WH Control of the Internet

[bigrebnc1775]

Did no one actually read the damn article?

The law places .gov websites under security control of DHS.

It doesn't give them any other power than that.

From the article first sentence

Under a White House plan, the Homeland Security Department will have far-reaching oversight over all civilian agency computer networks.

And this would be a perfect example of why you need to read more than just the first sentence.

Are you saying it's not talking about the White House plan?

 

[finebead]

04/30/10

SNOsoft, a research team at cyber-security specialists Netragard specializing in anti-hacking have penetrated a medium-level bank by ascertaining relevant information from popular social media websites.

Despite banks' best efforts, IT hacking is still prevalent, and it seems with the right know-how, gaining inside access to files and personal details is not as difficult as hoped. In 2009, Israeli bank hacker Ehud Tenenbaum was arrested in Canada and charged in the US with allegedly stealing roughly $1.5 million in a bank hacking scheme.

Also in January of 2009, experts had warned banks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, how the threat of cyber-crime was rising sharply, and a new anti-fraud system should be implemented globally to tackle well organized hacking gangs.

Clearly this has not been the case, as SNOsoft were able to penetrate a mid-level bank with relative ease. In a blog, the firm's boss, Adriel Desautels, explains that SNOsoft gathered valuable information from social networking sites like Facebook, essentially mapping relationships between employees, vendors, friends and family. The social networking site also helped identify key people in accounts receivable/accounts payable (AR/AP) at the bank.

<snip>

To get further inside the IT system, SNOsoft applied for an IT security job and used the subsequent screening call to pump the bank for details on its anti-virus technologies and policies on controlling outbound network traffic.

To get complete control of a the bank's IT infrastructure, SNOsoft sent an embedded PDF file to a bank workers system from a trusted IT service provider. As a result the PDF slid unnoticed through the bank's anti-virus software and once opened by the employee, Snosoft could install its own back-door technology and deployed a suite of tools before scoping out the internal network. Eventually the team cracked the bank's passwords and gained access to desktops, servers and Cisco devices used by the bank.

"In summary, we were able to penetrate into our customers IT Infrastructure and effectively take control of the entire infrastructure without being detected," said Desautels.

It seems that IT security has a long way to go before our money is truly safe.

Hackers penetrate mid-level bank IT network | GDS Publishing

At least these guys are professionals. They have a plan. They execute the plan. They get in. They have their way. Everyone is vulnerable if they want you.

 

[HUGGY]

Under a White House plan, the Homeland Security Department will have far-reaching oversight over all civilian agency computer networks.

The proposal would codify much of the administration's memo from July 2010 expanding DHS's cyber responsibilities for civilian networks.

The White House, however, is taking those responsibilities further, according to a source familiar with the document. The administration drafted a legislative proposal to give DHS many, if not all, of the same authorities for the .gov networks that the Defense Department has for the .mil networks.

Federal News Radio recently viewed a draft copy of the legislative proposal.
"I have to question why the Executive branch is writing legislation," said the source, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about it. "This is not a proposal or white paper like the White House usually sends to Capitol Hill. This is the actual legislation."

The source said the 100-page document is going through interagency review. DHS sent the document around to agencies late last Friday and asked for comments by Monday. The source said few agencies had time to take a hard look at the document, especially in light of the possible government shutdown.

"The cybersecurity legislation being developed in Congress is a large, complex bill with wide-ranging implications, and several Senate committees are involved in its drafting," said committee spokeswoman Leslie Phillips.
Federal News Radio 1500 AM: White House draft bill expands DHS cyber responsibilities

AND....what was and is your stand on the "emergency" passage of the Patriot Act, in the previous administration, which covers everything you seem to be concerned with in the OP?

 

[HUGGY]

I guess you are not reading the whole thread. The internet is a communications medium, but it is also a strategic WEAPON in the hand of cyber warriors, and it has been used as a weapon by the US and others, notably the Russian mafia and Chinese govt. (against Google). Your view is simply naive.

For the rest of this post, see #30 on page 2.

I understand the nature of the internet. And there is NO REASON on earth for the government to be able to shut it down.

There are other ways to put security measures in place without SILENCING and CUTTING OFF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from access to information and communication.

There are many other ways for the people to get information if the internet is turned of for a day. They can watch TV, listen to radio, buy the newspaper, call their friends on the phone.

There is NO other way for a terrorist in Moscow, or Rio (he could be arab, russian, or chinese) to hack a Citibank computer and steal millions (which they have done already).

