New Cybersecurity Agency??

[SavageEagle]

Anyone seen these proposals? I think it means the end of whatever was left of internet privacy....

FWIW, I can't find anything on a search for the bills.


ALERT!: Kiss Internet Privacy Goodbye (If Washington gets it's way) - The Patriotic Resistance


Two new Senate bills introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D - W.V.) would hand sweeping and unprecedented control of the internet over to government. According to WorldNet Daily, the proposed bills (S. 773 and S. 778) would be known as the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, and would create yet another bureaucratic department - The Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor.

The thing that makes this new legislation particularly scary is that it plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access." It would also "regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared cyber emergency".

WND has managed to get a copy of a working draft of the legislation that can be viewed here.

You can track the progress of S. 773 and S. 778 via Open Congress here and here.

This is yet another blatant example of how our government is marching this country towards Socialism / Fascism at an unbelievable pace. They must be STOPPED before America is no longer the free country as envisioned and created by the Founding Fathers.

In Liberty!
Rj

 

[Bill of Rights]

...They must be STOPPED before America is no longer the free country as envisioned and created by the Founding Fathers....

Far too late for that. We haven't been the free nation envisioned by our Founders since the Whiskey Rebellion, though we were closer to it then.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[agentl074]

Actually, the Air Force was in charge of cyber security; so why would they spend extra money on a new government agency?

 

[SavageEagle]

Actually, the Air Force was in charge of cyber security; so why would they spend extra money on a new government agency?

I knew the military regulated it somewhat since the Air Force was the first to put the idea to use. BUT I thought the FBI had it's own Cyber Task Force sub-agency.....

 

[haldir]

The Cyber Security office has been in the Department of Homeland Security DHS | National Cybersecurity Division

Actually they are looking at taking it out of DHS and moving it directly into the White House where there would be no Congressional oversight.

March 20, 2009 6:00 PM PDT
A bill to shift cybersecurity to White House
by Stephanie Condon
Font size
Print
E-mail
Share
24 comments
Forthcoming legislation would wrest cybersecurity responsibilities from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and transfer them to the White House, a proposed move that likely will draw objections from industry groups and some conservatives.
CNET News has obtained a summary of a proposal from Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that would create an Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, part of the Executive Office of the President. That office would receive the power to disconnect, if it believes they're at risk of a cyberattack, "critical" computer networks from the Internet.

"I regard this as a profoundly and deeply troubling problem to which we are not paying much attention," Rockefeller said a hearing this week, referring to cybersecurity.
Giving the White House cybersecurity responsibility was one of the top recommendations of a commission that produced a report last year to advise President Obama on cybersecurity issues. However, the Homeland Security Department, which currently has jurisdiction over cybersecurity, has insisted the reshuffling of duties is not needed.
Given the enormity of cybersecurity threats, the responsibility is a natural fit for the White House, said James Lewis, a director and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which issued last year's commission report.
"The Obama administration has an adviser on energy and climate change, and that's good and important," Lewis said, "but we're still in the mode that cyber is less important."
While the bill is still in draft form and thereby subject to change, it would put the White House National Cybersecurity Advisor in charge of coordinating cyber efforts within the intelligence community and within civilian agencies, as well as coordinating the public sector's cooperation with the private sector. The adviser would have the authority to disconnect from the Internet any federal infrastructure networks--or other networks deemed to be "critical"--if found to be at risk of a cyberattack.
The private sector will certainly speak out if this provision is included in the final draft of the bill, a member of the technology industry who spoke on condition of anonymity said.
"You can be assured that if that idea is put into legislation we would certainly have views on it," he said. "It's not trivial."
While the person did not take a stance on whether the White House is the appropriate place to put cybersecurity jurisdiction, he said, "cybersecurity is a cross-cutting issue, across all government agencies, so leadership at the top is useful."
The bill could also make the proposed cyber adviser responsible for conducting a quadrennial review of the country's cybersecurity program, as well as for working with the State Department to develop international standards for improving cybersecurity.
The draft version of the bill also establishes a clearinghouse for the public and private sectors to share information about cyberthreats and vulnerabilities. It also creates a Cybersecurity Advisory Panel consisting of outside experts from industry, academia, and nonprofit groups to advise the president.
Because many federal contracting officers do not currently include security provisions into federal procurements, the bill could also establish a "Secure Products and Services Acquisitions Board" to review and approve all federal acquisitions.
At Thursday's hearing, Edward Amoroso, AT&T's senior vice president and chief security officer, said the federal procurement process "needs to be upgraded to implement sufficient security protections."
Some industry groups are warning, however, that adding customized requirements to the government's procurement process may inhibit the government's ability to take advantage of the innovations and cost benefits available from commercial technology.
"Simply put, the government cannot reach its security goals by compromising its access to commercial solutions and processes, nor can it technologically or financially afford it," the Business Software Alliance wrote in a memo to Melissa Hathaway, the acting senior director for cyberspace at the White House National and Homeland Security Councils, who is conducting a 60-day review of cybersecurity programs for President Obama. "Rather than imposing overbroad security requirements, government needs to be selective and limit them to high-criticality systems."
The bill may also subject both government and private sector networks to cybersecurity standards established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It may also provide for a professional licensing and certification program for cybersecurity professionals.
The senators also want to create greater general awareness of the importance of cybersecurity, so the legislation would expand scholarships for students studying cybersecurity, create an annual cybersecurity competition and prize for students, and initiate a cybersecurity awareness campaign. It would also increase cybersecurity research and development funding for the National Science Foundation.
Lewis said he is very pleased with the Senate's work on this bill so far.
"Having a knowledgeable and powerful group of senators that are willing to pick up the ball and run with it is really encouraging," he said.
Given the broad nature of the legislation--which spans intelligence and homeland security issues, as well as commerce issues--Rockefeller may have to work with the leaders of the Senate Homeland Security Committee and other leaders in the Senate to shape the final version.
An industry insider said, though, that Rockefeller's previous experience chairing the Select Committee on Intelligence will improve the bill's chances of advancing.
"His personal credibility and experience allow him to play a role that another chairman might necessarily have been able to play," the source said.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Look Eschelon up. Now that is scary.

