How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 The Alley
 Another Power Grab Attempt?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Another Power Grab Attempt?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia

75 posted 04-11-2009 03:38 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002

76 posted 04-11-2009 09:01 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

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?

Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710

77 posted 04-11-2009 10:09 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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;

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.

Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002

78 posted 04-11-2009 12:22 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

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 11-03-2007
Posts 3860

79 posted 04-12-2009 05:49 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Happy Easter, Denise, and to others who celebrate the holiday.  Have fun with the kids, especially.
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002

80 posted 04-13-2009 11:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Thank you, Bob, I did just that! I hope you had a great day as well!
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Another Power Grab Attempt?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard


pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary

© Passions in Poetry and 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors