»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Another Power Grab Attempt?
| The Alley |
|
Another Power Grab Attempt? |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
First the census brought under his control (and ACORN slated to do the recruiting of the census taker workers), then the board room of GM, and now this? It seems to me he wants control of everything. He is really beginning to scare me. I hope these bills are defeated. If not, I will have to give up the internet if it comes under the control of the government, and I would hate to have to give up my socializing here as well as my online banking. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93966 |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Should these things prove accurate, I don't like them either. Have you paid any attention to the problems with the Patriot Act, if you're so upset about this one? My understanding is that the government already has sweeping powers much like these, and that they were voted into effect with the patriot acts. Not that such a thing would make this any better, if this is accurate; it wouldn't. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Afraid I'm with you, Denise. My transactions and contacts on the internet would be a thing of the past, also, for as long as the democratic congress is around. I really can't believe this would happen but, with the governmental power-grabbing going on these days, who knows? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’ll need to research the precise proposals but on the face of it this sounds like a darn good idea to me. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I didn't have a problem with the government tapping the phones of known terrorists and their associates, Bob. It was no more than what is being done by the FBI in monitering criminals and their activities. At least it was "target" specific. I guess we will have to go back to the old fashioned way of communicating and banking, Michael. Dang, I just hate writing paper checks. quote: This may sound like a good idea to you Grinch, but a bill that gives such broad unspecified authority to one man who can shut down any system on the net that he chooses, including banking, internet service providers, news organizations, etc., on the pretext of security, should definitely raise alarm among Americans. And yet most Americans won't even know that this bill even exists, thanks to the MSM Obama lapdogs. This makes the Google censoring deal with China seem like child's play. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nor to mention anything extremely derrogatory to him that is factual. China has the same policy, as do other countries that do not allow anti-government propoganda displayed on the web. Our screens can just have a background of Big Brother, assuring us that everyone is happy.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ok, I’ve read the proposed bill. I no longer think it’s a good idea - I’m absolutely convinced it is. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Great...perhaps obama will share it with the Queen and we can all enjoy it together.  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The UK government is already committed to extending our existing cyber security infrastructure Mike, most countries are, and a whole bunch of them take part in regular coordinated international cyber terrorism simulations. That’s because the threat is real and the potential consequences far more damaging than a standard terrorist attack. Given that there is a very real threat are you proposing that the US doesn’t instigate some form of monitoring or protection against such an attack? While that’s certainly a novel strategy I’m not sure that turning the US into a giant honey pot for international cyber-terrorism would be such a good idea. Or have you an alternative plan perhaps. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't think cyber terrorism could be considered more damaging than planes flying into buildings and subjecting 3,000 people to horrific deaths, Grinch. There is nothing wrong with cyber security. I'm sure we have a degree of it now. It just shouldn't come under the ultimate control of one man. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Really? Ever hear of Chernobyl? There are 100 operating nuclear power plants in the US, all computer controlled, the core temperatures are computer controlled, the automatic safety overrides are computer controlled and the delivery and distribution of power output from them is computer controlled. Your missile defence system is computer controlled. Your banking system is totally reliant on electronic transmissions. Do I need to go on? Still don’t believe me? How about this guy: Mike McConnell, the former Director of National Intelligence, told President Bush in May 2007 that if the 9/11 attackers had chosen computers instead of airplanes as their weapons and had waged a massive assault on a U.S. bank, the economic consequences would have been ‘‘an order of magnitude greater’’ than those cased by the physical attack on the World Trade Center. Mike McConnell has subsequently referred to cybersecurity as the ‘‘soft under belly of this country.’’ That's taken directly from the proposed bill - you should read it Denise. If you did you'd realise that "one man" isn't going to control it and also that your fears regarding your personal access to the internet being infringed are unfounded. http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2409865.ece . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The "unlimited access to personal information" bothers me, grinch. The unlimited access to banking records and health information data also. This has what to do with cyber security? Are these policies that the UK is using in their fight against cyber intrusion? Protecting areas like nuclear power plants and infrastructure is, of course, a given but what would that have to do with a person's medical records? Giving the government a blank check in this regard, with them being the only ones who can define a "cyber emergency", is unsettling, to say the least. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Err.. Nothing, that’s my point. Allowing government access to that information isn’t mentioned in the bill, which isn’t surprising given that the bill is designed to PREVENT unauthorised access to sensitive data not allow easier access to it. Will the people who prevent unauthorised access have access to your data? Yes, but that’s nothing new, they already have access. The IT security expert at your bank responsible for access to your data can probably already access your data Mike, the potential threat is that at the moment it’s possible that half the hackers in eastern Europe and China can too. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't give much credence to someone who could say that an economic cyber attack would be worse than what happened on 911. Unbelievable. How can anyone compare money lost to lives lost? It is the way that the bill is worded that is troublesome, and also the "urgency" to get it passed quickly. It is vague and doesn't seem to have any checks and balances to prevent wanton censorship by the Executive branch. I'm sure that security measures can be beefed up satisfactorily without leaving it to the discretion of one political figure to determine what is or isn't a true cyber emergency. Bush seemed to be able to keep us safe for the previous seven years without resorting to these tactics. And I'm sure they dealt with cyber attacks as well. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think you’re doing Mike McConnell a bit of a disservice there Denise. He was comparing the economic cost of 911 against a possible cyber attack. If you want to compare apples with apples you’d need to address my point regarding a possible cyber attack on a nuclear or similar power facility. quote: Have you actually read the proposal Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The economic cost could be as great or greater, of course, but it still would not rise to the level of lost lives. Yes, I have read it. You can drive a truck through what isn't said. And I am always wary when Congress wants to "quickly pass this" or the world will come to an end tomorrow, as they did with TARP and the so-called Stimulus bill. If Obama truly wants to protect this country from attack, I'd suggest that he put troops on the border, not release enemy combatants onto American streets, and not discontinue the eavesdropping on the communications of known terrorists. And on the cyber side of the equation, he could have Congress rework this paragraph: 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; |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Why would you want to rework that paragraph? Isolation of a compromised system is standard practice, assigning the authority to authorise such an isolation is essential. That paragraph means that if a security breach occurs in a critical installation, a nuclear power plant for instance, the experts on the cyber-security panel can request to isolate the local area network from the wide area network - including internet access. That stops any further security breach within that facility and also, in the case of a viral attack, stops the affected installation proliferating the problem. Any IT security expert worth his salt would INSIST that a procedure for such authorisation was in place and that the authorisation, where possible, was given at the highest level (it’s called arse covering in UK IT industry parlance). quote: Would that protect a nuclear installation from the cyber-terrorists? quote: Can you? I couldn’t, it seemed pretty straightforward to me, mind you IT security is part of my job, maybe I’m filling in the truck sized holes based on my underlying understanding of current IT security practices. Have you some examples, perhaps I can help fill in some blanks. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, you trusting devil, you know as well as anyone you can drive a truck through the loopholes of ANY government plan. Well, at least, if they can use internet investigation of anyone they choose, there will be no further need to steal 900 fBI files anymore, like Clinton did |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Mike, If they want to find out anything about you Mike, and they have good reason, they already can and quite legally. If they don’t have good reason they still technically could, they’d just pay a 15 year old from Mumbai or Beijing a few hundred dollars to hack into a few databases. Oddly the second option would be less likely if this bill goes through and security is tightened. It won’t eradicate unauthorised access, that’s not possible, it’ll just make your data and critical infrastructure a little safer. BTW - I don’t trust anyone if I can possibly avoid it, I get paid not to. It’s just that sometimes there’s no other option and I’d rather trust someone being paid to keep me safe than some eastern European hacker who’d sell his granny for kicks. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I've been saying much the same thing for a couple of years now. Isn't it amazing the way "trust" depends so profoundly on whether you like or dislike a person? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, grinch, they can't, not legally. Certainly they can find ways to do it but they can't use it if it was obtained illegally. Ron - and grinch - there's a difference between a telephone and the internet. Telephones don't have google, for one thing. There is a lot of unrest and protesting going on right now with regards to Obama's actions to this point. Take the situation of the hundreds of "tea parties", for example. Let's suppose that congress or Obama declares that a possible "insurrection" could be brewing which could be detrimental to the United States. How easy would it be for google to round up people? Jeez, my name could certainly come up just by what I've said against Obama in the Alley. They could google negativity against Obama, come up with a mountain of names, and investigate these people to their heart's content, background checks, IRS audits, you name it, simply by claiming that their actions are in the best interest of the safety of the country. Farfetched, you say? Ok, call me paranoid. Let's see if you call me paranoid in the future. If they don't have any problem with - and make it easy for insurance companies and employers to have your medical records and your family history medical records, why do you think your information - or your livelyhod - would be safe under this new plan? Do you really think this is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind? Grinch, there's no reason why you have to trust either one. You make it sound like you have to make a choice...you don't. Btw, I'll ask again. You mention that the UK is following similar courses of action. Do those actions include the same points Obama is pushing for? What are they doing? ...and where ARE all the people here who complained about the Patriot Act? No shows. I guess you must be right, Ron. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That is the paragraph I am talking about being able to drive a truck through, Grinch. I know what the paragraph technically means. I can also see how it could be used by someone who is into consolidating everything under his control as he has shown he has a tendency to like to do. It needs to be reworded to place some sort of restrictions/checks and balances into the process before he can shut something down on the internet. As it stands there is too much leeway for abuse. Just look at the abuse Obama and his operatives foisted upon Joe the Plumber for having the audacity to ask Obama a question. These are not nice people who can be trusted. Trust, I think, comes first for me, Ron, in determining whether or not I like or dislike someone, not the other way around. I think there are too few people in power in Washington who care what the framers of the Constitution intended, Michael. They would just as soon use the Constitution for toilet paper if something in it clashes with their personal political ambitions. And I think there are too few citizens who even know what the Constitution says, having not learned about its importance in the public school system, and again too few who think it is even relevent for today, thanks to liberal college professors. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike, I don’t know how many times or ways I can say this: The bill is designed to reduce the number of people who have access to your data - not increase the number. This isn’t about giving access to data to the government, it’s about denying access to anyone who shouldn’t have access - including the government. If you want to put it in telephone terms Mike the bill gives the government the ability to shut down your local exchange to break up a terrorist cell using the exchange to bug your phone. quote: You’re not paranoid Mike, you’ve simply been misled and misinformed. What’s the UK doing? It’s more like what has the UK done. The UK formed a task force soon after 911 similar to the one proposed in the bill, it’s had the same overall aims - to put forward proposals on how to defend government departments and critical infrastructure against attack. It’s secondary function was to set up methods of monitor potential attacks on the private sector and to advise and train IT security professionals to use the latest and best practices, exactly as laid out in the proposed current bill. In February 2007 the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure was formed as a direct result of the proposals. It was a merger combining elements of MI5 with the pre-existing National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre and the National Security Advice Centre. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: It is farfetched, Mike, you are being paranoid, and that is EXACTLY the response I've been recommending for several years. The Constitution wasn't designed to protect us from best-case scenarios, after all. We should always expect power to be abused and guard against it as best we can. Tell me again, though, why you're not equally worried about being branded a known terrorist? It seems everything you are now concerned about was already given away in the so-called Patriot Act? Or do you honestly think people weren't investigated in depth "simply by claiming their actions are in the best interest of the safety of the country?" Be worried, Mike. I know I am. But let's be worried about the lack of checks and balances, not about the personality of the current administration. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It seems everything you are now concerned about was already given away in the so-called Patriot Act? There I disagree, Ron. The democratic-condemned wiretaps were geared toward long-distance calls to foreign countries where there was a possibility of terrorist connections. Now you may say, "Oh, yeah? How do you know they just didn't go after people whenever they wanted to?" Ok, how would they do that to compare with this current endeavor. Pull out area codes and just investigate everybody with a phone number falling into that code? Seems rather senseless to me. But, thanks to the internet, they CAN simply type "Obama complaints" or "Obama criticisms" or "Obama socialist" or any number of combinations and automatically come up with a huge list in seconds to key on. That's a big difference. If you want to consider the two to be similar, then I must assume that, since you have spoken against the illegal but not illegal wiretaps, you must speak equally against this plan, also... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Grinch, I don't know how many times you will have to day it, either. I can certainly be rather dense at times. So then the UK has the same powers, in which they can pull out individual banking records, pull out and use or block individual health records and do the same things this bill proposes? That would be interesting to see. If you know of any link that would point that out, I'd be interested in seeing it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: The amount of power that was directed to the executive branch by the Bush Administration was of enormous concern. It put too much power in the hands of a single branch of government. It was egregious at the time and still remains so. Too many legislators on the left and the right signed on to the deplorable giveaways of liberty that were pushed mostly by the right wing but which were also to my mind more upsettingly backed by those on the left. I expected more of them. This is what we get for letting panic govern our actions. That the right wing is only now growing upset about these actions seems a bit on the late side. They would have done better to have opposed them when they where in the the driving force behind pushing them into existence. Even now, they would do well to focus their attention on a close examination of the PATRIOT Act, which has been one of the instruments which has so served to concentrate power in the hands of the Executive branch. The fears that some of the respondents to this thread have voiced are not to my mind attached to the current legislation, but are in fact attached to the PATRIOT Act itself, and are already in place; not potential and pending, as these folks would seem to suggest. The repeal of the PATRIOT Act would remove most of the actual cause for alarm, quite handily, thank you, and would remove a blight on the English language as a happy side-effect. Like The Clear Skies Act, The PATRIOT Act is about the exact reverse of what it claims to be about. It is about the dismantling of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Unhappily my prediction that a change in administration would make the Right Wing unhappy with the powers granted the Executive branch seems to be materializing with deplorable speed. I wish that it had proven as crazy as my prediction that there would be an attempt to postpone elections. There are sometimes things that are worse than being correct. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The UK government doesn’t have those powers Mike, and this bill doesn’t grant them to your government either. Here’s a list of the contents: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. Findings. Sec. 3. Cybersecurity Advisory Panel. Sec. 4. Real-time cybersecurity dashboard. Sec. 5. State and regional cybersecurity enhancement program. Sec. 6. NIST standards development and compliance. Sec. 7. Licensing and certification of cybersecurity professionals. Sec. 8. Review of NTIA domain name contracts. Sec. 9. Secure domain name addressing system. Sec. 10. Promoting cybersecurity awareness. Sec. 11. Federal cybersecurity research and development. Sec. 12. Federal Cyber Scholarship-for-Service program. Sec. 13. Cybersecurity competition and challenge. Sec. 14. Public–private clearinghouse. Sec. 15. Cybersecurity risk management report. Sec. 16. Legal framework review and report. Sec. 17. Authentication and civil liberties report. Sec. 18. Cybersecurity responsibilities and authorities. Sec. 19. Quadrennial cyber review. Sec. 20. Joint intelligence threat assessment. Sec. 21. International norms and cybersecurity deterrence measures. Sec. 22. Federal Secure Products and Services Acquisitions Board. Sec. 23. Definitions. Which section deals with pulling your banking or health records Mike? I’ll give you a clue - NONE OF THEM DO. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, some of them must, grinch, if these points are valid... According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the "critical" networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure. irst, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president. Why would private citizen's health records be at risk of a cyber attack? the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information," including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the "critical infrastructure." I'm curious as to what private information network would be part of the "critical infrastructure. Yes, Bob, we know....it's all the Bush administration so what's new? If you feel so strongly against the patriot act, you must be against this also. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Don't get me wrong, gentlemen. I believe cyber security is vital. Our nuclear power plants, our air traffic control system, and many different systems we use would be thrown into chaos if invaded by a cyber attack, as would the country. The question is - should this also be extended to everything this bill calls for? Why do personal and private records of individuals have to figure into this? It seems to me that Obama is taking the threat of a valid possible method of attack and using it to expand governmental powers far beyond what is really necessary to protect the safety of the country.Why? For the same reason the government is now selling Chevrolets....more governmental power, the mainstay of the Democratic doctrine. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, You seemed to want to focus on the wire-tap elements of the PATRIOT Act as though there were no others. This is not the case. I offer for your consideration four sections of the first version of the PATRIOT Act. You may wish to follow up on your own; or not. I got this text from a summary provided from this link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:@@@D&summ2=m& Sec. 105) “Requires the Director of the U.S. Secret Service to take actions to develop a national network of electronic crime task forces throughout the United States to prevent, detect, and investigate various forms of electronic crimes, including potential terrorist attacks against critical infrastructure and financial payment systems.” (Sec. 814)” Revises prohibitions and penalties regarding fraud and related activity in connection with computers to include specified cyber-terrorism offenses.” (Sec. 816)” Directs the Attorney General to establish regional computer forensic laboratories, and to support existing laboratories, to develop specified cyber-security capabilities.” Sec. 1016) “Critical Infrastructures Protection Act of 2001 - Declares it is U.S. policy: (1) that any physical or virtual disruption of the operation of the critical infrastructures of the United States be rare, brief, geographically limited in effect, manageable, and minimally detrimental to the economy, human and government services, and U.S. national security; (2) that actions necessary to achieve this policy be carried out in a public-private partnership involving corporate and non-governmental organizations; and (3) to have in place a comprehensive and effective program to ensure the continuity of essential Federal Government functions under all circumstances. Establishes the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center to serve as a source of national competence to address critical infrastructure protection and continuity through support for activities related to counterterrorism, threat assessment, and risk mitigation. Defines critical infrastructure as systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” This last section, Section 1016, is the section that I thought might be the one that you would find most interesting. As you can see, the PATRIOT Act has already opened the barn door. Moaning about the horse that might escape in the future is a bit late, don’t you think? Do you think that these provisions have been used as authorized? I for one think there are many more upsetting provisions in the act than these. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Allow me to repeat, Bob... If you feel so strongly against the patriot act, you must be against this also. Yea or nay? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Should the present bill indeed do the things you say it does, I'm against it. I'm against any bill that does such things as you say this bill does. According to Grinch, this bill does not do those things, and you haven't given him a clear reply as to why he should believe otherwise. The authority you cite is without source and is hence as likely to be from The American Thinker as it is from The Economist or some other source with good research standards and only a moderate ax to grind. I would be curious to know. According to the Summary of The PATRIOT Act I quoted above, and whose link you may follow, it seems pretty clear that the PATRIOT Act actually does seem to have some of the surprises you impute to this newer legislation. Including the references to banking and other things that you find so very objectionable. You offered me a yes or no challenge, Mike, without offering your opinion in as open a fashion on The PATRIOT Act. While I didn't have the references or materials at hand to make the decision at hand that you certainly should have supplied to make it a fair request, I did do the best I could to give you a straight answer. If you want to do this sort of thing again, I'd appreciate it if you'd try to offer the same sort of background that I offered you. I don't want to think of this sort of thing as a debate, although I suppose it could be, but an attempt to get an honest expression of what the truth is as I see it. I hope this is a good faith answer for you, and that it gives you some notion of how I feel about the issue. I don't like anything that abridges liberty or constitutional rights. From either side of the aisle. I still get angry about the stuff we did with the Japanese Americans during World War II. I have never been happy about the alliance the Democrats made with the Dixiecrats that kept the Democrats in power for so long. I don't like abuses of power period, especially by my own party, which ought to know better. That doesn't mean that I like them by Republicans very much better at all, at all; and the PATRIOT Act was one of them. And most of the stuff that you're finding wrong with this current piece of legislation, I suspect, aren't in the current piece of legislation, but sure as all get out are in the PATRIOT Act. quote: Medicine is one of the largest sectors of the economy. If records of who has been treated for what are destroyed, then it's an attack on the insurance industry, which is a lynchpin of the economy. Nobody knows who has been billed for what, and what has been payed for. Even if nobody goes under, it freezes the health care and the insurance industries in their tracks for a very long time and puts that sector of the economy back on a cash basis. Do you have money to pay cash for the various medical stuff you need and are likely to need? It's like throwing a slinky into somebody's bicycle gears. Don't think one set of medical records, think many sets of medical records. quote: Think credit information networks, which have a lot to say about how much a given person will pay for anything on a credit card. Think of Bank Credit systems, which keep track of who owes how much money to whom. What happens if the savings of everybody in New York was suddenly transfered to the accounts of everybody in Detroit, or the debts of everybody in Milwalkee ended up in your bank account. While these structures are fairly well guarded, they certainly are vulnerable to a well planned and executed assault that could spread to a nationwide economic meltdown fairly quickly. It doesn't have to be on the Army or Navy or on secure satellite systems to do enormous damage. What about an assault on air traffic control computers systems, or the electrical grids that control and back up these systems? What about attacks on water treatment plant control centers or on hydro-power centers which could put down the electrical grids for large sections of the country at once? Actually, these things are important, and you aren't thinking this particular issue through. I don't know that these solutions are the ones that must be adopted. That's another question, Mike. I think that oversight and defense of these things, however, is part of a prudent defensive strategy. But to pretend there is no issue is unrealistic. To return briefly to the issue I raised above about The PATRIOT Act, "Do you think that these provisions have been used as authorized? I for one think there are many more upsetting provisions in the act than these." If you need more more clarification, there is clarification available in the posting in question. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-06-2009 10:56 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So locking up 10,000 people unlawfully is worse than locking up one or two? I think if you happen to be an individual in either group, you'll still be sitting in the same jail cell. quote: I might well be, Mike. I haven't had a chance to read the full bill, yet. I can say, at this time, that Granick isn't going to make up my mind for me. His interpretation of technical tactics seems to lack any real authority? Does he even understand how a cyber attack is launched or how it must be countered? Or, like so many, does he have an assistant to turn his computer on and off for him? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I'm afraid that your scenario about the medical field is a little too far-fetched for me but, then, I can also realize that some of my thoughts must look the same way to you. Under the private information networks, you list air traffic control system, electrical grid systems, water treatment plants, etc which I don't regard as private information networks at all. I actually did mention beforehand that air traffic control was imperative to have proper safety controls. As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, your question is Do you think that these provisions have been used as authorized? Well, they have been around for a while now and I haven't heard of any cases in which they haven't.....and I have little doubt that, if they had, the press would have been more than happy to let us know. Do you have any indication that they haven't? As far as my opinion of the Patriot Act, I personally think it has done good, as did democrats who approved it. So locking up 10,000 people unlawfully is worse than locking up one or two? Well, it's certainly worse to the other 9,998! Why should it be an either/or? If there ARE going to be injustices I would prefer to see them held to a minimum, at least. I guess the bottom line is that I do not trust Obama at all. What I've seen from him since the election has been governmental interference and power grabs and governmental takeovers. I think that he, as president, is definitely on a power crusade and something like this just adds to that power and gives him more control over the private sector, which he can take advantage of. His decade-old cry for "redistribution of wealth" has a tone to it that I find dangerous. I would like to be wrong. I don't think I am. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm curious Grinch and Bob, does the U.K. version and the Patriot Act contain a paragraph such as this one? The President - 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; |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Precisely, Mike. And my point was that it's not a personality you should distrust, but the laws and policies that potentially empower the personality. It doesn't matter if the man is Bush or Obama, Republican or Democrat, anything that compromises American freedom is a very dangerous thing. quote: Denise, the paragraph you quote simply says someone should have the power to pull the plug on any computer that is being attacked. You know, as opposed to leaving it running so the attack can continue? Why, either in the UK or US, would you have a problem with that? FWIW, one of our servers was hit several years ago with a Denial of Service (DOS) attack. Our hosting company shut us down for most of a day, until the attack subsided. It's fairly standard procedure. And we're not even a critical infrastructure. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Of course someone has to monitor and shut down the system in the event of an attack, Ron. I just don't think it should be the President or the President acting alone without some sort of checks/balances to his deciding that something is or isn't an emergency or threat and what will or will not be limited or shut down. My question remains, though, is there such a paragraph in the British counterpart of this bill or in the Patriot Act that gives such power to the Prime Minister or President. Also, I'm sure we have some sort of system in place right now to deal with cyber threats and emergencies. Does it give the President such power? If not, why would it be decided now that such power, to him, is necessary? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
