U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

[sharon sanders]

A bill making its way through the U.S. Senate -

"...President Obama said in a speech at Purdue University on July 16, 2008, that `every American depends--directly or indirectly--on our system of information networks. They are increasingly the backbone of our economy and our infrastructure; our national security and our personal well-being. But it's no secret that terrorists could use our computer networks to deal us a crippling blow. We know that cyber-espionage and common crime is already on the rise. And yet while countries like China have been quick to recognize this change, for the last eight years we have been dragging our feet.' Moreover, President Obama stated that `we need to build the capacity to identify, isolate, and respond to any cyber-attack.'.

snip
SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

• The President--

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;...."

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html

Bill S.733.IS

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

Is that actually a physical possiblity, considering all the interconnectivity of the net?

.

[sharon sanders]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

Sure. I think all it takes is a flip of the switch.

"United States critical infrastructure information system or network" describes the entire internet.

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

Take the case of a webmaster that lives and works in the US whose web site is hosted in India. If the US government chose to "flip a switch", couldn't that site still be viewed in England, or by any other non-US ISPs & their customers?

Considering the lower costs of some non-US and non-Europe hosting companies in India, Pakistan, etc., isn't it possible that many web sites wouldn't be impacted?

.

[mixin]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

The ability of our govt to shut down systems gives us a lot to think about. I wonder what all this encompasses: "United States critical infrastructure information system or network;...."

The following is from one of the articles I just read:
The issue has long been of concern to utility executives. The industry, in fact, is estimated to fend off hundreds -- if not thousands -- of cyber attacks each year. For its part, the U.S. government has allocated billions to safeguard the system. It's an endeavor that the Obama administration is likely to beef up now that the Pentagon has said it just spent $100 million repairing damages caused by hackers, all in the past six months.

[gsgs]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

> to deal us a crippling blow

they could publish their own version of things and opinions ...

enemy-propaganda

[tropical]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

#1: "(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;....""

#3: ""United States critical infrastructure information system or network" describes the entire internet."


The above can be contemplated in another manner instead of "the entire internet".

The formulation "FedGov or US critical ... system or network" could contain maybe only the critical gov/mil/pol/health/energy/water/.../ INNER systems or networks.

Such inner systems or networks are already contemplated as confidential, and it is not their intention to be part of the wide public data sharing.

So, the formulation "limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from" would be implemented only for the above cited inner systems and network, additionaly narrowed (looking the source paragraf news text word) only for the "compromised" ones, plain words - the ones on which the cyberattack were conducted or could be started.

The data divulgation policies (classified or not) from the above sites are certainly constricted by some national/internat. law, so if the text news which circulate through the wide public internet is not from such dedicated special systems and net parts, such news could circulate further without shutdowns of the systems/traffic through which it travel.

The FT server, or other wide public domain servers and local nets would not be obscurated/limitated until some kind of non allowed material travelling to or from them, or if some of the various cyber attacks were conducted from them.

So all this could be readed as an more critical items security without censuring the wide public data communication and traffic, probably.

[tropical]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/

SciTechBlog

April 20, 2009

A turning point for online piracy?

Posted: 09:50 AM ET
There was plenty of online chatter this weekend about file sharing and Internet piracy.

This follows Friday?s news that four people who ran a popular file-sharing site called Pirate Bay were found guilty of violating copyright law in Sweden.
On Forbes.com, a Harvard professor says Google is the new Pirate Bay. The search engine serves the same function as the piracy sites by enabling people to steal copyrighted content, the professor says. An interesting example from the story:

By searching for pirated music or video, Google users can easily scan a range of lesser-known pirate sites to dig up illicit content. Those looking for the upcoming film X-Men Origins: Wolverine, for instance, can search for ?wolverine torrent.? The first result is a link to file-sharing site isoHunt, with a torrent tracker file that allows the user to download the full film. In fact, searches for ?wolverine torrent? on Google have more than quadrupled since the movie file was first leaked to peer-to-peer networks on April 5, according to Google Trends.

