in other countries?

This would push most people to host in another country.

[MrSlippyFist]

If little Johnny can't twiiter than the terrorists have won.

[SwissFluCase]

The government is not qualified to be speaking in this area. They need to stay out and leave it to the professionals.

Regards,


SwissFluCase