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!

Proposed Law Would Give DHS Power Over Privately Owned IT Infrastructure

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the for-great-justice dept.

Businesses 300

CelticWhisper writes "H.R. 3674, the Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act (PRECISE Act), would allow the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to require improved security practices from those businesses managing systems whose disruption could prove detrimental to critical life-sustaining or national-security initiatives." As the article points out, this is just "one of 30 or so such bills currently percolating on the Hill."

cancel ×

300 comments

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

Please tell me why.... (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955905)

Republicans all scream for "smaller government" yet they happily sign any bill that gives away rights to the Gubment for "fighting TERRORISIM"

Bunch of hypocrites they all are.

It seems that nothing but evil comes out of washington DC anymore.

Re:Please tell me why.... (5, Insightful)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955969)

Republicans have NEVER been for smaller government actually, they just want THEIR rules in place, rather the ones the Democrats want.

Re:Please tell me why.... (4, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956297)

Sorry, are Democrats like the Obama-led White house or the Obama-appointee-led DHS against this bill?

Re:Please tell me why.... (2)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956561)

It's probably fairer to say that post-Reagan Republicans haven't been for smaller government. These days, they just disagree with Democrats on what the expansion should cover.

Telling idiots what they want to hear... (5, Insightful)

earls (1367951) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955981)

...is how you win elections.

Re:Telling idiots what they want to hear... (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956335)

And then enacting policies to dumb people down over an extended period of time. Often spanning many many generations. Eventually to the point where they depend on an oppressive government.

Re:Telling idiots what they want to hear... (0)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956677)

How do you dumb people down?
Either you give people enough comfort/facilities/freedom that they are satisfied or you impose rules that make uprising impossible
But dumbing them? how?

Re:Telling idiots what they want to hear... (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956365)

But

is

this what people want to hear? I know many Americans don't really care that much about civil liberties in the abstract, but they do care about things that might affect their own lives. The TSA was popular for a year or two after 9/11, but most Americans hate it now. The average man (or woman) on the street cares a lot more about the bad economy than about vague threats of terrorism.

Re:Telling idiots what they want to hear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956495)

Remember, 50% of the population has an IQ of 100 or LESS!!!!

Re:Telling idiots what they want to hear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956649)

...is how you win elections.

Hope and change!

Re:Please tell me why.... (1)

stoneymonster (668767) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956007)

Now you're getting it!

uhh.. this is sponsored by a democrat (-1, Flamebait)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956035)

And will have to be signed by a democratic president, as well.

If you think voting Democrat was voting against this, you're wrong.

Re:uhh.. this is sponsored by a democrat (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956079)

So the President will sign it after it gets shut down by the Republican Congress? Or will the Republicans pass it so it can be signed into law?

Re:uhh.. this is sponsored by a democrat (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956193)

Congratulations: You've proven Republicans exist!

Re:uhh.. this is sponsored by a democrat (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956359)

They can block this bill, if they dont it means they aprove of it and you bringing up the President is just a straw-man argument. The Democrats do not claim to be the party of small government and fiscal conservatives.

Re:uhh.. this is sponsored by a democrat (0)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956467)

I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. It's inventing something and then attacking that instead of the real thing said. Where did I invent something that isn't happening? If the president signs it then it means he approves it too -- same logic you just used. Now, who sponsored and created the bill in the first place, again? Oh i'm sorry, is bringing up the sponsor a "strawman"? hahaha.

Re:uhh.. this is sponsored by a democrat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956115)

Your republican president signed the Crime against the USA called the "PATRIOT ACT"
And I am certain that Obama will sign it, he has already proven he does not care about Rights. He proved that by doing a 12/31/11 signing of the military bill that lets him jail US citizens for no reason forever.

From where I am standing, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is the animal on their campain buttons.

Re:uhh.. this is sponsored by a democrat (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956391)

Here is the list of sponsors and co-sponsors. [opencongress.org]
Representative Daniel Lungren R-CA
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7]
Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15]
Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9]
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7]

Yup, that must be a democrat bill.
How did you get modded up?

Re:Please tell me why.... (4, Informative)

SaroDarksbane (1784314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956063)

"Small government" is just a ruse Republicans use to win elections, much like "reducing corporate influence" is for the Democrats.

Red Team/Blue Team? There's only one team, and it's the Big Government/Big Corporations Purple Team.