More concerns about the proposed legislation: "Raising eyebrows is Section 14 in which the Commerce Secretary has access to all relevant data concerning federal and public networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access; and Section 18, Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network." Morrissey believes Section 14 may be a bigger problem. "It essentially revokes all privacy safeguards on Internet use for all networks. The Fourth Amendment would go straight out the window with the explicit inclusion of 'private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.' While Section 18 limits jurisdiction to federal networks, Section 14 allows the government to go after private networks without search warrants. The section also doesn't limit the jurisdiction to acute attacks, either. That jurisdiction exists at all times. The big problem isn't that Obama might shut down the Internet. It's that the bill essentially repeals the Fourth Amendment." S. 773 should be carefully tracked by all Internet users at GOVTRACK, which I mentioned in one of my previous columns. Or at Open Congress. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94066 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Same answer different thread: If you mean would the Prime Minister have the authority to remove the compromised government or critical system from the internet then yes, he could authorise that. He could also authorise the isolation of any private network that was found to be the source of an attack on a government or critical system. It would be stupid not to give someone that power. Morrissey is talking twaddle Denise, Jennifer Granick is spouting the same nonsense, they either don’t know the first thing about how the Internet works or they’ve got an ulterior motive to spread this unconvincing misinformation. I wouldn’t be surprised if Granick was connected to one of those foil hat wearing organisations like the EFF who have in the past provided funding to defend the hackers this legislation is designed to defeat. I also wouldn’t be surprised if she was in fact the Civil Liberties Director of that very organisation. I suppose those poor hackers stealing your bank account details have rights too.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Same follow-up question different thread. No, what I mean Grinch, is it codified in your law explicity giving him the authority to proclaim a cyber emergency or threat and then to limit or shut down internet systems, with no checks and balances on his decisions and actions? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Is it codified? It’s implicit in his role as head of the British Government, most of the critical infrastructure of this country is OWNED by the government. He is in effect the CEO. If he needs to isolate a critical installation or government system because it’s compromised he’s obligated to do just that - in fact there’d be rioting in the streets if he didn’t. You don’t want Obama to have the power Denise? Fine. Who do you propose should have it based on the unavoidable fact that someone has to have it? . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Denise, you're already trusting him with the Launch Codes. The President decides, with no checks and balances, whether America is being physically attacked from without and is the sole arbiter of World War III. He can push the button that destroys everything. And you're worried whether he'll disrupt Internet service unnecessarily? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's an incredible piece of information and something I certainly didn't know (along with the mountains of other things). The president can simply say "Push the button" and set off a nuclear attack just because he feels like it? No checks? No one to answer to or coordinate with? He can say it and it's done? Why do I find that nearly impossible to believe? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Sorry, Mike, it's true. It's been true as long as there have been nuclear bombs; I believe tactical nuclear weapons might even be deployed, after the initial policy decision is made, on the theater level. But the bombs and the ICMBs are on the decision of the President. He's got the launch codes and he's trailed around by a military guy with a briefcase containing the launch codes at all times. Oh Yeah. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Bob: quote: Denise: quote: Mike: While it's a little hard to believe that you didn't know this (and yes there are checks in the process but the principle is the same): quote: Ron: quote: Does anybody else see a pattern? For those of us who see the last eight years as an utter, dismal failure and for those of you who fear the next four to eight years, the point is the same. The executive branch wields too much power. I know of only one article (in The Atlantic) that has addressed this. We need to rethink and amend the executive section of the Constitution. Okay, back to your regularly scheduled rantcast. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, then, let's hope there is never a Manchurian Candidate episode involving the president.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That was a joke, Mike, Right? The Manchurian Candidate was about the President. It was also a great book, by Richard Condon,that is much too little read these days, one of the great satiric novelists of the 20th century. He hit both the left and the right, for what it's worth, but this one in particular, was a cautionary tale of the McCarthy era stripe. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So it isn't codified in your law because essentially the Prime Minister is the CEO of Great Britain. That's not the form of government we have here, Grinch. We are a nation of laws, not of men. At least that was the original plan. It seems more and more with each passing day that Obama aspires to be our CEO. Some banks have even tried giving back the TARP money and they have been refused. Perhaps Obama likes having that hold over them? But I don't think he will succeed, or if he does it won't be for long because most Americans prefer our form of government, not the EU model, with the exception of the majority of the Democratic Congress and the President, of course. I also think this is a very serious matter because most people do not understand the workings of the Internet. Most of us are computer illiterate in that sense. It's Greek to us. So we can't just take one politician's word that something is a cyber emergency and grant him powers on his say so alone to take systems down. There needs to be some sort of independent oversight to insure that political games aren't being played. Preferably I'd like to see someone at the head of an independent agency charged with making those decisions if and when necessary. Ron, I've never worried much about the President having the nuclear codes and the power to activate them since it's long been considered a deterrent against any nation using them, including us, because it would mean mutual annihilation. Yes, I do worry about passing legislation granting internet shut down powers to the President after he delcares a cyber emergency without a formal checks and balances worked into that law. Without that I think Government censorship could become a reality, as in China. Whom, by the way, was referenced in this bill as having a plan that we should emulate! I'm also concerned with Section 14 violating the Fourth Amendment. I also believe that the terms used in the bill are too vague for comfort. There isn't much detailed defining of terms. Brad, I don't think the problem is with the Executive Clause of the Constitution. I think the problem is with Congress granting powers to the President in bills like this one. Michael, we can certainly hope so. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The TARP money was given out to the Broad Range of Banks, Denise, those that needed them and those that didn't. That was part of the original plan for it, and it was at the insistence of the last administration that it was done that way. The idea was not to single out some banks as being more fragile than others, and to serve as some sort of protection to all of them as a result. This had some plusses and some minuses, and I think you could have made a good faith argument either way. The President (Bush) was in favor of passing the money out to everybody. He convinced folks to do it his way. My politics and his seldom agree, but I don't really know, honestly, if he was right about this one or not. I do know that part of the reaction, when some of the banks wanted to pay bonuses, was that the taxpayers got bent out of shape, also for good reason. They were under the impression that they'd just bailed out failing banks (some of them were in fact failing banks) and were being slapped in the face for their generosity. It's possible that in some cases this was true. It also makes sense that the government not accept the return of the TARP funds now, for the same reason that President Bush made a point of passing them out in such a disguised fashion in the first place. The idea is to help prop up confidence in the general state of the economy and not show favor to some sectors of the banking sector at the expense of others. Having made the initial decision the way it was made, for good or ill, it does make sense to follow through for the same reasons. Whatever faults President Obama may have, and I'm sure he has many, I suspect that this isn't one of them. Sorry to disagree with you here, Denise, but I think that I'd need more data than what you've supplied to suggest that President Obama is an evil genius. I still maintain he's Republican Lite, and pretty much a centrist. Not nearly as far to the Left as he should be to qualify as a good solid Liberal. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Oh. So you're not concerned about Korea's recent test of long-range missiles? You don't care if Iran gets the bomb. And, unlike Bush, you never really cared if Iraq might have had it? Let's sincerely hope, Denise, that our enemies are never as convinced as you are that America won't use those Launch Codes. Without fear, without the very real sense they might actually be used, there can be no deterrent. I tend to look at it differently, I'm afraid. Frankly, I wouldn't want Korea or Iran to know we can't launch a counter-attack until after the President has had his decision vetted by an independent agency. Heaven knows I'm almost always the first to holler for checks and balances, and certainly among the first to advocate for limiting Executive power. But not this way. Not by de-clawing and de-fanging our Commander in Chief. In some instances, there's just not time for rule-by-committee. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Isn’t it ironic that a Rockefeller is championing the bill? Authoritarianism is suggestive of a successful adaptation, which in this case, shutting down the internet would require a backup plan to keep the natives from killing each other. So, on those grounds, I say NAY to the bill unless I see where they’ve brainstormed a regression to paper, pens, and cashiers that still know how to count. But what authority am I but a micromanaging pincher of pennies? There’s a few alternatives or (somewhat) practical safeguards for the internet fears such as loss of info or exposing too much vulnerable info. But if a cyber pro really wants into your business, there’s little one can do to keep from being compromised on every level. Teenagers have hacked our Gov. Known criminals who successfully eluded capture for a time for cyber crimes, now work for our Gov. Getting caught was a lucrative venture, I suppose? Nearly all banks provide a debit card for purchases and c/c transactions without having to bank online. I’ve never used online banking but haven’t had to order any more checks in years. You can also get a hardcopy of all of your medical records, free or for a small fee, from any doctor. They belong to you. Granted, if the internet shuts down? Oh well. The handshake and bartering system will have a new rise in perfected honor and purchasing popularity. Make lots of friends. Yep, the world runs electronically, now, but your personal info is something a terrorist would be least interested in, IMO. I don’t think a terrorist or an acting member of Big Bro’s “secret eyes” give a crap about us and our all-personal info (on our level.) A well thought out and put together EMP would do more damage than 9/11. The massive amount of fear=panic=riots=internal disaster of the worst kind: Americans destroy each other while the perps watch it all at a safe distance on high def satellite. I don’t like what we’ve come to, but I don’t want to go back, either. I don’t like the Patriot Act, but the IRS has had as much power if not more, forever, they just have different agendas. Is the Prez truly such a threat to us? Remember. He and all his kinship will be under the same eyes and electronic crisis, including his wife, children, friends, supporters, etc. Maybe then we’ll really find out if he’s a qualified citizen? LOL. I think He and his background will be as obsolete as the system governing the protocols of the “matrix” by the next election. “Haw haw,” says the person developing the latest advancement toward an updated cyber- crisis to our comfy little set-up. and what IS Rockefeller doing to ensure his bankroll will be accessible to him while America is closed for business?? That’s the personal info I most want to access. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The best way to keep us safe from rogue nations with nuclear capabilities is through layers of missile shield defense systems, which for some strange reason Obama is in the process of reducing. I don't get it. I think with the internet cyber issue it would best be handled by an independent government agency charged with monitoring and taking action if and when some attack is discovered. Taking it out of the political realm would be the best way to safeguard against censorship, I would think. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Because it doesn't work? Imagine one of your local police officers being fired upon by a meth head, Denise. Do you really think the best solution is to try shooting the druggie's bullets out of the air before they can hit anyone? quote: You want an independent agency with no one in charge? Where's the checks and balances in that? Why do you trust "them" more than the man elected by the citizens of America? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, It would be, maybe, if there was a workable missile defense shield. I haven't seen test results that tell me that there is one, or that one is now possible. The actual missile that a bomb would most likely come in on from a rogue nation seems to me to be a shipping container through a regular US Port of Entry, which have never been decently inspected. or by commercial air freight. The same. A cyber attack of manifests and bills of lading and other trade information, could scramble that data. We'd have an even more difficult time in tracking which container was filled with toy Koalas from China and which one contained the mystery shipment from the middle east or from some other hot spot.. None of this is a great looking scenario. How do we protect our data now? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I think it's a debatable issue as to whether or not missile defense works, Ron. What would the alternative be, just let a missile hit us? Some attempt at defense is better than no defense, I would think. There wouldn't be a need for checks and balances, per se, if it were taken out of the political realm. I'm sure that an independent entity specializing in cyber security could handle the specifics in developing a plan that included their own type of internal checks and balances to insure that not just one person were making the decisions. Someone or a group would definitely be in charge. I would trust them more simply because it would be out of the political realm. I don't trust someone simply because they were elected. Some pretty untrustworthy people in history have been popularly elected. I don't know, Bob. I think the experts in that area need to come up with solutions. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Debatable by whom? You've been reading science fiction if you believe that we can shoot down ICBMs, especially with multiple and independently targeted warheads. We have trouble shooting down medium range rockets with single targets, let alone picking single live targets out of many multiple live and decoy targets. Not only don't we have the targeting skill, we don't have the money, and the EMP's from the attempts would destroy us as a military force. Research on Particle beam weapons haven't gone that far, so far as we know, and we are already stretched fiscally to the limit. That's what my impression is, anyway. Unless you have information nobody else has, it's not really all that debatable. The safety you speak of is and always has been pretty much an illusion. We're sort of like Puffer fish that way, we try to make ourselves look big and tough, and we try to be poisonous to eat to make the effort of doing so unrewarding, and mostly that works fairly well. We are very noble Puffer Fish, and we do many good things for ourselves and the rest of the Puffer Fish in the world, but sometimes we forget how very fragile the whole thing is. It's generally not a good idea for Puffer Fish to Play with Fish Hooks and other sharp and pointed objects, but it seems to be our nature and it may be our doom as well. I don't mean to trivialize our efforts. We do try hard and we do mean well, most of the time. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Almost makes one wish we had Stars Wars.... Don't worry. Our pufferfish image has been deleted, thanks to the prez. We are an apologetic bully with out hats in our hands, begging forgiveness. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And the size of our nuclear arsenal is exactly how large, Mike? I know it feels like we're naked, but most other countries are well aware of the size of our ... what? ... capabilities? And they have the nagging feeling that they won't be real, live successful Puffer Fish until they increase the size of theirs, too. Or something like that. When I worked on locked psych units, a lot of the more disturbed new male admissions seemed to want to pick me out to have a fight with. I was always having to find ways of telling them that there wasn't any real contest, and that they could probably take me without any problem, and that I was basically a pacifist, though I'd do the job I was paid to do when I had to do it. That is often the job of the biggest guy on the block unless what he wants is to do nothing but fight all day everyday. In which case, he's lost in advance, hasn't he? Fighting all day every day is no kind of life, it's living paranoia with no pleasures to it. Pfui. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Pardon me, Bob, but whatever point you were trying to make with that example escapes me. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm too deflated, apparently. Next time, I'll try harder. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's a commentary by a techie guy on the internet issue. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94340 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Phil Elmore a techie?? I wouldn’t trust his ability to surf the net, never mind understand how to police it. He’s a freelance writer and martial artist (unqualified). “I can write anything you require, from a biography to an advertisement to a novel to an editorial, from an operations and maintenance manual to a poem or a screenplay.” Modest too, I read the article, his fiction is almost third rate. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess he could be considered more of a jack-of-all-trades type guy rather than an IT tech, per se, though many of his commentaries deal with internet and other technology topics. I'm sure he handles surfing the web just fine, Grinch. And I don't think that someone needs to be as astute as yourself in the intricate complexities of the workings of the internet to be able to comprehend and communicate the dangers inherent to personal liberty in governments having unchecked authority over the means of communication, either of the internet, print media or the airwaves, of its citizens. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: In the IT industry we have a name for people like that - Numpty. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing something, it’s only at the point that you try to explain something you don’t know anything about that a problem arises. At that point some people may actually believe the twaddle that’s being peddled, and that’s potentially dangerous. quote: I agree, but it’s handy to have someone who knows what they’re talking about when people start making false claims about the erosion of personal liberties. I’m curious, how exactly is this bill going to diminish your personal liberty Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It gives the head of the Commerce Department access to all private information without regard to privacy laws already in place. It supercedes all privacy rights laws in place. That's not good. Those laws are in place for good reason and this would essentially do away with them. And of course the wording in the section that gives the President authority to declare a cyber emergency and then limit or shut down systems that he deems are a threat to Federal or Private systems is absolutely written too broadly for comfort. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I think that's the Patriot Act you're talking about, Denise? And I agree, it's not a good thing at all. There's nothing I saw in this bill that talks about accessing private data. On the contrary, it's about NOT accessing private data. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here's the section that I was talking about, Ron, Section 14, which can be found on pages 39 and 40. (a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks. (b) FUNCTIONS.—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; |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Dang it Ron - you beat me to it. Denise, A lot of people who don’t know any better, and a few who should know better, are trying to convince the American public that this bill will diminish your personal privacy and liberty. It will in fact ensure the exact opposite - your data will be safer. Will the Government be able to access your data without going through the normal legal channels? No. The bill is aimed at making sure that public and private data holders have every safeguard in place to stop unauthorised access. It doesn’t give the government additional access to a single piece of data that it doesn’t already have access to. Will Obama be able to censor individual websites? No. If the people responsible for the security of critical data, or the people responsible for monitoring potential attacks, report a breach Obama will, based on the advice of experts, be able to order that either the source network or the target network, or both, are taken offline. The important word there Denise is network, if some bright spark posts a derogatory site that he doesn’t like he can’t take down the site without taking down the whole of the network that site resides on. If it’s on YouTube that would mean taking the whole of Google offline - if he tried that I can’t see Google complying with the order. Checks and balances? There are loads. Obama can’t simply shut a network down on a whim. The process would be that some techie, either in a public or private IT security position would report an attack to the government department responsible for network security. They’d confirm the attack and try to contain or combat it, if necessary they could request that the President orders that either the target or the source or both are taken off the network. The President would look at the evidence and on the advice of the experts either agree or deny the request. If he agrees he’d contact the owner of the network (Google’s CEO) and order that the network is isolated based on the evidence of a breach. Google’s CEO will either comply with the order if his experts agree that it’s a legitimate request, in which case he’ll tell his network people to unplug all internet connections. If they decide that the evidence is insufficient they’ll refuse and threaten legal action. Obama will then try to cut Googles access through the main pipe suppliers (the other end of Google’s wire into the internet - AT&T or Pipex for example), they’ll either comply or not based on their experts advice. All those decision points, all those people involved questioning the order are the checks and balances that you say don’t exist. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What would stop Obama from declaring that his IT experts reported a threat to him, even if they did not, to any CEO of any network and order a shutdown, Grinch? How would they know if there was or was not a legitimate threat? On what basis could they independently cofirm or deny what the President was telling them? And what legal leg would they have to stand on in denying the President's order, when the provisions of this proposed bill give him the authority to declare emergencies and order limits or shutdowns? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Denise, Here’s what those sections mean in english: quote: There will be one central point responsible for telling all government and critical infrastructure system administrators what is a threat and what is a vulnerability. They’ll basically take in all the security warnings from Microsoft, Cisco, McAfee, Symantec, etc. evaluate and rate the threat, recommend a fix and send it to all the Administrators who’ll patch or update their systems as required. quote: This means that all the System Administrators will have to supply all the configuration, system architecture and relevant security protection that they’ve put in place to protect the data they’re responsible for. Stuff like the database type and version, the server build and configuration, the operating system and patch level, the backup and disaster recovery plans, the business continuity plans, a full risk assessment, evidence of a change management process, evidence of system access audits etc etc. They’ll then be checked and any recommended changes will be fed back to the system administrators. “Relevant data concerning such networks” is the key phrase, it means any data about the network, not any data held on the network. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
As an IT expert, I'm sure you're right about the meaning of "relative data concerning such networks", not all the data stored in those networks, but I think for privacy concerns it should additionally state that in the bill, something like, "which exludes personally stored data on those networks". What about my other concern: What would stop Obama from declaring that his IT experts reported a threat to him, even if they did not, to any CEO of any network and order a shutdown, Grinch? How would they know if there was or was not a legitimate threat? On what basis could they independently cofirm or deny what the President was telling them? And what legal leg would they have to stand on in denying the President's order, when the provisions of this proposed bill give him the authority to declare emergencies and order limits or shutdowns? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Sorry Denise I missed your last post: quote: Nothing. But no CEO is going to close down the whole of his business without being given the exact nature of the threat. quote: Because they’re the ones who’re going to report any attacks in the first place, the network administrator at Google will be able to confirm if their system is compromised or compromising another by interrogating their network traffic for specific telltale packets. quote: As above. quote: quote: The President can order a shutdown if the system is compromised, a legal leg to stand on would exist if the system could be proved not to be compromised. If a policeman shoots you in the head because he thinks you’re an armed international terrorist Denise and it turns out that you in fact weren’t do your family have a legal leg to stand on? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So if it is within the CEO's capabilities to determine and verify a compromise within their own systems, and also to shut them down, which is, I suspect, the way it works now, why pass a law that would interject the Commerce Department and the President into the equation, expanding the powers that each now have? Example: The CEO determines and verifies that a compromise of their system has occured. They then notify the Commerce Department, who then in turn notifies the President, who declares a compromise and then calls back the CEO and orders him to shut down the system? It sounds quite convoluted to me. If I were to be falsely accused and killed by the authorities, of course my family would have ground for legal action. But I would be dead still, and the damage could not be undone. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, I support you right to ask these questions and to get good solid answers; to have these doubts and questions addressed directly and in detail. Grinch clearly knows much more about this sort of thing than I do, and I'm glad that he's able to be helpful, and I think Ron's been helpful here as well. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep asking these questions as long as you continue to have this sort of doubt, because you may be speaking for others as well, and it's goof to have these things addressed and these fears put to rest. What I'd like to know, though, is what happened over the past eight years when issues of civil rights and human rights were being raised? You were saying something on the order of how (and this was in the case of wrongful death, not as in the case of wrongful imprisonment, torture, harassment, denial of habeas corpus and the like; I'm aware there is a difference of degree involved here) your family might sue, but that wouldn't help you very much. It strikes me that the events of the past eight or so years fall into the same category, except that your examples are worries of possible future events, and the material from the past eight years is history. Why is it that these actual events were allowed to happen, and that the complaints of those who were upset by them were dismissed? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(FBI) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NarusInsight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Maybe I'm just having a hard time waking up today, but I'm not understanding what you, Bob and Reb, are trying to convey. Can you please be a little more specific? Thanks! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Because that isn’t the way it works now. There are two fundamental issues that prevent it from working that way - both are addressed in the bill. The first is that private companies are not obliged to shut down their network once compromised and some CEO’s, recognising the massive impact on profitability, will avoid it at all costs. The second is also related to profitability, some companies see data security as an additional and largely unwanted cost, they cut their IT security staff to the bone and cut corners when it comes to security. What you end up with is position where a CEO isn’t obliged to shut the network down and hasn’t got the staff to tell him it’s the best long term option. quote: Convoluted is what you get when you start adding checks and balances Denise. The reality is that if this bill comes into force the good companies who recognise the risk and the required action probably won’t need to be told to shut down the network. The bill just ensures that they’re more likely to do it. Remember when I said that IT people like to cover their arse? Well that’s true of CEO’s as well, if they take the decision to shut down the network and lose twenty million off their stock price the shareholders will hang them from the nearest lamppost if it turns out they made the wrong decision. If the CEO can cover his arse by passing the buck and the responsibility over to the government he’s more likely to make a call, at present he may be swayed by the consequences of getting it wrong. Then there are the bad companies, those that at present pay only lip service to data security. At present they probably won’t even know they’ve been compromised, in that scenario their internet provider might be the one reporting suspicious packets or another company that’s being affected by the compromised system might report it. Under the new bill they’ll be forced to bring their standards up to a minimum where they would at least know they’ve been compromised and if they don’t cut their own network the bill gives the government to option to overturn their decision. quote: That’s true Denise but the family would receive financial recompense in lieu of the loss, it wouldn’t undo the damage but it would prove the illegitimacy of the action. They call those payments “damages” for that exact reason. The CEO of a company could quite legally refuse an order by the President to shutdown his network as long as the network can be proved not to be compromised. The legal term they’d offer in defence is “the exception that proves the rule”. A lot of people get confused about what that means in legal terms, which isn’t surprising because it’s taken on so many additional meanings in common usage, so it might be worthwhile if I give you another analogy to make the point. If you go to a restaurant that has a sign out front that says “Children eat free on Sunday” you’d have a very strong legal case if you went there on Sunday and were charged for your two-year-olds meal. The sign is pretty clear, right? If however you went to the restaurant on Monday you’d have no legal right to get free food for your toddler. Your argument might be that the restaurant doesn’t have a rule that specifies that they don’t supply free food on Monday but the exception inherent in the inclusion of the word “Sunday” proves that such a rule exists. “Children eat free on Sunday” The sign infers that on any day other than Sunday food is not free. The sign might just as well read “Children don’t eat free on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday” because the exception inherent in the original sign proves that such a rule exists. So let’s look at that section of the bill again: quote: Let’s stick that on a sign above Obama’s desk The president can order the shutdown of any compromised network. The exception that proves the rule is the word COMPROMISED. Here’s the rule it proves: The president can NOT order the shutdown of an uncompromised network. We could hang that sign next to the first if you like - but there isn’t really any need - the exception in the first sign already proves the rule exists. Hope that helps Denise. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks for taking the time to explain all that to me Grinch. I appreciate it. I'd still feel better, though, if the language were tightened up a bit, and the Executive branch were taken out of the equation entirely. After what I have seen recently, they are too skilled at blatant denial of the obvious for me to have too much faith in the concept of inherent exceptions where they are concerned. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Happy Easter, Denise, and to others who celebrate the holiday. Have fun with the kids, especially. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thank you, Bob, I did just that! I hope you had a great day as well! |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
