Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New CyberSecurity Bill Raises Privacy Questions

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the picture-future-presidents dept.

Privacy 319

Nicolas Dawson points out coverage in Mother Jones of the early stages of a new cybersecurity bill that conveys sweeping powers on the President. Quoting: "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to 'declare a cybersecurity emergency' and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any 'critical' information network 'in the interest of national security.' The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president. The bill ... also grants the Secretary of Commerce 'access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.' This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws."

cancel ×

319 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wow (0)

hmar (1203398) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448209)

Just Wow

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

Cube Steak (1520237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448361)

I know. "Change" we can all definitely believe in.

Re:wow (2, Interesting)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448711)

Hey, it's Obama!

We trust him, right?

[fonzie]Come onnnnnnnnnnnn!!!![/fonzie]

Re:wow (4, Funny)

geobeck (924637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448973)

We trust him, right?

What, like he's President Google or something?

Actually, if there's any organization that already has the power to "shut down the Internet," Google comes pretty close. It's not like they could seal off the tubes, but it's an interesting mental exercise to imagine just how much Internet traffic would be curtailed if Google suddenly ceased all of its operations.

Then again, Microsoft could kill a lot of Internet activity if it suddenly activated whatever remote kill switch it might have in every legitimate Windows install. The only country largely unaffected would be China. ;)

Re:wow (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27449045)

We trust him, right?

Completely besides the point. Even if we trust Obama, and I must admit I have doubts about him, this law will survive his term as president.

Can you trust EVERY FSCKING PRESIDENT that follows him?

I know I can't.

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448657)

Just from reading the summary, I'll say this.

I don't have any real problem with this, except for the non-defined nature of an emergency. I don't know how you would define an emergency (if you know what it is and when it's coming its not much of an emergency) but I would say something along the lines of "a situation which endangers vital communications links, including those needed for power generation, public safety, and military uses".

If a bot-net rises up that starts disrupting these communication links, extreme measures may be needed to ensure those links stay active. Temporarily closing down nonessential Internet traffic isn't much different from shutting down the freeway when road conditions make driving on it unsafe.

The problem, as usual, is the potential for abuse. I would give the president authority to shut down the Internet for not more than 48 hours, anything more than that should require congressional approval. Make abuse of this system a felony offense to punish any blatant abuses of the system. Of course, that is supposed to be how declaring war works too and that hasn't been followed since WWII.

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

Cube Steak (1520237) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448707)

anything more than that should require congressional approval.

Which will be about as worthless as the requirement that Congress is the only body that can declare war. They will just sign over any oversight they have to the president and be a bunch of rubber-stamping pantywaists.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27449217)

and be a bunch of rubber-stamping pantywaists.

I guess I'd rather be a pantywaist than a pantycrotch.

Re:wow (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449225)

They will just sign over any oversight they have to the president and be a bunch of rubber-stamping pantywaists

That's why we should remove the oversight responsibility from Congress and assign it to the Union of Retired Postal Workers. Then we could have rubber-pantied stamp wasters.

It just sounds like a lot more fun to me.

Re:wow (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449109)

Just declare it a Cyberpolice Netaction. It's the handiest tool a president can have. Police actions over the past decades have kept America involved in dozens of countries fighting under warlike conditions without congressional approval at all. Usually, they'll roll over and provide the budget for it, too.

Re:wow (2, Interesting)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449127)

You know they would have defined Wednesday an emergency due to conficker, even though NOTHING HAPPENED.

I'm skeptical that the worm even exists.

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449133)

Please tell me you are kidding. Did you miss this line in TFS: "The bill... also grants the Secretary of Commerce 'access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.'"

"...without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy..."??? This is NSA wiretapping all over again! Our new "Change we can believe in" president has only been in office for ~90 days, and he's already shaping up to be 'Dub' on steriods.

Re:wow (1)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449189)

I agree that an emergency has to be defined. Although, I am seeing this as solution to the leaking information to China problem caused by intrusion. This is a problem that needs to be fixed.

Censorship? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449003)

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it".