Re:Please tell me why.... (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956557)

Purple is the New Black. Seriously...

Buzzz...try again (2, Informative)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956167)

It's the Democrats that are trying to raise SOPA from the dead. [dailycaller.com]

But don't let that spoil your primitive tribal reaction.

Re:Please tell me why.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956169)

It's by design. [freemasonrywatch.org]

Re:Please tell me why.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956177)

Because they are hypocrites, and by clinical definition, insane!

If Legislators understood the bills they're names were attached to, and were forced to actuallly have a hand in writing said legislation, they would only be able to accept half the free dinners, and vacations provided by conflict of interest lobbyists and PAC's.

For all observed purposes, Elected Congressmen are puppets and hollow shells.

Above the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956321)

Government, by definition, is above the law. (How can any organization, government or otherwise, possibly hold a special "right" to employ physical force as a business model yet NOT be above the law of the common man? That's impossible.)

With that said, the business of government is effectively immune to being held accountable for false advertising (or indeed, any crime of the common man, as long as they can wave the magic power wand).

In your view they are hypocrites. In their view they are brilliant businessmen. This next expansion of government, like nearly every expansion of government, is designed to justify more spending. It doesn't matter where the money comes from or where it goes. What matters is that it passes through their hands, giving them a chance to exploit that cash flow for personal gain.

From the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956341)

this is from the bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Casinos) and supported by the White House.

No republicans there.

Re:Please tell me why.... (4, Informative)

rilian4 (591569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956349)

Bunch of hypocrites they all are.

So are the Democrats. If you are going to make these comments, be an equal-opportunity commenter.

It seems that nothing but evil comes out of washington DC anymore.

Agreed. This is why I am supporting Ron Paul for President. He's the only candidate willing to do what it takes to clean out Washington DC.

Re:Please tell me why.... (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956487)

Don't really have anything against them requiring "improved security practices". As long as those practices aren't needlessly and pointlessly expensive and complicated. And as long as those "improved security practices" don't include providing a backdoor to the DHS.

So, what we can expect to be actually implemented in this bill is probably a bad idea.

Re:Please tell me why.... (1)

kvnslash (2292742) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956523)

What rights are you giving up? The point of this bill seems to be to enforce IT sec standards across critical infrastructure like electric, gas, etc.. To me this seems obvious, but maybe I'm missing something.

Re:Please tell me why.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956567)

The bill is being pushed by a Democrat. RTFA.

Re:Please tell me why.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956667)

A week ago I would have agreed with you, but after reading America the Vulnerable by Joel Brenner I'm more paranoid. He might be exaggerating some points in the book, but between what's in there and the SCADIA vulnerabilities in the news, I'm all for mandating better security in our infrastructure.

Unfunded mandates (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38955911)

Another yoke around the neck of private businesses everywhere.

Re:Unfunded mandates (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956727)

Another yoke around the neck of private businesses in America.

FTFY.

Not sure which side I fall on in this (3, Insightful)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955973)

Even as a Democrat, I am getting very tired of our ever expanding Government. However, requiring critical systems like power and transportation etc... to have upgraded security is kind of a no-brainer.

Re:Not sure which side I fall on in this (1, Flamebait)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956013)

And you actually think that's ALL these bills contain? More live government "backdoors" and the right to access the data anytime they wat... "for the children/to battle the terrorists". Too bad our own government have become the biggest terrorists...

Re:Not sure which side I fall on in this (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956269)

which doesn't mean ensuring other people aren't getting in isn't a good idea. Demanding AT&T prevent eveasdropping on other peoples phone calls, and then demanding they have a secret room where the NSA can monitor all traffic are two separate parts. One is good. One is bad. Naturally, when dealing with politicians you will always get some good, and some bad together.

Re:Not sure which side I fall on in this (4, Insightful)

fish waffle (179067) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956143)

The thin edge of the wedge here is in the definition of a "critical system". Things important to sustaining lives and ensuring national security make sense from a high-level perspective, but the grey areas around that can be extended to fit the goals of whoever is in control of the definition.

Re:Not sure which side I fall on in this (0)

azadrozny (576352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956275)

I agree that requiring security is a good thing, but my (limited) understanding of this legislation is that it goes too far in mandating specific technologies. My fear is that the law and bureaucracy will not be able to keep up with the ever changing cybersecurity landscape. If you regulate too much, the industry is stuck maintaining an outdated infrastructure. If you regulate too little, the industry can get out of jail free by showing that they met the minimum requirements under the law.