The internet can be used as the delivery vehicle for a weapon (program). You can't do that with TV, radio, newspapers, or phones.

The internet is different. Shutting it down would hinder part of our ability to communicate with each other, but it would not eliminate that ability altogether.

I hate to break it to you but since the Supreme Court ruling that Fox and it's co-joiners in their suit to maintain the right to lie, television is most certainly a weapon. Once upon a time when it was illegal to knowingly lie to the public there as also FCC rules against the use of subliminal messages. That rule became mute when lying could be done out in the open. What makes subliminal broadcasting so insidious is that it plants thoughts and coaches agreement about ideas that no one would listen to or agree to if they knew it was happening. People used to say that TV will rot your brain. Now it is not only true.. You have been talked, without your permission and against your conscious will, into submitting to the brainwashing.

Ya I know.."conspiracy"..HUGGY's crazy.. how about if I tell you it wasn't developed for political purposes but to get you to make purchases in your grocery store or gas station. How many times have you been told that one gasoline is better than another..and sometimes priced more than 50 cents a gallon for the advantages of buying it? How many of you know that most gasoline stations buy their products from the very same refinery? THERE IS NO CHEVRON REFINERY WITH TECHRON... IT is all the same with tiny amounts of additives added to the tankers. I mean microscopic. Just enough to make it legal to say it is different. like one part per million. There is no difference in gasoline ...none you could measure scientifically......except for how much ethanol is added.

It's all about frames per second. I don't know if it is possible to do it on the internet..I kinda doubt it.. But cable and satellite can certainly shuffle in a frame every 30 or so and you wouldn't even know it. The sick part is that it works and the victims swear they believe the message but cannot tell you why or where they heard or saw it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From the article first sentence

Under a White House plan, the Homeland Security Department will have far-reaching oversight over all civilian agency computer networks.

And this would be a perfect example of why you need to read more than just the first sentence.

Are you saying it's not talking about the White House plan?

Well, since the "White House Plan" (which isn't from the White House) is explained in the article, I think that would be more relevant than the headline.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And this would be a perfect example of why you need to read more than just the first sentence.

Are you saying it's not talking about the White House plan?

Well, since the "White House Plan" (which isn't from the White House) is explained in the article, I think that would be more relevant than the headline.

oh so the article according o you is just blowing smoke? Hw am I not surprised?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you saying it's not talking about the White House plan?

Well, since the "White House Plan" (which isn't from the White House) is explained in the article, I think that would be more relevant than the headline.

oh so the article according o you is just blowing smoke? Hw am I not surprised?

So, you're really gonna stick with this?

You're claiming that the line "Under a White House plan, the Homeland Security Department will have far-reaching oversight over all civilian agency computer networks." is proof that this plan is more than DHS taking control over .gov sites.

Even though the article explains what the "White House Plan" is, and it's nothing more than what I said.

Find a source that disagrees with me. Otherwise you're just being a petulant child.

 

[percysunshine]

I think this is complete and total bu++++++++++

(This post has been censored by the Department of Homeland Security for national safety reasons. Do not attempt to reply to this message.)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think this is complete and total bu++++++++++

(This post has been censored by the Department of Homeland Security for national safety reasons. Do not attempt to reply to this message.)

I never do listen to the governemt

 

[idb]

I'm constantly amazed and entertained on this site at how narrow the ideologies of so many of the posters are, and as a consequence how black or white their world view is without the ability to consider consequences.

As shown on this thread..."All government involvement in society is either inept or sinister, therefore there should be no question of the government having any ability to take charge when our security is under threat."

Personally, if I were to nominate one fundamental task of government it would be national security.

One other thing, you can no longer consider the internet as simply a telephone with a keyboard and screen as some of you are suggesting.

 

[idb]

I understand the nature of the internet. And there is NO REASON on earth for the government to be able to shut it down.

There are other ways to put security measures in place without SILENCING and CUTTING OFF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from access to information and communication.

There are many other ways for the people to get information if the internet is turned of for a day. They can watch TV, listen to radio, buy the newspaper, call their friends on the phone.

There is NO other way for a terrorist in Moscow, or Rio (he could be arab, russian, or chinese) to hack a Citibank computer and steal millions (which they have done already).

The internet can be used as the delivery vehicle for a weapon (program). You can't do that with TV, radio, newspapers, or phones.

The internet is different. Shutting it down would hinder part of our ability to communicate with each other, but it would not eliminate that ability altogether.