Re:Censorship? (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449147)

The internet won't be routing around anything when the President orders your ISP to sever your shit.

I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the... (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448213)

"in soviet america..." jokes

Re:I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448513)

I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the... "in soviet america..." jokes

In Soviet Russia, you listened to kremvax. [catb.org]
In Soviet America, nsavax listens to you.

Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. We wanted a government that listened to the people...

Re:I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the (2, Insightful)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448637)

I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the "in soviet america..." jokes

If this bill is enacted, what keeps the president from permanently shutting down access to certain "harmful things" just like the great firewall of China?

Re:I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the (2, Funny)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449153)

Nothing, anything can be deemed "critical" (kind of like "too big to fail") because there are no stipulations on the term critical.

Such as "We must shut down access to porn sites because it is critical to the morals of our society."

Not specifically saying he would do that (although future administrations might with this power) its just the first thing that came to mind.

(Yes, I said it, porn was the first thing to come to mind)

Who needs the constitution... (4, Insightful)

johnncyber (1478117) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448245)

...it's just a piece of paper anyways.

Re:Who needs the constitution... (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448379)

access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.

In other words, it's not illegal when the Secretary of Commerce (a Presidentially appointed position) does it, of course. So they can lock YOU up for accessing data you're not supposed to have, but when the Secretary of Commerce does it, it's just hunky dory.

Yep. Who needs the Constitution? It's archaic!

Now I see why so many people become anarchists... ;)

Re:Who needs the constitution... (3, Insightful)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448649)

Well, Presidential appointees don't seem to pay any taxes either and the last time I checked that was also illegal. More of the same 'do as I say, not as do.'

Preparations for the third Bush administration (0, Troll)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448247)

Jeb Bush will be coming along soon to take his place in line, he'll love these extended powers.

Re:Preparations for the third Bush administration (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448357)

Jeb Bush will be coming along soon to take his place in line, he'll love these extended powers.

How can this moderated as "insightful" ... it's just another example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Come on ... you can't keep blaming Bush for every problem.

You have a unconstitutionally elected president doing what liberal fascists have always done ... take away our rights to further their power and control over the people.

Re:Preparations for the third Bush administration (4, Funny)

imric (6240) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448731)

You're a funny guy! I may agree with your first statement, but your second is just Republican "But We Were SUPPOSED To Rule Forever Without Opposition Or Restraint" sour grapes. C'mon. You're just mad that it's Democrats taking away rights instead of Republicans - after all, that's supposed to be YOUR schtick!

LMAO @ "Liberal Fascists" (1, Troll)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448929)

You have a unconstitutionally elected president doing what liberal fascists have always done ... take away our rights to further their power and control over the people.

You OBVIOUSLY know nothing about fascism [crooksandliars.com] (or here [wikipedia.org] ). First of all, you have to be right wing to be a fascist, BY DEFINITION!

Please stop using words without knowing what they mean! Just because you say it means one thing doesn't make it so!!!

Oh, and the Constitution doesn't elect the President, it gives the power to the people to do so ... and we did! You really should read more, a lot more!

Re:LMAO @ "Liberal Fascists" (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449161)

Neither does using bold type! And lots of exclamation points!!!!

Oh lord, for the blink tag.

Re:LMAO @ "Liberal Fascists" (2, Informative)

Lord_Frederick (642312) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449185)

Do you even read what you post? From your own wikipedia link: "Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all."

Re:Preparations for the third Bush administration (0)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449183)

Liberal fascist is an oxymoron, genius.

Re:Preparations for the third Bush administration (5, Insightful)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448515)

Jeb Bush will be coming along soon to take his place in line, he'll love these extended powers.

I'm more worried (and you should too) about our current president that could have these "extended powers" very soon than some crazy left-wing fear/theory of another member of the Bush family becoming president four years from now. Democrats and Republicans will both fuck you over and continue to steer this country into irrelevancy. Wake up dammit!

Re:Preparations for the third Bush administration (2, Interesting)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448817)

Ironically this was a case of a Democrat and a Republican who usually votes with Democrats submitting the bill.

Re:Preparations for the third Bush administration (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449143)

I'm worried about any president holding such powers, not just the current or future one.

It's a slippery slope. Today, they censor the internet. Tomorrow, they censor the phones. Then it's mail. Then our speech.

It's a Democrat Bill (4, Insightful)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448889)

Stop invoking a Bush boogeyman. Everyone is Washington is bad. Bush's alleged abuses are kid's stuff compared to what some previous administrations have pulled off, and probably will be sorely missed after we get through what's coming down the pipe...

Cybersecurity emergency (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448255)

Ok your seriously late now. April fools day was 2 days ago.

Back in the... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448283)

USSA

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448301)

I for one welcome our new government masters.

Mr President... (4, Funny)

isotope23 (210590) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448317)

You can take my connection from my cold dead SANs!!!!

Or

All yer Pix is belong to U.S.

Or

HSRP - Homeland Security Routing Protocol

Or

TCP/IP - Total Control President/Internet Precedent

How do things like this even come up (5, Insightful)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448327)

I want to know who in the unholiest of hells thinks this is a good idea? Even if critical networks and cybersecurity emergency were defined, what the gives them the right? The language scares me to death. The existing laws are there for a purpose. To create a law that circumvents them on a whim, even if it's a whim that has to be defended later, is total bull.

I have been fighting encrypting everything I do for a while now because I had hopes it wouldn't be necessary. Now I see that there is a chance it might be after all.

Re:How do things like this even come up (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448421)

I want to know who in the unholiest of hells thinks this is a good idea?

anti terror legislation advocates. Anyone in doubt as to what the feds would do with the W.O.T have their answer; expansion of power.

Re:How do things like this even come up (2, Insightful)

needs2bfree (1256494) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448897)

Does it not strike anyone as ironic that we should be more afraid of the anti terror legislation advocates than the terrorists? Reminds me of a saying, something along the lines of If you set out to destroy all evil...

Re:How do things like this even come up (1)

netruner (588721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448477)

There is a need for something but this goes way too far and is way too vague. Someone needs to be able to shut down something like, say, a DDOS attack against the NYSE trading network - that's a national security issue. Likewise, if someone's hacking the newtworks that link our satellites to the Pentagon, someone needs to have the power to make that stop immediately.

However, someone attacking the link between Youtube and the building where the congress's staffers have their offices can be handles with the laws we currently have. -oh, BTW, no matter how embarrassing the video is on Youtube, you shouldn't use extraordinary gov't powers to pull it or track who is viewing it.

Re:How do things like this even come up (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448761)

There is a need for something but this goes way too far and is way too vague. Someone needs to be able to shut down something like, say, a DDOS attack against the NYSE trading network - that's a national security issue. Likewise, if someone's hacking the newtworks that link our satellites to the Pentagon, someone needs to have the power to make that stop immediately.

And so the wording on the bill should reflect these few and constrained cases where it would be warranted, instead of leaving it open to anyone's interpretation.

Re:How do things like this even come up (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448849)

Your argument is pretty flawed.

No privately owned network that is important enough that a DDoS attack would cause any serious harm should not be connected to the internet.

And the network that links satellites to the Pentagon, (you are talking JWICS?) is no public network either, it is owned by the US DoD, and as such they can do anything they want with it.

Ergo this law is absolute bull. Either your network is private and you can do anything you want with it.

Sure it might be nice to have the power to cut of a massive DoS attack comming from a single point, but that won't happen anyway.

It's DDoS these days. And there is one way to stop it: take the system offline ;) but that would be a successfull DoS, wouldn't it? As would cutting the link be.

Re:How do things like this even come up (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448507)

I do.

If someone started attacking, I expect my government to take appropriate action.

There right comes into play because they are talking about attacks on emergency services, water, government site.

No different then if someone used force to shut down water supply.

Sometime a response must be immediate, as it right the fuck now.

You encrypting everything has nothing to do with this bill. Zero, nada, zilch.

The headline to the article is nothing but flamebait.