Re:Not sure which side I fall on in this (2)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956295)

Yes a no-brainer as in, you would have to not have any brains to think its needed.

That tends to be the problem with security... people are willing to let it cost whatever it does, and expanding it always makes some amount of sense... its nearly always possible to dream up more, to find gaps etc.

The thing is...where is the problem you are trying to solve? Do you claim that public transit is currently not safe? Really? Based on what? Where is the actual problem?

I am on the staff list for a Sci Fi Con where people have been up in arms about "rape culture" over some T-shirt a vendor was selling. All I can think is... women walk around half naked all the time (at the con), there are all night parties and drinking and.... that they have the luxury of complaining for days on the email list about just a T-Shirt.... if that isn't evidence of an utter lack of a real issue, then I don't know what is.

Anything large enough, involving enough people is going to have some issues. Not every issue someone can imagine needs to be a call to arms.

Re:Not sure which side I fall on in this (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956333)

Even as a Democrat, I am getting very tired of our ever expanding Government. However, requiring critical systems like power and transportation etc... to have upgraded security is kind of a no-brainer.

Actually, when they say "those businesses managing systems whose disruption could prove detrimental to critical life-sustaining or national-security initiatives." I think they are referring to iTunes, Amazon, Facebook, etc. /sarcasm

Re:Not sure which side I fall on in this (3, Funny)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956425)

Twitter has repeatedly been used in life saving situations. Therefore, we the .gov, must ensure it's ability to function.

Hi, please insert these tentacles into the Twitter system and relay every message through Langley. OKay THANX...

I CAN HAV MORE TAXBURGER NOW?

Regardless of your stance on big/small government (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38955991)

does the DHS even have the necessary expertise in IT security ?

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956131)

does the DHS even have the necessary expertise in IT security ?

NCSD of DHS is responsible for all non-DoD government networks and their security. And yes, they do.

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956139)

They're pretty good at taking down websites en masse. Surely that takes some kind of skill?

http://www.geekosystem.com/government-shuts-down-84000-websites/ [geekosystem.com]

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956331)

Technically they aren't doing that. They are ordering someone else to do it. This doesn't change anything... but... does go to show stupidity does have control.

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956179)

does the DHS even have the necessary expertise in IT security ?

Of course not. What a silly question.

Understanding something is not a requirement for supervising it. Ask your boss.

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (0)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956369)

does the DHS even have the necessary expertise in IT security ?

Of course not. What a silly question.

Understanding something is not a requirement for supervising it. Ask your boss.

I take it we're using the customer service skills of the TSA as an example of DHS's practical application of their lack of knowledge? ;-)

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956419)

I take it we're using the customer service skills of the TSA as an example of DHS's practical application of their lack of knowledge? ;-)

More like we will be using the IT skills of the TSA screeners.

"Does the Internet really come out of that cable? Wow. That's cool."

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956303)

Exactly. I would be much more comfortable if the NSA were in charge of something like this. They have a much better track record, and proven experience in providing security advice to the private sector.

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956393)

Fuck no!

Re:Regardless of your stance on big/small governme (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956405)

No [threatpost.com]

What laws are proposed that reduces power? (2)

scsirob (246572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955995)

It really makes me wonder. New laws are being proposed in rapid succession to give organizations more and more power over individuals. What laws are being proposed to save us all from this?

Re:What laws are proposed that reduces power? (3)

mcavic (2007672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956091)

What laws are being proposed to save us all from this?

Obviously none. That would tend to defeat the whole purpose.

Re:What laws are proposed that reduces power? (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956687)

The law of the jungle.

Who is going to decide what "improved" means? (3, Insightful)

atchijov (527688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956033)

So now instead of pitching your IT security related technology to the customer (competing with other vendors), you just need to get really good friends in DHS and they will mandate use of your tehnology?

Re:Who is going to decide what "improved" means? (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956175)

You need to upgrade all of your Linux servers to Windows. Our friends in Redmond assure us this is an improvement of utmost importance.

Re:Who is going to decide what "improved" means? (0)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956449)

You need to upgrade all of your Linux servers to Windows. Our friends in Redmond assure us this is an improvement of utmost importance.

I just tried:
[i_am@joking ~]#yum update microsoft
and got a "don't touch my keyboard" error.

Re:Who is going to decide what "improved" means? (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956221)

That's pretty much how lots of other businesses work. Your product will have to meet some sort of standards board approved set of metrics, and then you advertise that when you sell it.

You shouldn't be able to buy electrical equipment that doesn't meet standards (I'm not 100% sure what those are in the US), and you shouldn't be able to install equipment that didn't meet those standards in a building. At least for legal compliance. The same applies to telecoms equipment, medical equipment etc. Regulatory compliance is just the cost of doing business.

Alternately, you could require insurance against breaches/damages something along those lines. In that situation insurance companies come up with the standards everyone needs to follow, they form a giant lobby and it becomes not much different than the government doing it. If you want insurance you meet these criteria, or you can't afford insurance.

OK, so... (1, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956055)

Can we please get rid of patents on cryptography? There are a lot of cryptosystems out there whose deployment is being hampered by patents on the underlying mathematics, and which could go a long way toward improving the state of computer security. This would not be a bad place to start repealing software patents:

http://www.voltage.com/technology/patents/index.htm [voltage.com]

Here too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECC_patents [wikipedia.org]

Re:OK, so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956635)

A cryptography patent is much more likely to be a patent on the mathematics behind cryptography than the software bits.

Those are definitely, in my mind, good patents.

Does the KGB (Oops! I meant "DHS")... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956059)

have it's own lobbying organization now?

Re:Does the KGB (Oops! I meant "DHS")... (4, Funny)

mcavic (2007672) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956113)

The KGB just called. They'd like an apology.

Re:Does the KGB (Oops! I meant "DHS")... (1)

kaychoro (1340087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956159)

[Does the DHS] have it's own lobbying organization now?

Of course.. they're call "Defense Contractors"... and they get all of their funding through the DoD.

Re:Does the KGB (Oops! I meant "DHS")... (1)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956489)

Well, not all of it. The DOE likes to give them money too. They just state that they are finding ways of being "Green" or something along those lines.

Re:Does the KGB (Oops! I meant "DHS")... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956171)

have it's own lobbying organization now?

Yes, it does. There are a lot of businesses with very effective lobbyists suckling at DHS' teet.

Overdue (4, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956077)

This is really overdue and your a fool if you think it isn't inevitable. We accept regulation for critical infrastructure like electricity and gas distribution. Why should IT be any different than any other piece of infrastructure?

I've worked with ITIL, SOX, HIPAA, SEC and a number of other regulations or standards for years. They are also largely similar in what they require, once you learn one the others are a quick learning curve. Mostly they are nothing more than attempt to codify best practices that you should be following anyways.

It's like the rail companies that cried foul when regulations required that they install safe coupling mechanisms in the 1800's. The railroads cried foul at the new expenses until they discovered that the regulations ended up saving more in labor than they can cost in parts.

Re:Overdue (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956309)

How dare you attempt to say something sensible hear? This is Slashdot - reasonable opinions are usually strongly discouraged, particularly when politics are involved!

Re:Overdue (2)

jmottram08 (1886654) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956569)

The problem is -always- in vague wording as to what could be "detrimental to ... national security"

Should power plants have regulated security, both physical and technical? Sure. Should 3rd party power plants that run factories be subject to the same? Is the loss of a small ISP detrimental to national security?

-Most- laws dont have bad intentions, but over time bad people abuse them, both corporation, lawyers and governmental agencies.

Re:Overdue (3, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956363)

This is not the same thing is a million ton of steel hurdling toward you at 60 mph. No one's lives are at stake here, and the Internet has been working fine without Governments interfering. Besides, it's the responsibility of businesses and individuals to secure their own network or computers; it's not the Government's responsibility. What's next, they come to my home and tell me my computer is not secure? It's totally BS!

Re:Overdue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956525)

Except when the computers being regulated are running our power grid, much of which is Nuclear. When you think about it, that could actually get quite a bit worse than a million tons of steel at 60 mph.

Re:Overdue (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956535)

What's next, they come to my home and tell me my computer is not secure? It's totally BS!

Yes, that is the logical next step. After all, there's no legal distinction between businesses and private citizens anymore (Thanks, SCOTUS fucks).

This sort of legislation passing is akin to hosing the slippery slope with a nice thick layer of Teflon.

Re:Overdue (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956465)

...and SOX and the SEC helped us avoid the banking disaster.

Re:Overdue (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956483)

It is not the regulation part that I have a problem with it is their utter incompetence along with their ability to take over. If you honestly believe that they will make good regulations like keep your shit off the internet they you must be woefully ignorant of their past decisions [threatpost.com] .

Re:Overdue (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956517)

Regulation also kills innovation at the expense unnecessary bureaucracy. Not at first, but eventually it becomes the very cancer you're trying to prevent (stagnation). The reason the IT industry exploded with productivity starting in late 80s was *precisely* because of lack of government regulation. Clearly it can regulate itself with ISO and IEEE standards just fine.

True for DOD regs too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956519)

We're going through a DOD certification process. It's difficult, but as I go through
the requirements I find most of them do make a lot of sense -- as you say, best
practices codified.

Re:Overdue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956531)

improved security practices from those businesses managing systems whose disruption could prove detrimental to critical life-sustaining or national-security initiatives

How about we don't connect control systems for critical infrastructure to The Internet.

Seriously, the people who manage these systems should be paid well, and the systems should be well and properly staffed with trained operators working in shifts 24/7, so that you don't have to call some special magical person in the middle of the night (the only person who can save us) and have them Browse to a Web Interface that exposes the "Good/Evil" switch on the Krusty doll [wikipedia.org] , and tick a checkbox with their iPhone/BlackBerry/Android/what-have-you.

I support that law.

But let's be PR.E.C.I.S.E. about defining what a "critical life-sustaining or national-security initiative" is. This should be less about bald "intiatives", which are really simply "ideas and plans", and more about defining which systems are actually critical. Otherwise just call it what it is: The V.A.G.U.E. act.

(i'd like to take a moment and invite people to backronym the meaning of V.A.G.U.E.)

What qualifications ... (3, Insightful)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956087)

does DHS have for doing this? Despite flushing billions of our tax dollars paying Hamburger University dropouts for irradiating and/or groping the American public with not a single no-so-scarist being caught. As effective as the crystal my dotty Aunt wears around her neck to keep them away and far cheaper. The U.S. gov cant event get their own house in order IT security-wise as department after department fail their audits and fail to meet their mandates, How effective can they be trying to remotely administrate the IT infrastructure of independent businesses/institutions? There is absolutely no evidence that the have the expertise or management skills to perform this function.

Re:What qualifications ... (2)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956233)

I just wonder why "fix" something that isnt broken.... waste of resources and liberty for what gains?

Hmmm. neo-con bill (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956093)

This is another expanding neo-con effort. [opencongress.org] So, the neo-cons created DHS to secure America. DHS then had some of the most inept people at the top back when it was formed (I worked with 2 of them). DHS has done nothing but push MS. Just last week, they claimed that anybody using tools like PGP, VPN, Linux, other OSS tools were likely terrorists. Now, they say that they want control over networks.

Does anybody get the feeling that the party of lincoln has become the party of stalin?

Improved Security = Code Word for Sensorship! (0)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956161)

So the Government wants to control the Internet like the DOJ. If they don't like where your going, they block you.

and so it begins (1, Interesting)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956187)

The United States of America comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive republic were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valor. The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the states. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence: the American people appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the President the executive powers of government.

But its fall was announced by a clearer omen than the flight of vultures: the American government appeared every day less formidable to its enemies of liberty, more odious and oppressive to its subjects.

Control it all you want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956195)

You'll still get slow as speeds trying to get any data out of it like the rest of us.

Vote Romney (0)

retech (1228598) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956211)

Hell just vote for Mit then we can all wear magic underwear to protect us from satan and terrorists.

Re:Vote Romney (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956617)

And don't forget Harry Reid.

Yet another stupid bacronym (3, Insightful)

Turken (139591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956213)

What is it with politicians insisting on giving their bills the most inane titles possible, just to spell out some mildly related acronym? We're electing and paying these people to write LEGISLATION, not commercial branding!

Re:Yet another stupid bacronym (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956633)

That's the only way to get people to support it. They're not going to actually read the bill to see what's in it.

Re:Yet another stupid bacronym (1)

Marble68 (746305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956721)

Because citizens tend to react differently when the nightly news says congress is trying to pass a bill called "Stop Online Piracy Act" instead of "Rights Aborted by Pushy Executives..."

it's time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38956307)

to issue hunting permits for feds w/unlimited quotas

Why the concern? (1)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956429)

And why the volatile title. Other than that his is Slashdot.