DownloadSquad responded with a counterpoint to Forbes? story.
Ars Technica says the verdict is not surprising given the history of piracy prosecutions:

In the US, Napster was shut down even though it did not host files directly. When services like Grokster sprang up in Napster?s wake and tried to make their services more decentralized to avoid even the appearance of control, courts still didn?t accept the argument that they had clean hands.

On CNET.com, a writer wonders if we?ve reached a tipping point. Will illegal file-sharing soon come to an end? Here?s the article?s evidence of a regulatory crackdown:

Copyright owners around the globe have gone on the attack. They?re backing antipiracy legislation in France and Sweden. They?re lobbying Internet service providers in the United States to crack down on customers who download files illegally. They?re pressuring hardware and software companies to prevent their products from being used as ?pirate toolboxes.? They?re threatening legal action against Google and other sites that aggregate news without permission.

On the BBC, Paul McCartney spoke out in favor of the guilty verdict against Pirate Bay. Here?s some of what he told the station:

?Anyone who does something good, particularly if you get really lucky and do a great artistic thing and have a mega hit, I think you should get rewarded for that.?

Do you download pirated media? What should governments do about this issue? If you?re an artist, what do you think? Feel free to weigh in with comments to this post.

Posted by: John D. Sutter -- CNN.com writer/producer
Filed under: Internet ? file sharing ? piracy















<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0 _extended="true"><TBODY _extended="true"><TR vAlign=top _extended="true"><TD _extended="true">
</TD></TR><TR _extended="true"><TD class=cnnBlogCommentContent align=left _extended="true"></TD></TR><TR _extended="true"><TD _extended="true">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- /blog post 2597 --><!-- blog post 2590 -->April 17, 2009

Robot servants, and the end of the Internet?

Posted: 04:59 PM ET
Here are a few technology stories CNN.com is watching today:
ROBOTS: BBC News reports that two (likely unrelated) trends are driving robotics these days: older people and violent conflict. One expert in the story sees it this way: ?Even just having robots do lightweight transport of objects from one room to another, whether it?s grandma?s knitting or a cup of coffee, could be tremendously valuable.?
INTERNET: Is there an end to the Internet? Maybe, if your cable company says so. Nielsen Online says Internet service providers and cable companies are putting caps on how much bandwidth their customers can use. That comes as Internet users are downloading more video, particularly from Hulu, the site says.
CLOUD COMPUTING: There?s been a bunch of news about cloud computing lately, and a lot of it may be hype, ars technica writes today. The notoriously vague concept generally refers to the process of hosting computer programs online. Many companies are interested, but that may not make financial sense, the site says.
FACEBOOK: Finally, what blog would be complete these days without a Facebook reference. A CNET writer wonders today whether or not the uber-popular social networking site should charge users $1 per month to avoid financial stress. What would you pay?

Posted by: John D. Sutter -- CNN.com writer/producer
Filed under: Facebook ? Social-networking sites ? robotics ? technology

[Niko]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

Sept. 1, 2009 An Unconstitutional Internet Power Grab

Bruce Henderson: How The Prospect Of A a "Digital Pearl Harbor" Is Fueling Bad Policy

Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat senator from West Virginia, worries about the day a "Digital Pearl Harbor" happens. In response to what he sees as an inevitable attack on our communications infrastructure, he and his staff have been laboring to create law that will enhance our cyber security, under the name of S773 Senate bill 773). The Obama administration apparently fears the "digital Pearl Harbor" and their ability to respond-and if the Rockefeller bill is any indication, they think that pulling the plug and a federal certification program will do just the trick. This shows a basic lack of understanding of what the Internet is, how it works, and what it represents to present day America.

In an August 28th article on CBS, Declan McCullagh analyzes the second version of this bill. The original introduced in April was so bad that it was quickly deemed legislative garbage and sent back for complete re-work. This revised version was meant to address the concerns of lawmakers, trade groups and citizens by narrowing its focus and refining its goals. Instead it has unleashed a flood of criticism (mostly on the internet, mind you) on how this would give the government a "kill switch" for the Internet whenever they deem there to be a national crisis or emergency.