I hate to break it to you but since the Supreme Court ruling that Fox and it's co-joiners in their suit to maintain the right to lie, television is most certainly a weapon. Once upon a time when it was illegal to knowingly lie to the public there as also FCC rules against the use of subliminal messages. That rule became mute when lying could be done out in the open. What makes subliminal broadcasting so insidious is that it plants thoughts and coaches agreement about ideas that no one would listen to or agree to if they knew it was happening. People used to say that TV will rot your brain. Now it is not only true.. You have been talked, without your permission and against your conscious will, into submitting to the brainwashing.

Ya I know.."conspiracy"..HUGGY's crazy.. how about if I tell you it wasn't developed for political purposes but to get you to make purchases in your grocery store or gas station. How many times have you been told that one gasoline is better than another..and sometimes priced more than 50 cents a gallon for the advantages of buying it? How many of you know that most gasoline stations buy their products from the very same refinery? THERE IS NO CHEVRON REFINERY WITH TECHRON... IT is all the same with tiny amounts of additives added to the tankers. I mean microscopic. Just enough to make it legal to say it is different. like one part per million. There is no difference in gasoline ...none you could measure scientifically......except for how much ethanol is added.

It's all about frames per second. I don't know if it is possible to do it on the internet..I kinda doubt it.. But cable and satellite can certainly shuffle in a frame every 30 or so and you wouldn't even know it. The sick part is that it works and the victims swear they believe the message but cannot tell you why or where they heard or saw it.

Hasn't that been largely de-bunked?

 

[idb]

Looking at the link in the OP, it refers to the DHS having oversight over the networks of 'civilian agencies'.
As far as I can tell from other links and such, these are private companies that provide services to the government with the .gov suffix...is that right?

 

[Si modo]

I don't believe that I am misunderstanding the article, but this is legislation for more government control (specifically DHS) over government internet domains. Dot gov domains.

The government already has control over dot gov servers. Apparently, this is centralizing security over dot gov sites into one agency rather than have each individual agency be responsible for their own security.

That's what I got out of that article.

It doesn't look like the government will have anything to do, as far as expanding any control, with any other domains other than dot mil and dot gov domains.

That seems reasonable to me. But, I haven't seen the bill and am only going on what is written in the article.




Aside from that, I find it scary, terrifying even, that some who interpreted this as government getting control over the entire internet as something that the government needs to do.

Simply frightening.

Case in point

We don't know what the specifics are, but this is probably necessary.
....

 

[HUGGY]

There are many other ways for the people to get information if the internet is turned of for a day. They can watch TV, listen to radio, buy the newspaper, call their friends on the phone.

There is NO other way for a terrorist in Moscow, or Rio (he could be arab, russian, or chinese) to hack a Citibank computer and steal millions (which they have done already).

The internet can be used as the delivery vehicle for a weapon (program). You can't do that with TV, radio, newspapers, or phones.

The internet is different. Shutting it down would hinder part of our ability to communicate with each other, but it would not eliminate that ability altogether.

I hate to break it to you but since the Supreme Court ruling that Fox and it's co-joiners in their suit to maintain the right to lie, television is most certainly a weapon. Once upon a time when it was illegal to knowingly lie to the public there as also FCC rules against the use of subliminal messages. That rule became mute when lying could be done out in the open. What makes subliminal broadcasting so insidious is that it plants thoughts and coaches agreement about ideas that no one would listen to or agree to if they knew it was happening. People used to say that TV will rot your brain. Now it is not only true.. You have been talked, without your permission and against your conscious will, into submitting to the brainwashing.

Ya I know.."conspiracy"..HUGGY's crazy.. how about if I tell you it wasn't developed for political purposes but to get you to make purchases in your grocery store or gas station. How many times have you been told that one gasoline is better than another..and sometimes priced more than 50 cents a gallon for the advantages of buying it? How many of you know that most gasoline stations buy their products from the very same refinery? THERE IS NO CHEVRON REFINERY WITH TECHRON... IT is all the same with tiny amounts of additives added to the tankers. I mean microscopic. Just enough to make it legal to say it is different. like one part per million. There is no difference in gasoline ...none you could measure scientifically......except for how much ethanol is added.

It's all about frames per second. I don't know if it is possible to do it on the internet..I kinda doubt it.. But cable and satellite can certainly shuffle in a frame every 30 or so and you wouldn't even know it. The sick part is that it works and the victims swear they believe the message but cannot tell you why or where they heard or saw it.

