[El Scorcho]

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

by Declan McCullagh
August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT

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.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

Full Article: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Track the bill at...

OpenCongress.org: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/show
GovTrack.us: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773

Ugh. I don't even care who's in office. This stuff is scary and far beyond the bounds of where our government should be. The worst part? At the end the WhiteHouse spokesperson who contacted the reporter after it was published basically said they already feel that they have the legal authority to do this. This bill is basically just helping them cover their rears in the event that they decide to do it. It makes me sick.

[Maximus]

I think it's high time to bring out the pitch forks again.

This is insane.. Not that we weren't being watch before.

[thepostman]

wow....just wow...now cybersecurity is one thing when dealing with government networks...but the whole internet?? I just don't get the purpose behind this whole thing. I first heard about this yesterday when my wife told me about the articles...

I just really don't understand the point except to have total control of a medium that was never meant to have anybody have central control over it...which is why the internet has grown as fast as it has...I have even heard some of the most liberal people I know that are just as angry about this bill as I am...so I am not sure how likely this is to pass...but I guess we shall see

[01LUGrad]

Obama's short list of sites to shut down in case of "emergency":

1. Rushlimbaugh.com
2. Hannity.com
3. Drudgreport.com
4. Foxnews.com
5. Flamefans.com

[LUconn]

I'm not entirely knowledgeable about the specific logistics of how the internet works, but I was under the impression that whatever centralized control that tells our computers where to go when we type in an address was under U.S. control anyway. Are these servers, if that's what they are, not government property? I imagine the only way they wouldn't be is if there was some bill passed at some point stating that it was public domain. And there may have been. But if there wasn't and the government does own what I was talking about before, I don't see how it's unconstitutional. It's a bummer though.

[El Scorcho]

I'm not entirely knowledgeable about the specific logistics of how the internet works, but I was under the impression that whatever centralized control that tells our computers where to go when we type in an address was under U.S. control anyway. Are these servers, if that's what they are, not government property? I imagine the only way they wouldn't be is if there was some bill passed at some point stating that it was public domain. And there may have been. But if there wasn't and the government does own what I was talking about before, I don't see how it's unconstitutional. It's a bummer though.

You're referring to the DNS root zones. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone) Yes, those are under U.S. control. They're managed by IANA, though the government assumed oversight of this starting in 2000.

That last phrase is important. The government doesn't own the root zones, per se. They just manage them. They "assumed control" of them in 2000. I don't know how that worked exactly, but I know that's how it went down. There have been calls for years (mostly from other nations) to break the link between our government and IANA, but all indications are that this would be far more risky than leaving it the way it is now.

Truthfully, most countries already manage their own TLD's and there's nothing stopping other nations or even the UN from setting up their own root zones. I just don't think anyone would use them. In the event that the US government started abusing their authority in the situation, I think you'd see new root zones spring up pretty quickly. The Internet would go on without us. In fact, most of the physical infrastructure for the 13 root DNS zones is located outside of the US.

So, I say all of that to say that I don't know that the government "owns" the root DNS servers. They may as well since they control them, though. But no one owns the Internet. It's a large collection of private equipment spread out all over the world. If the US government pulled all of their resources out of the Internet today, it would/could function just fine. There might be a short period of confusion until DNS was working again and some routes were changed, but that's it.

This bill would give the Executive branch the authority to walk into any private business/organization (say LU, for example) and start unplugging things in the name of national security. This effectively gives the president the authority to control any piece of equipment on the Internet whether the government owns it or not. From a router at AT&T to a web server at McDonald's headquarters. Here's the key paragraph from the C|Net article I linked to:

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.

That's what's messed up to me. I don't see how that's constitutional in the least.

[Liberty4Life]

And the liberals who screamed 'whatever happened to the first amendment???!?!?!' when George Bush listen in on phone conversations between at least one known terrorist... are strangely silent on this one.

[LUconn]

And the liberals who screamed 'whatever happened to the first amendment???!?!?!' when George Bush listen in on phone conversations between at least one known terrorist... are strangely silent on this one.

Not to pick on you, but this is what kills me whenever I happen to hear Hannity on the radio. He'll say something very similar to this every hour or so. Yes, the statement is true. But the exact opposite is true as well. Where were you when GWB was listening to phone conversations? Talking about how it was needed. Everybody needs to just pick a viewpoint and stick with it, no matter who else seems to be on "your side".

[TDDance234]

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[matshark]

I think it's high time to bring out the pitch forks again.

This is insane.. Not that we weren't being watch before.

torches optional...

im thinking about creating and selling an "elected official housewarming set" consisting of the following:

1 acorn

1 10 foot section of rope

1 set of instructions

instructions:
water daily
(some assembly required)

i think it would sell well as a "novelty"