As has been demonstrated during times of national and regional crisis - whether we're talking about September 11th, Hurricane Katrina, the San Diego wild fires or the health care proposals, the Internet is an important means of communication and self-organization among the population to respond to any crisis or any debate. Any move to limit this is a perceived as a direct threat to the constitutional rights of assembly and speech upon which the government cannot infringe.

S773 makes no attempt to outline and describe what form of emergency would trigger the use of these broad new powers to limit communication, nor any means by which it could be reviewed by anyone outside the executive branch. The bill also proscribes that the executive branch will perform periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Translation: the U.S. government bureaucracy will be spending your tax dollars to figure out private networks, find choke points and places where they can control the flow of communication. Furthermore, companies (such as your ISP) are going to be required, by law, to supply the federal bureaucrats with whatever network, account, usage and history information they deem appropriate. All in the name of cyber safety, you see.

If that were not enough of an outrage, the bill also establishes federal indoctrination and certification for cyber security professionals. It would require companies that the executive branch deemed "critical" to adopt restrictions on who it could hire to work with network security to a limited pool of those who had undergone government training and certification. You might assume from this that the private sector was completely lacking in any certification or training in cyber security. In fact there is a robust and growing business (aka a "free market") for this type of training that the government would now control and regulate.

The body of this bill continues to reflect a basic lack of understanding of the technology behind the Internet. It is not just a series of "tubes" that are connected end to end. There is no good place for the government or any other body to put a spigot that will allow them to "turn it off." Many companies and organizations are connected through multiple network channels, using independent physical network paths and independent network service providers.

This precisely is to avoid any problems with a single network cable to the outside, or a single provider's network. The providers themselves, from your cable company to big players like Sprint or AT&T, interconnect to themselves and each other at hundreds or thousands of places. Above that they connect with networking companies outside of the US (and US jurisdiction). The protocols and software that run the Internet are purpose-designed to route around slow or blocked spots, to keep the traffic flowing as much as possible even if segments degrade or fail.

While I am sure the people crafting this legislation will wonder why there is an uproar, one only has to pay attention to the reality of the day to understand; As printed newspapers and old guard media quickly fade away, it has been replaced by the raucous free scrum of ideas, discussion and content that is found on the Internet. In one Pew research study they cite as many as 69% of Americans are now getting news from Internet sites. While another study states that the Internet has overtaken newspapers and is climbing fast to challenge television as the public's source of news and information. As has been proven in times of crisis, the Internet can react faster and in many cases better than traditional media outlets.

Because of this new and growing reliance on the Internet as a wide, free, virtual "press", any government control, intrusion or regulation runs afoul of American's most basic sense of rights. By its very nature, the Internet is not easily controlled by any government - it is the ultimate embodiment of free speech and free press. While it did not exist in 1776, I am sure the founders would have loved it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/01/opinion/main5279421.shtml

[tropical]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

_____

...
Bruce Henderson: How The Prospect Of A a "Digital Pearl Harbor" Is Fueling Bad Policy
...
S773 makes no attempt to outline and describe what form of emergency would trigger the use of these broad new powers to limit communication, nor any means by which it could be reviewed by anyone outside the executive branch. The bill also proscribes that the executive branch will perform periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Translation: the U.S. government bureaucracy will be spending your tax dollars to figure out private networks, find choke points and places where they can control the flow of communication. Furthermore, companies (such as your ISP) are going to be required, by law, to supply the federal bureaucrats with whatever network, account, usage and history information they deem appropriate. All in the name of cyber safety, you see.
...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5279421.shtml

[Emily]

Re: U.S. Cybersecurity Act 2009 - Proposed New Law

I think this could be the culmination of these efforts:
2006:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123028524

2008:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123108010