Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

[MaggieMae]

OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?

"Several Key Systems" might effect "several networks" but nothing like a "massive attack" ... do you think the internet is one giant computer that all the others link up to?

I would consider an interruption of service attack on key systems that the functioning of the government depends upon to be a "massive attack". I certainly wasn't suggesting a giant EMT, or anything of that nature.

Even disabling computer systems that control power grids would be devastating.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Several Key Systems" might effect "several networks" but nothing like a "massive attack" ... do you think the internet is one giant computer that all the others link up to?

I would consider an interruption of service attack on key systems that the functioning of the government depends upon to be a "massive attack". I certainly wasn't suggesting a giant EMT, or anything of that nature.

Okay, a massive EMP would be a real threat, but not one that this bill would even come close to protecting against. Here's a bit of a clue for you, if all the government networks went down, no one else would even feel a blip. It would be like cutting one square out of a quilt, ugly until you fix it, but it's still a quilt. I give you too much credit, really I do.

That's the dumbest thing you've said so far. Sure, probably shutting down DHS, the NSA, DOT, military bases, etc., wouldn't affect YOU, personally, and that's all that matters, correct?

 

[Richard-H]

It's incredible how little is known about the origins of the Internet!

What is now called the 'Internet' was originally a governement designed and owned network clalled the 'ARPANET' (ARPANET - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

In the early 90's AL Gore's technology task force decided to make access to the ARPANet available to the general public thru a system of licensed ISPs (Interenet Service Providers) and to call the publicly available network 'the Internet'. Hence Al Gore's quite accurate claim that he invented the Internet.

The government maintained control of the Internet's switching backbone for several years, but eventually privatized that.

Currently, 'Cyber-Warfare' is being employed as part of any war plan by every country in the world as well as every other political groups that want to wage war.

Our country's economy and many of the most vital assets are dependant on the Internet. It is vital to National Security that the government be able to take the approproate actions to defend against Cyber-warfare.

It is also in the best interest of private enterprise that all vital systems be under the authority of qualified cyber-security personnel.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why are some people acting like this is something new?

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9407E5DD153AE433A25750C1A9629C946696D6CF

Good find!

 

[KittenKoder]

Not to mention they'd have to write code that could successfully hit Linux/Unix servers ... yeah, that'll happen ... not. The government systems are only vulnerable because they're using Microsucks, but even then, they can be "disconnected" very quickly and easily without any bills, this bill isn't about protecting a damned thing, now if they took a few bucks (literally) from taxes and upgraded the OSes on their servers to Linux or a few hundred and go for Unix since they clearly need the tech support, that would be for protecting their systems and would be a smart move.

How do you know what the government "uses"?? Hell, if YOU know about Linux/Unix, do you honestly think DHS does not?

Really, you haven't looked into anything at all. Microsucks has a contract with the government, it's the reason they have managed to stay afloat in spite of people switching to Linux/Unix or Mac by the hundreds each year (possibly thousands now, my stats on that are dated). The contract I think should expired in about 5 more years ... unless they renew it (if they haven't already). All federally owned computers are running Windoze, even their servers. The only reason this contract happened was because of two facts, at the time the government went to sign one Microsucks was the leader in OS development and the computers were all IBMs, and Bill Gates is a damned good salesman and (ex)CEO. Windoze started to fall apart much later (quite recently actually) because Bill stopped caring about Microsucks, which is why he turned control of the company to the idiot that has been making the really bad decisions lately.

That's how I know what their servers are running. I knew one of the people who installed the first Windoze into our local federal computers. He's dead now sadly, probably rolling over in his grave at how fall Microsucks has fallen.

 

[KittenKoder]

Why are some people acting like this is something new?

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9407E5DD153AE433A25750C1A9629C946696D6CF

Obama is trying to extend it.

 

[Yurt]

Not to mention they'd have to write code that could successfully hit Linux/Unix servers ... yeah, that'll happen ... not. The government systems are only vulnerable because they're using Microsucks, but even then, they can be "disconnected" very quickly and easily without any bills, this bill isn't about protecting a damned thing, now if they took a few bucks (literally) from taxes and upgraded the OSes on their servers to Linux or a few hundred and go for Unix since they clearly need the tech support, that would be for protecting their systems and would be a smart move.

How do you know what the government "uses"?? Hell, if YOU know about Linux/Unix, do you honestly think DHS does not?