Hasn't that been largely de-bunked?

Not at all. It isn't like it instantly makes people zombies. Think of it like having the effect of canned laughter. Many people find themselves laughing out loud at things, situations or ideas that are not really funny to them before they are coached by the laugh track. Once they start to laugh and participate they actually start to think whatever it is...is humorous. Subliminal suggestion makes the target start to believe the message after a lot of exposure. It won't make you an axe murderer but it will get you to buy "Wheaties". It has about the same effect as repetitive hypnosis.

 

[idb]

I hate to break it to you but since the Supreme Court ruling that Fox and it's co-joiners in their suit to maintain the right to lie, television is most certainly a weapon. Once upon a time when it was illegal to knowingly lie to the public there as also FCC rules against the use of subliminal messages. That rule became mute when lying could be done out in the open. What makes subliminal broadcasting so insidious is that it plants thoughts and coaches agreement about ideas that no one would listen to or agree to if they knew it was happening. People used to say that TV will rot your brain. Now it is not only true.. You have been talked, without your permission and against your conscious will, into submitting to the brainwashing.

Ya I know.."conspiracy"..HUGGY's crazy.. how about if I tell you it wasn't developed for political purposes but to get you to make purchases in your grocery store or gas station. How many times have you been told that one gasoline is better than another..and sometimes priced more than 50 cents a gallon for the advantages of buying it? How many of you know that most gasoline stations buy their products from the very same refinery? THERE IS NO CHEVRON REFINERY WITH TECHRON... IT is all the same with tiny amounts of additives added to the tankers. I mean microscopic. Just enough to make it legal to say it is different. like one part per million. There is no difference in gasoline ...none you could measure scientifically......except for how much ethanol is added.

It's all about frames per second. I don't know if it is possible to do it on the internet..I kinda doubt it.. But cable and satellite can certainly shuffle in a frame every 30 or so and you wouldn't even know it. The sick part is that it works and the victims swear they believe the message but cannot tell you why or where they heard or saw it.

Hasn't that been largely de-bunked?

Not at all. It isn't like it instantly makes people zombies. Think of it like having the effect of canned laughter. Many people find themselves laughing out loud at things, situations or ideas that are not really funny to them before they are coached by the laugh track. Once they start to laugh and participate they actually start to think whatever it is...is humorous. Subliminal suggestion makes the target start to believe the message after a lot of exposure. It won't make you an axe murderer but it will get you to buy "Wheaties". It has about the same effect as repetitive hypnosis.

And to think, I recently bought a bigger tv!
Oops...must be quiet...it might hear me!!!

 

[finebead]

This is absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling content.

From the article:

For instance under cyber crime, the proposal would expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to include a series of criminal offensives for cyber attacks and confidentiality abuses. It also would expand the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to establish criminal penalties for cyber crime.

Under critical infrastructure protection, the bill lets the DHS secretary decide what is critical infrastructure, assess audit systems for cyber resilience and create an industry of third-party accreditors and evaluators to assess private sector owners and operators systems for meeting cybersecurity requirements.

The proposal also requires the development of voluntary consensus standards by industry, academic and government experts for each sector.

The bill states that owners and operators of critical infrastructure shall develop cybersecurity measures, and a senior accountable official must sign and attest to their implementation. The bill adds that form must remain on file and available for review, inspection and evaluations by third-party evaluators.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling CONTENT, PERIOD!!!

It further defines certain actions as a cyber crime, which is necessary given that old laws did not know about the internet, it defines what critical infrastructure is, and directs owners of critical infrastructure to develop cybersecurity measures, and it defines audit standards the owners must live up to, and requires a responsible person in the company to sign off that they are meeting the cyber security measures (just like the CEO has to sign off on financial reporting now under Sarbanes Oxley).

This is a most reasonable bill in light of the cyber attacks we have been victims of already, and what is expected in the future.

The threats are real, I have documented a few of them by showing actual attacks in this thread, and this is a good response to those and future threats.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling content.

From the article:

For instance under cyber crime, the proposal would expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to include a series of criminal offensives for cyber attacks and confidentiality abuses. It also would expand the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to establish criminal penalties for cyber crime.

Under critical infrastructure protection, the bill lets the DHS secretary decide what is critical infrastructure, assess audit systems for cyber resilience and create an industry of third-party accreditors and evaluators to assess private sector owners and operators systems for meeting cybersecurity requirements.