Could this bill be worded better? yes. However they very nature they are trying to help with,"Emergencies" defies inclusive wording buy it's nature.

If someone from out of the country is trying to disrupt power production, don't you think there should be an authority do deal with that?

Re:How do things like this even come up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448685)

-1, incomprehensible.

Re:How do things like this even come up (1)

YouWantFriesWithThat (1123591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448703)

the headline isn't flamebait, it is redundant. the privacy questions were already raised right here on slashdot in the last discussion about this bill.

if you think it is a good idea, well fine, that's your right. but those of us who do not will continue to "raise questions" about what protections for our privacy are going to be built in to the legislation. the headline is factual, and refers to an actual discourse occurring. to me, this is an invitation to discuss the problems that need to be addressed to balance privacy and the emergency powers the bill seeks to grant.

if your first thought on reading the headline is to start a flamewar i think that you should examine your own motivations.

Re:How do things like this even come up (1)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449041)

What about when they decide that anyone seeing videos of the police committing brutal acts again the people constitute an emergency? What happens then? What about when so many things start being called a cyberemergency that they just get to look at whatever traffic they want, whenever they want? You don't think that will happen? That's exactly why the last administration was so unpopular. Just substitute the words terrorist attack for the word cyberemergency.

Re:How do things like this even come up (4, Insightful)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448831)

I want to know who in the unholiest of hells thinks this is a good idea? Even if critical companies and financial emergency were defined, what the gives them the right? The language scares me to death. The existing laws are there for a purpose. To create a law that circumvents them on a whim, even if it's a whim that has to be defended later, is total bull.

Emphasis and replacement mine. This is the EXACT same power they want to give to the treasury secretary to be able to unilaterally, on a whim, take over companies when some undocumented criteria are met.

*big sigh* (2, Insightful)

nnnich (1454535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448333)

time to learn how to farm and make first person shooters out of sticks...

honestly, how much more are you willing to take before you walk away from oppression?

Why does bad news out number good news? (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448347)

One step forward, two steps back. Lets just turn around and look the other way.

Re:Why does bad news out number good news? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448525)

It doesn't; however there isn't a lot of money in showing people good news, or pointing out they are pretty much safe and nothing really relevant to them has happened.

Re:Why does bad news out number good news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27449005)

One step forward, two steps back. Lets just turn around and look the other way.

You're joking right? There have been no step forwards just huge leaps backwards since the new President took office.

Route Around Him (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448365)

This is precisely what the Internet was designed to defend against. Let us continue to work to insure that the Internet will view the President as damage, and route around him in the event of an emergency.

Re:Route Around Him (1)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449267)

It's going to be hard to route around when he has the power to disable connections at whim.

Honestly, I'm reading through this and they manage to make comparisions about 9/11, except through a computer attack!

Really, just read through the sources they based this off of and it's no wonder why they think they need to have such off the handle powers.

Augh! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448411)

I had first post, but the president shut down my internet!

Re:Augh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448959)

First Post-ident beat you to it...

I think I speak for everyone (5, Interesting)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448431)

I think I speak for everyone here on slashdot when I say

Fuck you!

Define the terms in the bill. List the checks and balances in this that will prevent a tyrant from encroaching on our constitutional rights. The supreme court really needs to start looking into this shit and start hacking apart these bills and laws that infringe on our freedoms. If not, they need to be replaced with people who will.

Re:I think I speak for everyone (3, Interesting)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448625)

If not, they need to be replaced with people who will.

I'm a computer guy with only a basic understanding of government... but doesn't the President replace the judges? If he wants to wield that much power over peoples' rights, won't he just put more justices up there that support his power grabs?

Also, I'm pretty sure the only way they get replaced is if they step down or... you know... die. I highly doubt they'll care about "getting replaced" in either of those situations.

How lovely.

Re:I think I speak for everyone (0, Troll)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448907)

The President nominates the judges and the Senate confirms the nomination. Right now Dear Leader would have little in the way of getting his nominee confirmed, only one or two judges are all that Dear Leader would probably get to nominate. If the senate majority changes in 2 years Dear Leader would have to make some concessions and could not nominate someone as radical as he is.

Re:I think I speak for everyone (1)

spiffydudex (1458363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448659)

I support you fully.

The best we as a public can do is get pissed and mail our senators and federal justices.

I have sent 4 letters already, and I am going to setup a script that will send my email daily.

Re:I think I speak for everyone (1)

Obliterous (466068) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449281)

Oh, share the script? (I'm actually more interested in where you're sending this, and the wording you're using, but the script Might be cool, too.)

Re:I think I speak for everyone (0, Flamebait)

dheltzel (558802) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448747)

You mean this isn't the BIG CHANGE everyone was hoping for ?

Looks like we replaced one set of idiots with an even more morally bankrupt set. Time to break out the "End of an ERROR" bumper stickers again. We were better off before.

Re:I think I speak for everyone (1)

karmatic (776420) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448873)

I think I speak for everyone here on slashdot when I say

Fuck you!

I do not use profanity, but I simply don't have any other adjectives which properly convey the contempt and abhorrence I have for this bill. So, let me echo my agreement with a simple yet resounding

Fuck this bill!

Don't fix it, don't define the terms, simply kill it - in committee, on the floor, with a veto - whatever is necessary.

This bill is unneeded, and a very liberal interpretation would leave this way more invasive than the patriot act is. Private property, private information, private networks are important. Personal liberty depends on it.

Re:I think I speak for everyone (1)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449273)

Have you read the bill?

The United States doesn't own the Internet... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448453)

Shutting down the American network would hinder the whole world. Since a number of the backbones run through the states.
Further more the government just made the biggest argument against cloud computing I have ever read. Your data lives online the goverment say oh noes cyber attack and shuts every non critical system down for weeks? months? what happens to you google docs homework or business files.

Presidential ddos? (4, Interesting)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448471)

1) Threaten national cyber-security
2) President shuts down the national infrastructure
3) ???
4) Profit!

Sounds to me like you don't even need to code a worm that is capable of shutting down the internet, all you have to do is make someone believe you have already done so and the president will do all the heavy lifting for you.

Ok, time to go back to fidonet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448509)

Well, maybe something like fidonet.

Obama's "Change" finally explained... (2, Insightful)

spiffydudex (1458363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448553)

I think we are finally seeing Obama's "Change" he was talking about his entire campaign. I give him credit for running his entire campaign on the word "Change" and not explaing what changes he would make...
Now America is paying for general stupidity. I find it interesting that the UK, France and Sweden all scorned Obama for all of this bailout money. By dumping all of this money into the economy he is undermining the basis of good business and capitalism.
With this Bill we find Obama giving more and more power to the federal government. Overriding the bill of rights and bypassing everything that our country stands for.

I urge you to watch this film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw [youtube.com]
Please do not watch it as a direct bashing of Obama, this is one of several films that have been produced over the years detailing the "behind the scene" actions of our government.

I myself did not vote for Obama.

Re:Obama's "Change" finally explained... (1)

fl!ptop (902193) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449033)

I find it interesting that the UK, France and Sweden all scorned Obama for all of this bailout money

they may have scorned him then, but he got a standing ovation from the press [theage.com.au] at the g20 summit. how quickly they've turned.

America! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448559)

Ohh, once so proud, once so free.. Ruled by fear, nothing else.. I feel for the true American people.. if there are any left..

Re:America! (2, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448919)

Real Americans exist, but everyone else is pretty much terrified of them. Rugged individualism and desire for self-determination are concepts that scare the average citizen, especially considering that the guarantors of these principles are scary guns.

Now this sounds familiar... (3, Insightful)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448605)

It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. But I am mild by nature, and do not wish to see the destruction of democracy. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated.

--Chancellor Palpatine

Re:Now this sounds familiar... (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448921)

It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. But I am mild by nature, and do not wish to see the destruction of democracy. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated.

--Chancellor Palpatine

Wasn't he paraphrasing Caesar?