"Proposed Law Would Give DHS Power Over Privately Owned IT Infrastructure".

Requiring improved security is not much different than making sure that a company that makes toasters aren't making toasters that burn your house down.
Or cars having seatbelts. Do we say that the government has "power" over privately owned Car companies because they must abide safety or security concerns?

I have not read the full details of any planned law yet, but as stated in the short article, I do not see why this is a bad thing.

Both Parties are at fault. (4, Informative)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956437)

Both parties are at fault here, not Just Republicans or just Democrats. The problem is that we no longer have a class of "Citizen Legislator" but instead have professional legislators who will do anything in their power to stay in power.

This includes buying votes from the masses by telling them they will get everything free at the expense of someone else - even though our national debt is now so large you could confiscate all the wealth of all the millionaires and still not pay it off - and also letting themselves be bought buy the highest bidder - er - best paying lobbyist.

Of course, to keep it under wraps, you have to both dumb down the general populace, and control all means of dissent. Shut down internet sites that oppose your viewpoint, call anyone who disagrees with you a terrorist and lock them away without any rights, and threaten the livelihood of anyone else who may be bold enough to get around your restrictions.

The only way to stop such non-sense it to VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

Al least it will take a new batch a few years to get so corrupt!

Re:Both Parties are at fault. (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956673)

Republicrats and Demicans are just a big trust against the people.

Washington D.C's Primary Export (4, Interesting)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956459)

is corruption and problems. They ought to be excised and punished as a rogue state. Note, I'm not a right- or left-wing partisan, just an American who grew up when this country was known as the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave."

The TSA ought to be expunged as the totalitarian body they are. The Department of Homeland Security ought to be dissolved and its members stripped of their citizenship and exiled to North Korea on the basis of the name of their agency alone.

The FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, and their attendant bodies need to be spanked firmly for violating the constitutional rights of all Americans over the last 20 years. That means, their Directors and employees who issued and obeyed illegal orders ought to go to prison for the rest of their lives.

If that happened, I'd reckon the integrity of the Republic to have been preserved. But I'm not naive, and I know that that will never happen.

As such, the only answer is for American citizens to bring the government and its backers to justice by force. As a man of peace and a father, I don't relish that at all. But neither do I want my kids to grow up as slaves.

It's sobering indeed to contemplate another 20 years loving and nurturing my family in an increasingly totalitarian country vs. a personal life-ending confrontation with tyranny in the name and cause of freedom. But in my heart I can't see any other way. I was raised a patriot. In my mind and heart I meant the oath we all took to uphold and defend the freedom America stood for. But now the unthinkable has happened and the political entity known as the United States has so far departed from the premise of the oath we took that we cannot possibly reconcile the two; we can either support the path of freedom, or we can uphold the United States.

I know that enough of my compatriots, supposed "left" and "right," share that conviction to make a difference. I know that the subversion of our freedom is not yet widespread enough and deep enough to reverse that bedrock faith. I know that despite the prevalent apathy, supported and abetted by those in power, there is not enough corrosion to avert the will of the American people to assert their freedom.

     

Clearly a Problem... (2)

slas6654 (996022) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956503)

...whose time has not come. Can anyone document a single incident unto which this law might have helped? Have we had any IT infrastructure in the US compromised in such a way that has produced life-threatening results to the general public?

What to expect (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956521)

As always, always, with government involvement expect these (in no particular order)

  • Increased costs and thus prices
  • Decreased competition and thus quality
  • Increased corruption, thus more laws, fewer choices, higher prices
  • More licensing, all sorts of licensing and all sorts of certifications, all with more fees, all with less competition, all with higher prices
  • Decreased security, not increased security. Decreased security, especially FROM government officials themselves
  • Eventual crash of the system

The only 'redeeming' quality of this just maybe creation of alternative Internet infrastructure driven by user demand, outside of normal channels, but this will happen much later.

Re:What to expect (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956625)

Oh, and probably more criminal charges and more people accused of things that weren't crime before, and using any of this for creating the fake war on terror and war on drugs, more racism, more of everything that should be decreased, not increased.

All brought to you by your government.

Three words (2)

jduhls (1666325) | more than 2 years ago | (#38956655)

Three words: "Military Industrial Complex". It's a headless beast now. Eisenhower warned us.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>