More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themselves

[Facetious]

. . . and the MSM won't tell us !

Yet another government attempt at cybersecurity
By Scott Bradner



April 6, 2009 (Network World) The timing of two cybersecurity bills just introduced by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) seems a bit funny. It is not so much that they were introduced on April Fools' Day; more importantly, they were introduced before the widespread review of U.S. cybersecurity ordered by President Obama is completed by Melissa Hathaway, acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security Councils.

It would seem to make more sense to wait and see what Hathaway thinks is broken before submitting bills to fix it. While I expect that the bills will be changed when Hathaway reports her findings in a few weeks, the current bills are interesting and have the potential to impact just about everyone in the network or network security business.

The first bill (S 778) would establish an Office of National Cybersecurity Advisor within the Executive Office of the President. The second (S 773), which goes by the title of "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009," covers a grab bag of topics designed to "ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications", among other things.

Some provisions in these bills come from the Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) report titled "Securing Cyberspace for the 44 Presidency." But there are a lot of things in the bills, particularly S 773, which did not come from the CSIS report. Wherever the bill's provisions come from, it seems that someone who has some Internet clue was involved, at least for some of the provisions -- not the norm for congressional staffers. The Washington Post also reports that White House people helped draft the bills, so maybe there is Internet clue there as well.

There has been some controversy over two provisions in S 773. One provision that would empower the president to declare a "cybersecurity emergency" and shut down government networks and maybe even parts of the public Internet. The other provision says that the Secretary of Commerce "shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." Some pendants have read this to mean that the government could wiretap any Internet communications but the drafters could have just meant that a network could not hide its design or performance from the government. This will have to be clarified during the legislative process.

Some other provisions in S 773: establish a cybersecurity advisory panel to advise the president on U.S. cybersecurity and "whether societal and civil liberty concerns are adequately addressed; ask NIST to quickly "establish measurable and auditable cybersecurity standards" in a number of areas for U.S. government and other networks -- including compliance standards for all software; "integrate a national licensing, certification, and periodic recertification program for cybersecurity professionals" that includes, within three years, mandatory licensing for cybersecurity professionals if they want to be engaged in business in the United States (I wonder if that means I will have to get a license to keep working as the technology security guy at Harvard?); implement a secure domain name addressing system; educate the public about cybersecurity; provide grants for cybersecurity research (lots of money) and support for students; figure out if cybersecurity insurance for companies would be a good idea; and have the president "develop and implement a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" within a year -- seems a touch quick to me.

The provisions apply to U.S. governmental networks and to networks or systems designated by the president as a "critical infrastructure system or network" without defining any criteria for such a determination.

It's not hard to see all major Internet providers being so designated.

These bills, if passed, could impact just about everybody in the Internet or Internet services business in the United States -- maybe that is what is needed to get all of the players to pay attention to security.

http://www.computerworld.com/action...&articleId=9131196&taxonomyId=&intsrc=kc_feat

 

[Member2019]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again ...

If you think the US has changed, it's changed no more than Clinton to W. as W. to Obama, because it's more than any one of them.

Also, remember that person freedom and fiscal freedom are inter-related, let alone I've repeatedly warned about people sending money to the single, large, federal entity that can do many things with that money (instead of the states or local governments, if you really feel the need to send government money "do to good").

 

[TITS KING]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

Clinton.....to W....W.....O...W(Jeff W)..........:angels::eek:

:scream::crying::2 cents::2 cents::2 cents::scream::dunno:

 

[meesterperfect]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

IIIIIIIIIIInteresting.
lets not do what they want and just forget about it.
seems you gotta watch this administration very closely.

 

[Blink]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

Some [pedants] have read this to mean that the government could wiretap any Internet communications

The U.S. Government is already able do that and has been for some time now. What effect, if any, the new bills may have in that area remains to be seen.

EFF: Obama Administration Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy

San Francisco - The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets." These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF's lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

News coverage:
http://news.google.com/news?q=obama+warrantless

 

[Shindekudasai]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

Effective laws on cybersecurity can have their advantages. There has to be done more against viral attacks or child pornography on the internet. Proper means and measures of control not only of the different communication channels, but of the people who are employed to secure, manage or maintain these channels are needed. I mean, similar laws/systems/processes already exist for all the other areas of society, why should the internet and it's maintenance be a lawless/unlegislated area?

But things like this

the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program

are very dangerous. That is an executive branch operating without legislative or judiciary control over it. Annulling the functions of the courts like this is on the verge of authoritarianism.

 

[Philbert]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

Effective laws on cybersecurity can have their advantages. There has to be done more against viral attacks or child pornography on the internet. Proper means and measures of control not only of the different communication channels, but of the people who are employed to secure, manage or maintain these channels are needed. I mean, similar laws/systems/processes already exist for all the other areas of society, why should the internet and it's maintenance be a lawless/unlegislated area?