Really, you haven't looked into anything at all. Microsucks has a contract with the government, it's the reason they have managed to stay afloat in spite of people switching to Linux/Unix or Mac by the hundreds each year (possibly thousands now, my stats on that are dated). The contract I think should expired in about 5 more years ... unless they renew it (if they haven't already). All federally owned computers are running Windoze, even their servers. The only reason this contract happened was because of two facts, at the time the government went to sign one Microsucks was the leader in OS development and the computers were all IBMs, and Bill Gates is a damned good salesman and (ex)CEO. Windoze started to fall apart much later (quite recently actually) because Bill stopped caring about Microsucks, which is why he turned control of the company to the idiot that has been making the really bad decisions lately.

That's how I know what their servers are running. I knew one of the people who installed the first Windoze into our local federal computers. He's dead now sadly, probably rolling over in his grave at how fall Microsucks has fallen.

you really think even at thousands this would really hurt microsoft?

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay, a massive EMP would be a real threat, but not one that this bill would even come close to protecting against. Here's a bit of a clue for you, if all the government networks went down, no one else would even feel a blip. It would be like cutting one square out of a quilt, ugly until you fix it, but it's still a quilt. I give you too much credit, really I do.

LOL, yes EMP, my bad, typo.

well, of course it wouldn't shut down the internet, or anything of that nature.

I was assuming that a conventional attack or terrorist attack would come in combination with the cyber-attack. I don't think I made that clear. I apologize.

"Cyber-attacks" are typically hackers or malware. Malware is easy breezy. Hackers though wouldn't flinch at such a "security" measure, they are in and out before you realize it. As I said, this bill isn't about protecting anything, it's an attempt to gain more control over something that is inherently uncontrollable.

And that's really all this is about for you--stupidly believing in some sort of vast socialist conspiracy. Pathetic.

 

[MaggieMae]

emergency control? For what reasons? what emergency could possibly justify regulation of the internet?

There are numerous national security reasons

1- if people are trashing Obama Hellcare

2- if a version of events circulating in the internet contradicts the "official" WH version

3- General suppression or censorship for "national security" (wink, wink) reasons


.

Yeah, that's it.

 

[KittenKoder]

How do you know what the government "uses"?? Hell, if YOU know about Linux/Unix, do you honestly think DHS does not?

Really, you haven't looked into anything at all. Microsucks has a contract with the government, it's the reason they have managed to stay afloat in spite of people switching to Linux/Unix or Mac by the hundreds each year (possibly thousands now, my stats on that are dated). The contract I think should expired in about 5 more years ... unless they renew it (if they haven't already). All federally owned computers are running Windoze, even their servers. The only reason this contract happened was because of two facts, at the time the government went to sign one Microsucks was the leader in OS development and the computers were all IBMs, and Bill Gates is a damned good salesman and (ex)CEO. Windoze started to fall apart much later (quite recently actually) because Bill stopped caring about Microsucks, which is why he turned control of the company to the idiot that has been making the really bad decisions lately.

That's how I know what their servers are running. I knew one of the people who installed the first Windoze into our local federal computers. He's dead now sadly, probably rolling over in his grave at how fall Microsucks has fallen.

you really think even at thousands this would really hurt microsoft?

Not really, because of their contracts with businesses, so yeah, you're probably right. I exaggerated the effect too soon.

 

[Yurt]

Yes, they can, and that's their business and right, they own the line I am using to connect. However, I also have the option of changing to one if I don't like it and if they actually are. The contract I have with them does not yet allow them to, legally. But if it did I would still use them. However, they can only monitor, they cannot access your computer, not legally and if you know how to use a computer they wouldn't be able to successfully anyway.

This bill isn't about personal computers though, and that's why what you are talking about has no connection.

you said you are glad your stuff is on a server in england.....how does that relate to this bill?

Means my website won't be effected by their stupidity and that the server won't be infected with their software. Quite simple really.

i fail to see how:

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

please enlighten

 

[CaféAuLait]

^^Some of us try to keep it honest. What is amazing to us is the sheer volume of criticism no matter what this administration attempts to do.

It amazes me, it truly does -- the sheer robot like quality of some of his supporters.

I have yet to hear an Obama supporter criticize him. Everything he does is worthwhile and should be supported no matter what.

 

[KittenKoder]

LOL, yes EMP, my bad, typo.

well, of course it wouldn't shut down the internet, or anything of that nature.

I was assuming that a conventional attack or terrorist attack would come in combination with the cyber-attack. I don't think I made that clear. I apologize.

"Cyber-attacks" are typically hackers or malware. Malware is easy breezy. Hackers though wouldn't flinch at such a "security" measure, they are in and out before you realize it. As I said, this bill isn't about protecting anything, it's an attempt to gain more control over something that is inherently uncontrollable.

And that's really all this is about for you--stupidly believing in some sort of vast socialist conspiracy. Pathetic.

It's not a conspiracy if it's feasible, and this is feasible. Look what they did to TV ... why wouldn't they want to try to control the net the same way. Do you really think the FCC was started to control TV content?

 

[Richard-H]

Onw more thing. Vital government systems are not connected through the Internet. They use a much more advanced technology.

The Governement is usually 30-50 years ahead of private industry in terms of technology (most people think that the Internet and PCs are cutting edge technology - what a laugh!)

The reason why governement is always so far ahead is simple - since the end of WWII, virtually all R&D in the U.S., outside of Chemicals and Pharmecueticals, is done through government (mostly military) contracting. The private sector does SQAT as far as R&D.

Almost NO major technology hits the private sector until the Government declassifies it.

You'd be surprised how many of the big well known corporations do government contract work but keep it secret.

 

[veritas]

emergency control? For what reasons? what emergency could possibly justify regulation of the internet?

With comments like that, I tend to think that the younger generations who have known nothing but computers as a way of life can't possibly conceive of the dangers that lurk in this vast and largely still imperceptible vehicle that now controls everything.

That last part ... now you are making me laugh on purpose, aren't you?

First, if one's life is completely "controlled" by the internet, one needs to get a life.

Secondly, no, it doesn't control everything, not even close.

Yeah it pretty much is. Everything uses the internet to operate nowadays. Commerce especially. Try to purchase something without cash without the internet. All credit and deposits are managed via the internet. Banks and the stock market don't have dedicated networks. Most businesses utilize the internet. Nobody's got an entire system to themselves but the military and some governmental installations, but they can and do still operate off their own grid. The utility companies operate off the internet with monitoring systems to manage flows. Even intranets are hooked in with regard to transportation, we've gone beyond radar and radio into integrated monitoring systems.

I have two fireplaces and pool full of water, but as far as operating without electricity and communications I'd be pretty much screwed. And since our electrical grid is screwed up and held together with duct tape at this point, a computer doesn't run on hamster power so unless you've got off the grid generation you're not getting on the web.

 

[Valerie]

Why are some people acting like this is something new?

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9407E5DD153AE433A25750C1A9629C946696D6CF

Good find!

It's a top story on cnet.com today.

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News

 

[KittenKoder]

you said you are glad your stuff is on a server in england.....how does that relate to this bill?

Means my website won't be effected by their stupidity and that the server won't be infected with their software. Quite simple really.

i fail to see how:

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

please enlighten

International law will have to be pushed, remember when Bush pushed that? Most of us screamed like hell about it and he ruined our relations with other countries. I pay an extra (small right now) monthly fee to keep mine out of the country, he'd better respect what I and others pay for. Of course I will have my own server soon as it is, which he won't be able to touch.

 

[MaggieMae]

^^Some of us try to keep it honest. What is amazing to us is the sheer volume of criticism no matter what this administration attempts to do.

It amazes me, it truly does -- the sheer robot like quality of some of his supporters.

And some of us know basic physics and other assorted things and don't just pull stuff out of our asses.........It's amazing to see some of the most ridiculous stuff foisted on here as fact.

Fiction projected as potential reality. OBAMA'S GONNA LOCK UP HIS ENEMIES IN FEMA CAMPS!!! Cyber security as a means to control people's lives is the stuff they learn playing video games. These people are truly losing it.

 

[concept]

The people that put this bill in place seem to think it's feasible.

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet - Political News - FOXNews.com

The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users.

Non governmental.

Do we remember what happened in Iran and the subsequent twitters that went out over the net? This type of communication would be one instance of what is likely that Obama and his thugs would be interested in shutting down.


I am shocked (no I'm not) that libs are ok with this. :/

 

[KittenKoder]

The people that put this bill in place seem to think it's feasible.

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet - Political News - FOXNews.com

The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users.

Non governmental.

Do we remember what happened in Iran and the subsequent twitters that went out over the net? This type of communication would be one instance of what is likely that Obama and his thugs would be interested in shutting down.


I am shocked (no I'm not) that libs are ok with this. :/

Obama Pod People are not liberals, they are some strange plant life incapable of saying or seeing anything wrong with their new master.