Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Here is a link to the web site for the Project for a New American Century. Although i doubt that you'll actually take advantage of the opportunity, all the evidence that one could ask for that PNAC called for an invasion of Iraq before the September 11th attacks is there.

I stated earlier that PNAC had written to President Clinton on this subject in 1997. I was mistaken, but not by much. The letter is dated January 26th, 1998. This portion is what i mean when i say there is all the evidence one could ask for:

Quote:

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

This letter is signed by Elliott Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey and Robert B. Zoellick. Once again, at no time did i describe the call for an invasion of Iraq as a "ploy," nor did i ever mention vengeance.

0 Replies

A few things come to mind first the power to shut the internet off is of the order of the power to shut the electric power grid off, a meaningless power to say the least.

Second in a real national emergency the president would do what is needed laws or no laws and the courts would not during such a period second guess him.

Third the internet is worldwide so no nation had all that must power over the internet.

All in all a kind of pointless law that will entrain the nuts cases as some evil plot.

1 Reply

Getting back to the thread...
I'm not really sure why this bothers anyone. Maybe I'm missing the point but it's not really about turning the internet off per se, but blocking access to vitally important infrastructure. Or is it more insidious and why?

2 Replies

@Ceili,

I think you're right but the point of contention is the public/private alliance. Some of these servers and systems don't belong to the government so there is some deserved caution about giving that power to the government. I recognize that the legislation specifies "compromised" systems -- meaning already attacked and possibly spreading viruses -- but I'm thinking about the possibility of a president who does not respect the finer points of the law and our general reluctance to do anything about it.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

... a president who does not respect the finer points of the law...

been there, done that.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

Exactly. And we've done nothing to ensure that we won't go there and do that again in the future.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Exactly. And we've done nothing to ensure that we won't go there and do that again in the future.

i would say something like, "get approval from congress, or a rapid response congressional committee", but that didn't work out so great last time either.

i'm not sure what the answer is. and with some people insisting that someone like Palin is qualified to be president...... <pfooooooooo...>.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Once more in a true time critical national emergency the seizing of private inter-structures if needed would be done under the power of a president already have to act in such a situation and no court would grant any form of relief during such a crisis.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

A few things come to mind first the power to shut the internet off is of the order of the power to shut the electric power grid off, a meaningless power to say the least.

Second in a real national emergency the president would do what is needed laws or no laws and the courts would not during such a period second guess him.

Third the internet is worldwide so no nation had all that must power over the internet.

All in all a kind of pointless law that will entrain the nuts cases as some evil plot.

There is far more to the bill as it now sits then just turning off the internet/

Quote:

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.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

This basically grants the government to examine private computer networks and systems at will. That should certainly worry anyone with any concerns about further government meddling in private business. Do you really want government to have that ability?

Perhaps this is nothing as it sits in committee, but how many of you had even heard that this was even a remote possibility before reading it here? That is why I posted it. It should concern everyone that our government is working on things like this.

2 Replies

it's been out there for a while, mcg. still good that you posted it and brought it up to date.

i reckon that companies that did government and military work is what they refer to as "critical". whereas something like a post production house is not.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

This basically grants the government to examine private computer networks and systems at will. That should certainly worry anyone with any concerns about further government meddling in private business. Do you really want government to have that ability?

Perhaps this is nothing as it sits in committee, but how many of you had even heard that this was even a remote possibility before reading it here? That is why I posted it. It should concern everyone that our government is working on things like this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you have a similar problem if the government wish to know similar details of the electric grids for example?

I see little problem with the government having such information that would be needed to defend the electric grids or the internet networks or the water supplies or the telephone networks or.........

Private companies that control elements of the society that is critical to the society always have the government involved and rightly so.

Side note there is currently concerns that some electric companies are using the internet in controlling their power grid for example as a cheap mean to do so.

Now please tell me that governments at all levels does not have a duty to made sure that such used is secure and if not to force the power companies to find another way to route command and control.

0 Replies

I think it is noteworthy that McG was silent on the issue of the Federal government examining the records of telephone services providers just a few years ago. I submit that it is the character of the current administration which has gotten McG's panties in a twist, not the nature of the proposed (and likely moribund) legislation.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

No. The U.S. history books, that school children read, always make an ethical case for any actions the U.S. was involved in.

Uh, who gives a **** what 'children' read? Serious history books are for adults, not children.

Quote:

The history books that you talk about might be in a library, but you know how many people read library history books.

I do, and so do many, many others. Don't extrapolate based on your own limited experience with them.

Cycloptichorn

I was responding to your claim: "In fact, the decision to attack Iraq was a political one, one which fulfilled long-term goals of the Neocons. And the disaster which ensued was a critical mistake for our country. I believe this is exactly what the 'history books' will show."

As you must be aware, few voters read the library's history books, and most voters subscribe to the "popular culture's" version of history, which is reflected in the grade school history books. That is the goal - get most voters to subscribe to the "official" version of history.

But, you do not have to agree with me. What was my current events is your history. Perhaps, you should debate with your peers?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

There is far more to the bill as it now sits then just turning off the internet/

Quote:
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.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

I always get curious when the quotes are such short snippets, so I went back to look at the text. There is no section 201 -- maybe the author had an older version of the bill? I searched for "periodic mapping" and found it in section 18.5.

Quote:

The President--
...

(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security
...

As to what constitutes critical infrastructure, the author is right that there doesn't seem to be a defined process for it, but in Sec. 2 Findings there's this:

Quote:

(9) According to the February 2003 National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, ‘our nation’s critical infrastructures are composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping. Cyberspace is their nervous system--the control system of our country’ and that ‘the cornerstone of America’s cyberspace security strategy is and will remain a public-private partnership.’.

And in Sec. 23 Definitions:

Quote:

(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term ‘Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks’ includes--

(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and

(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

So it sounds like it's by presidential designation. That sounds a bit too much like decree for me.

And again I'll plug my new favorite site opencongress.org and remind everyone that they can read the full text here. You can even leave comments section by section.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Or is it more insidious and why?

It may or may not be insidious, but it touches something very important: that the US ultimately controls the whole internet. The internet is becoming more an more important to worldwide communication and commerce and over the last several years this has been a very legitimate power struggle, with the rest of the world just waking up to how much political and economic power they were ceding to the US.

Since 2006, things have improved for the rest of the world, with more control being ceded by the US but the core issue remains undefined: when push comes to shove, who controls the internet?

I think the rest of the world need to be even more proactive about this than they have been, and should be very wary of legislation that seeks to officialize US control over the most important technological and economic development of our lifetimes.

The Brazilian delegation said it best back then, when it stated "On Internet governance, three words tend to come to mind: lack of legitimacy. In our digital world, only one nation decides for all of us."

The US ceded enough control (only because the rest of the world was going to fracture the internet if they didn't) for that controversy to calm down, but still ultimately controls the internet. Other countries need to start taking more control and it will have to be through technology (running their own DNS root servers) instead of politics because the US is probably not ever going to give that up.

Bills like this that seek to codify control over the internet are a sensitive issue for very good reason. As the Center for Democracy and Technology said, "from a public-interest perspective, any direct government involvement in the Internet's technical management is less than optimal."

0 Replies

Thanks Robert, I hadn't thought of it in a more universal level.

0 Replies

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know