Re:Now this sounds familiar... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449179)

--Chancellor Palpatine

Wasn't he paraphrasing Caesar?

And Hitler

Where is all the screaming about privacy? (5, Insightful)

stevew (4845) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448617)

You folks were up in arms about the loss of Privacy when the Bush administration was trying to spy on Terrorists calling into the country? Here you have a Democrat congress and a Democrat President who are going to be snooping into EVERYONE's business - let's have a little more energy - or one might think all the previous belly-aching about privacy was really just partisan nonsense????

Re:Where is all the screaming about privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448667)

There is a democratic congress and a democratic congress, unless there was also a Repubic president and a Repubic congress.

Dropping a few letters matters.

Re:Where is all the screaming about privacy? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449089)

Yes, but the Democratic Party isn't.

Re:Where is all the screaming about privacy? (1)

imric (6240) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448871)

How's this?

YEEEEAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

DAMN, this is a bad, fascist, stupid bill! It goes against everything American! It's the work of cowards! It's going to marginalize the US, and it's a case of "all your words are belong to us"!

Better? Guess what - it wasn't the 'my team, your team' mentality that got people upset over the Bush regime - it was the ACTIONS AND WORDS of the Bush regime that marginalized the Republican Party. Now the Republicans aren't going to be able to balance the Democrats, and EVERYBODY will suffer the consequences.

Re:Where is all the screaming about privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27449123)

You folks were up in arms about the loss of Privacy when the Bush administration was trying to spy on Terrorists calling into the country? Here you have a Democrat congress and a Democrat President who are going to be snooping into EVERYONE's business - let's have a little more energy - or one might think all the previous belly-aching about privacy was really just partisan nonsense????

It's because liberals are the embodiment of hypocrisy.

Re:Where is all the screaming about privacy? (1)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449233)

I've been seeing Slashdot posts "screaming" about this and other nasty things that've come about since Obama took office, as well as years ago when Clinton was in office. Hell, if you're gonna call the Slashdot crowd some kind of party follower, Libertarian is the obvious choice. Wait for the crickets to chirp when President Ron Paul III does something nasty in 2056. :-)

Re:Where is all the screaming about privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27449257)

I can only guess you're not actually reading any of the comments.

You won't see any screaming about it in the mainstream press, though. They were drinking the Koolaide all the way through the Bush years, and are dizzy with gushing acceptance of the new regime.

Europe is starting to sound better now... (1)

neowolf (173735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448687)

There is generally a lot of talk here on Slashdot (and all over the Internet) about the lack of protection of privacy for citizens in European (and Asian, for that matter) countries. This puts the good 'ol USA on par with the rest of 'em...

When do I get my Web filter and CCTV camera? I need to be protected from terrorists! Who needs privacy.

It all really comes down to the same problem with things like gun control, drug laws, and DRM- this sort of shit really just hurts honest, hard working people- criminals and "terrorists" will always find a way to circumvent laws like this. If they (government) seriously think they can "shut down" the Internet and prevent criminals/terrorists from communicating- they should probably re-visit those drug laws they are likely violating. All this will do is force more honest people to start encrypting everything they do.

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that (4, Interesting)

Markvs (17298) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448737)

Not only has this not been reported by any mainstream media source (AP/UPI/Reuters) or in any news source of record (WSJ, NY Times, et al), but that it's not listed on the Senate's website? Or that the PDF is a blank template without any names on it?

Methinks \. caught a regurgitates April Fools blog entry a couple days late!

Re:Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27449219)

You're probably right, seeing as the site with the official looking pdf http://www.cdt.org has the story posted on...you guessed it!

Sounds familiar (1)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448741)

Isn't this the type of sweeping executive power in times of emergency was gave ultimate power to Hitler and the Soviet Premiers?

"Confers", not "conveys" (1)

beanyk (230597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448767)

'Nuff said.

A whole bunch of bad ideas (2, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448789)

The headlined tyranny is only the start of the ugliness with this bill. The first part smells heavily of pig product, but it gets worse.

Some lowlights:

Section 5 introduces a 747-load of red tape related to "cybersecurity standards" for anyone doing business with the Federal Government.

Section 6 goes beyond that and introduces some requirements for "private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks". Which, if I'm reading it right, means the Feds get to dictate to e.g. Google (assuming someone classifies Google as critical) how they set up their networks and what software they run on it.

Section 7 introduces a federal license for a "provider of cybersecurity services". All contractors and employees providing "cybersecurity services" on any Federal or designated network would be required to have these. Want to install antivirus software on some "critical" network? Sorry dude, need a license. *shudder*

Re:A whole bunch of bad ideas (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449279)

It's not the start. It's the continuance.

Every president accrues power to the office, and no president gives us the power of his predecessor, whatever side of the aisle they come from.

The longer it goes, the worse it will get. It's the nature of the beast.

Change we can believe in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27448839)

Now I get it! It's going to be business as usual, same as before; only this time around, it'll be a black dude. That IS change I can believe in!

Concerning (1)

PMuse (320639) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448847)

From TFA:

It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

No, what it says is that Sec Com could demand any information from any person anywhere in U.S. jurisdiction, so long as that information somehow "concerns" such networks.

Overreach much?

Re:Concerning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27449105)

"Overreach much?"

Pretend Bush is still in office and ask yourself the same damn question... How do you feel about it now?

There is no privacy on the Internet. (1)

bigjarom (950328) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448935)

Get over it.
-Scott McNealy

We need Internet 3 (1)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27448995)

Without all these corporate bastards and government authoritah wannabes.

The biggest problem... (2, Insightful)

Povno (1460131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449015)

...is that most people don't understand what this kind of thing means in terms of their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's not that they don't understand public or private networks, DNS, TCP/IP, or anything involving computers beyond their own desktop short cut to the family photos... but that they assume it's complicated techno babble and don't want to. They fail to see how it affects them personally; we will be called paranoid as we try to explain these implications. They know what the constitution is but fail to see what it can no longer protect us from in an age where information of any kind can flow freely. This is beyond, what our laws can mandate, because technology moves faster than laws can be passed. This will happen with little opposition. Those of us that see it will scream and yell, but to those up top in that big elliptical office it will be merely just another of societies thankless whispers for them to ignore.

King George III (1)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449079)

Wow I am so glad that Obama is so completely different from George Bush II.... oh wait...

speak up liberals... (1)

rilian4 (591569) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449101)

cmon liberals. All you Bush bashers who hammered on this for 8 years. Speak up. Obama is now committing some of the same acts of privacy invasion as Bush was (rightly) accused of. Why isn't there more outcry here?

This bill gives ridiculous dictitorial powers to the President. I for one think it should not be passed. I have big problems with giving this kind of power to the federal government.

Not introduced to Senate [STAFF WORKING DRAFT] (4, Informative)

kindbud (90044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449159)

Not to rain on anybody's paranoia parade (OK, yes I am) but this is a [STAFF WORKING DRAFT] and has not been introduced to the Senate. It doesn't even have any sponsors. You won't find it on THOMAS, nor in the list of active legislation posted to senate.gov.

Here's the background info... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27449221)

If you want to know how the senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee got scared into this bill, take a look at the testimony before the committee at the bottom of this page [senate.gov] , especially that of Joseph Weiss.

Just a bill (2, Insightful)

emudoug42 (977380) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449261)

Doesn't anyone remember their schoolhouse rock? This is just a bill. Lots of bills get introduced. Most of them are terrible. This bill is still in committee. Hopefully someone there will be able to identify that this is a terrible idea, and that will be that. If it makes it to vote, you can bet I will be calling up my senators. That is unlikely, however. I'm not quite sure how Obama is getting lumped up in this. Has he come out in favor of this bill? If not, please stop with the ridiculous "Change we can believe in" slogan waving. In closing, outrage that someone would be stupid enough to think this is a good idea is healthy. But let's not act as if this is already been signed into law.

I hope it's not worse than the bill (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27449265)

described in this story [slashdot.org] !!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>