I think the key phrase in the summary is "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access."
Why is it necessary for the president to be able (by himself, from what I understand) to shut down entire networks without regard to law? Don't the other two branches exist to write and decide laws? What is the point of a check and balance if this action can be taken without regard to law?
Also, why aren't the security policies of the network providers good enough? If the US were under a serious cyber-attach (which actually happens a lot), wouldn't the providers just shut down the offending IPs? Why is it necessary for entire networks to be at the mercy of the government? Perhaps I don't understand the internet well enough. Would someone be able to enlighten me?
Note: I am neither a political scientist or an internet engineer. If any part of what I said doesn't make sense to someone who understands these issues better than I do, please correct me.
At first I wasn't seeing backed up claims for "shutting down the Internet"... I read that over one time and I thought, okay, they're talking about (new) cybersecurity applications for already existing Federal and Department of Commerce systems and implementations. So I thought, okay - providing more security for governmental systems is a good thing, right?
Then I read it through a second time:
"The bill also calls on the Department of Commerce to establish and maintain a clearinghouse on information related to cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to public and private infrastructure deemed "critical" by the President. The Secretary of Commerce would be given access to this information "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." The bill would also give the President new authority to "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.""
''deemed critical'' ? I welcome your opinion, but to me that seems like too much power for one person. I'd say Google is quite critical... so let me get this straight, Rockefeller wants to allow the President to be able to shut down anything (like Google) he feels is necessary? pfft I think I'd like to recommend these old fogie Senators to actually use the Internet - don't attempt to interfere with something you don't understand.
I can't see this being technically feasible... the entire design principle behind the tcp/ip stack is to route around damaged/missing network links. You would have to completely isolate the US to do this, unless I'm misunderstanding modern routing protcols. Even leaving one link open would allow (slow) traffic outside of the US...
Granted, systems like the great firewall of China tend to work, but that's because there is infrastructure in place to handle it, it didn't just pop up one day.
Some "artists" do as well. I like Ted Nelson's take on the word...it adds nothing and the only word with cyber in it that does mean something is "cybernetics".
I hate to be "that guy," but can a moderator please make the title read "Bill to give the government..."? I keep reading this title and thinking we can now charge the government for internet downtime.
[+] [-] dkokelley|16 years ago|reply
Why is it necessary for the president to be able (by himself, from what I understand) to shut down entire networks without regard to law? Don't the other two branches exist to write and decide laws? What is the point of a check and balance if this action can be taken without regard to law?
Also, why aren't the security policies of the network providers good enough? If the US were under a serious cyber-attach (which actually happens a lot), wouldn't the providers just shut down the offending IPs? Why is it necessary for entire networks to be at the mercy of the government? Perhaps I don't understand the internet well enough. Would someone be able to enlighten me?
Note: I am neither a political scientist or an internet engineer. If any part of what I said doesn't make sense to someone who understands these issues better than I do, please correct me.
[+] [-] CaptainMorgan|16 years ago|reply
Then I read it through a second time: "The bill also calls on the Department of Commerce to establish and maintain a clearinghouse on information related to cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to public and private infrastructure deemed "critical" by the President. The Secretary of Commerce would be given access to this information "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." The bill would also give the President new authority to "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.""
''deemed critical'' ? I welcome your opinion, but to me that seems like too much power for one person. I'd say Google is quite critical... so let me get this straight, Rockefeller wants to allow the President to be able to shut down anything (like Google) he feels is necessary? pfft I think I'd like to recommend these old fogie Senators to actually use the Internet - don't attempt to interfere with something you don't understand.
[+] [-] lallysingh|16 years ago|reply
My tin-foil hat's as big as most (and bigger than many), but let's look at both sides of this equation.
[+] [-] devicenull|16 years ago|reply
Granted, systems like the great firewall of China tend to work, but that's because there is infrastructure in place to handle it, it didn't just pop up one day.
[+] [-] pmorici|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omouse|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Elepsis|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natmaster|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yannis|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trafficlight|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eli|16 years ago|reply