But things like this

are very dangerous. That is an executive branch operating without legislative or judiciary control over it. Annulling the functions of the courts like this is on the verge of authoritarianism.

Why am I not surprised?
Answer..."cause it's the internet.
Wiretaps were a specific remedy to a real danger...I didn't hear of any "abuses", and things were handled through the process. A possible danger is not the same as an immediate one. Duh...
I forget...you're maybe a "surrender Monkey (Man)"as well?
Forget the blow up shit types...our right to privacy might be abused!
Now, we get to be blown up and lose our rights to privacy and self-determination. Daddy Obama knows what's best for us. (Not)

 

[Shindekudasai]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

Answer..."cause it's the internet.

Really? That is your answer to my question "why should the internet and it's maintenance be a lawless/unlegislated area"? Or did you answer your own question ("why am i not surprised") in your own cryptic way again, with some pseudo-half-phrase that could have any meaning and none, waiting for your discussion-counterpart to answer it so that you can claim to have meant the exact opposite, presenting yourself as smart and witty once again?
Because this answer cannot have had any real substance. To answer the question "Why should there be no laws?" just with something like "Because!" is too anarchical for your else quite conservative being.

Wiretaps were a specific remedy to a real danger...I didn't hear of any "abuses", and things were handled through the process. A possible danger is not the same as an immediate one. Duh...

No, no abuses of wire-taps, never. Why am I not surprised by this claim? :dunno: And yes, of course they were supposed to be a specific remedy to a real danger or there wouldn't have been any legal grounds for them in a democratic state. But for someone who likes to pick apart the wording of others' postings, you yourself blatantly fail to make the distinction between "real danger", "possible danger" and "immediate danger". Does this mean, that a danger on, through or to the internet is not a real danger? Or do you think something like a internet virus or someone like a terrorist hacker infiltrating the system disguised as a normal maintenance guy at a university aren't real and can't pose a "possible threat" (and thus "possible danger") or produce "immediate danger"?

I forget...you're maybe a "surrender Monkey (Man)"as well?

Is that the pitiful effort at an insult again?

Forget the blow up shit types...our right to privacy might be abused!
Now, we get to be blown up and lose our rights to privacy and self-determination.

What do you want here exactly? Do you want to be pro or contra? Because you can't have both. And if you tried to be ironic here, you managed really well to cloud the actual meaning of your words (which would show once again that you have no idea how to use rhetorics properly, because an irony is actually supposed to reveal the author's opinion even though he states the opposite).
Either you're for more security (against the "blow up shit types" as you so elaborately conducted), which means cutting back on your rights to privacy and self-determination, or you're for more rights to privacy and self-determination, which means cutting back on the security part. That's a basic principle of political science, my friend. You can't be completely against or completely for both in the same amount at the same time. If this is too abstract for you, read up on it (Dahrendorf, Offe, Fraenkel, Young,...)
And If you actually think, you didn't lose any rights to privacy and self-determination under Bush, than you're delusional. The whole world knows it, only about a third of the American public refuses to believe it. The Obama administration just continues to realize and implement some of the legislative proposals and laws made by the Bush administration.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against cutting down more and more individual rights and privileges in the name of security, but the internet as it is now needs more control and needs more precise and clear laws. Even I know that, and I'm German. You remember the liberal bleeding-heart-whiny-old Europe-"you got to make the case"-guys (as some Americans saw us) in the discussions about Bush's war against Iraq...that was us.

Daddy Obama knows what's best for us. (Not)

Was that a failed attempt at a racial slur...like "Uncle Tom"...? Nicely done. Right-wing boy casting a good light on all right-wingers, even those with serious and considerable viewpoints.

Why am I not surprised?

Why am I not surprised? Following me around again, disagreeing just for the disagreement's sake, oozing self-importance?

 

[Sushi!]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

From what I took from the article is that the government will be able to "wiretap" the internet legally.

Now if everything was practiced in good faith and everybody was working toward an ultimate good i wouldn't have a problem with this.

but with the government's track record - wiretapping the internet seems like a huge problem an a potential assault on our civil liberties.

alot is being done on the internet these days - ALOT. we have all the social networks - we have email - we have freeones etc. now who says the government has the right to peer into the internet anywhere they please? with that act - it would give the legal ground for the government to go to any internet source and claim "terrorist act" and shut whatever it is down.

sites that speak out against corruption - Shut down

sites that organize peaceful protest - shut down

sites that practice religion other than christianity - shut down

and if anybody fights it they won't have the legal ground.

it all comes down to checks and balances between the people and they're government.

it's up to the people to slap the government upside the head when they're doing sneaky shit.

the only problem is the government just happens to wield alot more power than the average person... but not the entire body of a nation.

On the notion of stopping internet crime - i feel the local police should be able to deal with it. (start slightly sarcastic monty python tone) unless they're too busy giving tickets out, because we all want our tickets i mean how else are the cops going to get paid???? through taxes????? (end slightly sarcastic monty python tone)

 

[Philbert]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

Really? That is your answer to my question "why should the internet and it's maintenance be a lawless/unlegislated area"? Or did you answer your own question ("why am i not surprised") in your own cryptic way again, with some pseudo-half-phrase that could have any meaning and none, waiting for your discussion-counterpart to answer it so that you can claim to have meant the exact opposite, presenting yourself as smart and witty once again?
Because this answer cannot have had any real substance. To answer the question "Why should there be no laws?" just with something like "Because!" is too anarchical for your else quite conservative being.
[Blaa blaa blaa...conservative ...mumble...blaa blaa. Did you actually say anything?]:rofl:

No, no abuses of wire-taps, never. Why am I not surprised by this claim? :dunno: And yes, of course they were supposed to be a specific remedy to a real danger or there wouldn't have been any legal grounds for them in a democratic state. But for someone who likes to pick apart the wording of others' postings, you yourself blatantly fail to make the distinction between "real danger", "possible danger" and "immediate danger". Does this mean, that a danger on, through or to the internet is not a real danger? Or do you think something like a internet virus or someone like a terrorist hacker infiltrating the system disguised as a normal maintenance guy at a university aren't real and can't pose a "possible threat" (and thus "possible danger") or produce "immediate danger"? Danger as in wiretaps on outside the US phone calls...use those oversize monkey ears and pay attention, boy. Does this help?

Is that the pitiful effort at an insult again? I don't make pitiful attempts at insult...I do those real well...you haven't had any yet.


What do you want here exactly? Do you want to be pro or contra? Because you can't have both. And if you tried to be ironic here, you managed really well to cloud the actual meaning of your words (which would show once again that you have no idea how to use rhetorics properly, because an irony is actually supposed to reveal the author's opinion even though he states the opposite).
Either you're for more security (against the "blow up shit types" as you so elaborately conducted), which means cutting back on your rights to privacy and self-determination, or you're for more rights to privacy and self-determination, which means cutting back on the security part. That's a basic principle of political science, my friend. You can't be completely against or completely for both in the same amount at the same time. If this is too abstract for you, read up on it (Dahrendorf, Offe, Fraenkel, Young,...)
And If you actually think, you didn't lose any rights to privacy and self-determination under Bush, than you're delusional. The whole world knows it, only about a third of the American public refuses to believe it. The Obama administration just continues to realize and implement some of the legislative proposals and laws made by the Bush administration.
Don't get me wrong, I'm against cutting down more and more individual rights and privileges in the name of security, but the internet as it is now needs more control and needs more precise and clear laws. Even I know that, and I'm German. You remember the liberal bleeding-heart-whiny-old Europe-"you got to make the case"-guys (as some Americans saw us) in the discussions about Bush's war against Iraq...that was us.
Who could get you wrong? You use 300 words to say almost nothing, then claim some intellectual expertise we are so fortunate to experience. You are a complete circus...ringmaster, clown, performing monkeys...the whole thing!:thumbsup:


Was that a failed attempt at a racial slur...like "Uncle Tom"...? Nicely done. Right-wing boy casting a good light on all right-wingers, even those with serious and considerable viewpoints.
That's your mos' silly thing (well, almost) yet...how about...listen carefully, I'll type slowly...Daddy means overseeing parent, like in "Father","Pop", "Vater", "Poppie"...am I going too fast for you? Just tell me if I am...you just can't handle being less than my intellectual equal and hold on to you preconceptions sooo tightly...just when are you gonna stop answering me as you've vowed...what, 3 times now?...It does your blood pressure no good!


Why am I not surprised? Following me around again, disagreeing just for the disagreement's sake, oozing self-importance? I could swear for a moment there you got confused and were regarding yourself..."Following me around again, disagreeing just for the disagreement's sake, oozing self-importance?" in some reflective surface and forgot to pontificate at us!

Here, this should be clear enough even for your mighty intellect...smileys to communicate!:yahoo::conehead:

:rofl:

 

[Shindekudasai]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

You are truly nothing but a child, twisting words and hiding his ignorance behind insults, lies and empty phrases while actually saying nothing of any substance and value. Somebody ever teach you, that language is a means to simplify communication, not complicate it? Or that there is a difference between spoken and written language? [APEING]"Danger as in wiretaps on outside the US phone calls"[/APEING]...still not a complete sentence and still makes no sense.

I got no time for this. I don't know why I should waste my education on you...boy. You are uncapable of thinking, learning or accepting anything. You just utter gibberish and half-sentences, behaving like the clever man and expect everyone to know, what you're talking about, while in fact you're just utterly stupid.

I hereby invite you (in case you ever leave your own little universe) to visit me at my workplace, talk to people that I work with, see and read some of my work. I know you will just cough up some brainless excuse now, but the invitation stands. Give me the satisfaction.

And I bet you will answer to this posting, too, even if it's only a negativ rep (again), because you have absolutely no shame and you just can't resist to have the last word (of course with as much smilies and insults as possible to demonstrate your superior intellect).

 

[DukeLaCrosse]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

make up your mind republicans. if bush pushed through a cybersecurity bill he's making us safer. if obama does it, he's taking away our freedoms. hypocrites!

 

[Facetious]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

make up your mind republicans. if bush pushed through a cybersecurity bill he's making us safer. if obama does it, he's taking away our freedoms. hypocrites!

Already made up. They're both (rep & dem) bands of foos !

How about just a lay the fuck off form of government for a change ?

That'll be the day.

 

[Philbert]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

You are truly nothing but a child, twisting words and hiding his ignorance behind insults, lies and empty phrases while actually saying nothing of any substance and value. Somebody ever teach you, that language is a means to simplify communication, not complicate it? Or that there is a difference between spoken and written language? [APEING]"Danger as in wiretaps on outside the US phone calls"[/APEING]...still not a complete sentence and still makes no sense.
(Here...relax...this will make it easier for you, MM..."Danger, as in wiretaps-on-outside-the-US phone calls". Feel better and smarter now?)
I got no time for this. I don't know why I should waste my education on you...boy. You are uncapable of thinking, learning or accepting anything. You just utter gibberish and half-sentences, behaving like the clever man and expect everyone to know, what you're talking about, while in fact you're just utterly stupid.

I hereby invite you (in case you ever leave your own little universe) to visit me at my workplace, talk to people that I work with, see and read some of my work. I know you will just cough up some brainless excuse now, but the invitation stands. Give me the satisfaction.

And I bet you will answer to this posting, too, even if it's only a negativ rep (again), because you have absolutely no shame and you just can't resist to have the last word (of course with as much smilies and insults as possible to demonstrate your superior intellect).

And it is clearly superior...you are slowly going lower and lower in your communication level...Boy? You have some kind of ageist theory about me...I was a man when you were still trying to find a girl who'd let you see something.:rofl:
And like I'm packing my bags to come see you...
Calling a member "stupid" not only shows how inadequate your responses have become, but it's against the forum rules. Are you so full of yourself you have no respect for the rules where you are a guest?
Bad manners and bad posts...take a break before you start calling me a "doo-doo head".
Or is that your next plan of attack?:rofl2:
BTW...I have read plenty of your stuff, and I'm so not impressed.
BTW...You Misspelled/misused "incapable".

 

[Philbert]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

make up your mind republicans. if bush pushed through a cybersecurity bill he's making us safer. if obama does it, he's taking away our freedoms. hypocrites!

At last, more than 1 line !
And you're mostly right..."if bush pushed through a cybersecurity bill he's making us safer. if obama does it, he's taking away our freedoms."

 

[feller469]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

the divide is not Republicans vs. Democrats or Liberals vs. Conservatives. It is uber-rich vs. the rest. The Senate is pretty much made up of clones. There are "philosophical differences" on some issues, but those a smoke screens. Our government is ripping off the people to the tune of a few hundred billion dollars. It started with one regime and continues in this one. No party delineation, just continued raping of our financial security. Stop the petty differences discussion. Look big picture and realize this is what they want. While we focus on some trivial issue, they are deepening the chasm between us and them.

 

[TITS KING]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

You are right....absolutely right......feller 469:thumbsup:

Here might be differences between the two sides.........

But these politicians are from the same rich class.....they lobby for the rich and capitalists and always work against the benefit of common man..........
This is a simple universal theory of these politicians.....around the World.

Doesn't matter how much Twist around the words in the topic of the thread...the answer remains the same...."The politicians always lobby for the rich and capitalists and always work against the benefit of common man".

 

[Member2019]

Or as I always say ...

The rich black man doesn't talk for the poor black man
Any more than the rich white man doesn't talk for the poor white man
And you can take it from there on anything ...

 

[TITS KING]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

Politicians ........irrespective of their.....race/color are all the same sort of crooks.....and work for their own interest......:hatsoff:

 

[CunningStunts]

Re: More Restrictions By Slimey Power Grabbing . . "liberals" they're calling themse

Politicians ........irrespective of their.....race/color are all the same sort of crooks.....and work for their own interest......:hatsoff:

Totally agree. But I will say the rate of Federal government expansion and control in 09 so far is alarming to say the least....