 

[agentl074]

Look Echelon up. Now that is scary.

Yes it is... very! Well all this means is that everything is going under DHS and more government is created. So ... it sucks.

 

[SavageEagle]

Echelon? You talking about the joint Intel gathering between us and the EU?

 

[4sarge]

OBAMA SEEKS NET CONTROL ....ENCROACHING FASCISM

"The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."
I agree, the cybersecurity threat is real alright - from the government.
Soon He May Control The Internet - Cool


A bill pending in Congress, The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, sponsored by John Rockefeller (D) and Olympia Snowe (R) attempts to deal with very real threats to the nation's cyber-infrastructure. Attacks on military, government and civilian cyber-infrastructure are all too real, and it is time the nation woke up to the problem.

But one provision in the bill has received scant attention, other than an article in Mother Jones (via Memeorandum). The provision allows the President to declare a cyber emergency, shut down the internet, and access almost any cyber-information. 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" (Sec. 18(2))
​

The term "United States critical infrastructure information system or network" includes federal, state and local governmental, and non-governmental systems or networks. In other words, everything. (Sec. 23(3)) The President also

shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access. (Sec. 14(b)(1))
​

The standards in the Act as to what constitutes an emergency, and what the President can do with the information, are unacceptably vague. While cyber-security is increasingly important, I worry about giving such sweeping powers to ANY President, much less one who already has created a cult of personality enabled, in part, by an adoring media.

And with Rahm Emanuel, John Podesta, and James Carville at the President's side, we all can sleep peacefully knowing that the information gathered through this program will not be used for political purposes.

Remember all the fury from the Left over the Patriot Act and other attempts to give the government the ability to intercept communications believed to be between terrorists? Or to provide immunity to telecommunications companies which cooperate with the government? Why the silence here from the always-critical-of-anything-which-makes-us-safer blogs and public interest groups?

ACLU, HuffPo, Talking Points Memo, Glenn Greenwald, FireDogLake, Ezra Klein, etc. - Where are you?


UPDATE: It's happening in Britain:
Internet records to be stored for a year
Details of every email sent and website visited by people in Britain are to be stored for use by the state from tomorrow as part of what campaigners claim is a massive assault on privacy.

A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and telephone calls made over the internet, for 12 months.
They let Islamic extremists in en masse but Wilders or Feiglin, so who do they want to spy on?


Cartoon of the Day


Too true (hat tip Bob)

 

[agentl074]

Echelon? You talking about the joint Intel gathering between us and the EU?

Well that is part of this crap; but Echelon is a telecommunications security program....

 

[SavageEagle]

Well that is part of this crap; but Echelon is a telecommunications security program....

So you mean this company aswell?

Echelon Corporation, embedded control networking technology

 

[Virtus]

Govt controlled Internet = SkyNet

 

[agentl074]

Govt controlled Internet = SkyNet

Well that and all telecommunications - yup that's it in a nutshell. Think of it as all types of information that is screened through a supercomputer to search for key phrases or codes.

 

[txgho1911]

Like the cell phone in your pocket will not allow tracking even today if they want to?

 

[agentl074]

Like the cell phone in your pocket will not allow tracking even today if they want to?

Most cellular telephones now have E911 locators which can be enabled or disabled. I know my Motorola also has an option for locator on/off or 911 only. So no... they all cannot track unless you tell them to. I could be wrong of course ... but I haven't seen evidence to support it.

 

[The Meach]

Most cellular telephones now have E911 locators which can be enabled or disabled. I know my Motorola also has an option for locator on/off or 911 only. So no... they all cannot track unless you tell them to. I could be wrong of course ... but I haven't seen evidence to support it.

the only way to completely turn off the locators in phones it to remove the battery. Otherwise, if they want to find you they still can even with 'E911 only' on.

 

[haldir]

It seems pretty clear they can track you when they really want to. Look at the missing persons cases where they use their cell phone (which isn't being used at the time) to find the dead body.

 

[agentl074]

the only way to completely turn off the locators in phones it to remove the battery. Otherwise, if they want to find you they still can even with 'E911 only' on.

You mean off? I know that they can triangulate your position from the cellular provider (ehow,2009) but I have not seen a source that proves the existence of subdued transponders - indefeatable locators....

 

[SavageEagle]

It seems pretty clear they can track you when they really want to. Look at the missing persons cases where they use their cell phone (which isn't being used at the time) to find the dead body.

Yes, they have to call the phone first. Now these newer phones have the GPS chips in them. Those are the transponders used to track you. Any phone that can be used with a GPS map program can be tracked easily. They've been marketed to kids mostly because the parents can track them online.

 

[agentl074]

Yes, they have to call the phone first. Now these newer phones have the GPS chips in them. Those are the transponders used to track you. Any phone that can be used with a GPS map program can be tracked easily. They've been marketed to kids mostly because the parents can track them online.

Very true. Who knows what kinds of technology they have back doors in... I am not saying that it is improbable to have subdued technology in computers, telephones (radio or landline) or GPS systems - I just have not seen a source (yet).