The proposal also requires the development of voluntary consensus standards by industry, academic and government experts for each sector.

The bill states that owners and operators of critical infrastructure shall develop cybersecurity measures, and a senior accountable official must sign and attest to their implementation. The bill adds that form must remain on file and available for review, inspection and evaluations by third-party evaluators.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling CONTENT, PERIOD!!!

It further defines certain actions as a cyber crime, which is necessary given that old laws did not know about the internet, it defines what critical infrastructure is, and directs owners of critical infrastructure to develop cybersecurity measures, and it defines audit standards the owners must live up to, and requires a responsible person in the company to sign off that they are meeting the cyber security measures (just like the CEO has to sign off on financial reporting now under Sarbanes Oxley).

This is a most reasonable bill in light of the cyber attacks we have been victims of already, and what is expected in the future.

The threats are real, I have documented a few of them by showing actual attacks in this thread, and this is a good response to those and future threats.

And ObamaCare has nothing to do with taking over healthcare!

Don't you understand the technique yet????

 

[Stephanie]

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling CONTENT, PERIOD!!!

man oh man, you gotta shake your head at Liberals today.

If this had been suggested by a Republican President they would be foaming from mouth.

but, because it's the Obama and his comrades in arms, they don't MIND rolling over and giving up their rights and turning all the POWER over to the Guberment.

 

[finebead]

This is absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling content.

From the article:

For instance under cyber crime, the proposal would expand the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to include a series of criminal offensives for cyber attacks and confidentiality abuses. It also would expand the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act to establish criminal penalties for cyber crime.

Under critical infrastructure protection, the bill lets the DHS secretary decide what is critical infrastructure, assess audit systems for cyber resilience and create an industry of third-party accreditors and evaluators to assess private sector owners and operators systems for meeting cybersecurity requirements.

The proposal also requires the development of voluntary consensus standards by industry, academic and government experts for each sector.

The bill states that owners and operators of critical infrastructure shall develop cybersecurity measures, and a senior accountable official must sign and attest to their implementation. The bill adds that form must remain on file and available for review, inspection and evaluations by third-party evaluators.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with controlling CONTENT, PERIOD!!!

It further defines certain actions as a cyber crime, which is necessary given that old laws did not know about the internet, it defines what critical infrastructure is, and directs owners of critical infrastructure to develop cybersecurity measures, and it defines audit standards the owners must live up to, and requires a responsible person in the company to sign off that they are meeting the cyber security measures (just like the CEO has to sign off on financial reporting now under Sarbanes Oxley).

This is a most reasonable bill in light of the cyber attacks we have been victims of already, and what is expected in the future.

The threats are real, I have documented a few of them by showing actual attacks in this thread, and this is a good response to those and future threats.

And ObamaCare has nothing to do with taking over healthcare!

Don't you understand the technique yet????

Nothing but inuendo. Do you have any facts? I have shown the facts, if you won't believe them, there is nothing more I can say.

I can't believe that after the US launched and effectively used cyber warfare against Iraq, and we have been attacked by the russian mafia and chinese govt. at citibank and google, that anybody would irresponsibly think we DON'T need a national cyber defense plan. There is not one shred of fact to support govt. control of any content on the internet.

We allowed the govt. to shut down all commercial flight and all stock market trading for days following 9/11, because it made sense in light of the severe event that occurred. We may need to do that with the internet (although it is not provided for in this bill as far as I can see), depending on the breath of a cyber attack against banking and financial sites (cited in one of my posts as a major concern in the Bush administration).

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm constantly amazed and entertained on this site at how narrow the ideologies of so many of the posters are, and as a consequence how black or white their world view is without the ability to consider consequences.

As shown on this thread..."All government involvement in society is either inept or sinister, therefore there should be no question of the government having any ability to take charge when our security is under threat."

Personally, if I were to nominate one fundamental task of government it would be national security.

One other thing, you can no longer consider the internet as simply a telephone with a keyboard and screen as some of you are suggesting.

You lucky boy!

Historian Walter Laqueur: “Let us not lose our ability to be astonished.”

And here you are: " ...constantly amazed..."


Has it occurred to you that it may be due to you lack of understanding?

You see, I learned early on not to be amazed, or astonished by the superficiallity of some of the posts!
Sadly, you have not yet been able to incorporate the distal nor proximal history that goes into the posts of the more astute posters.

But, I trust that you will learn, and, in the words of Eliot:
"Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea."