Hey, let’s give Obama emergency control over the Internet
posted at 8:33 pm on August 28, 2009 by Allahpundit
We’ve written about this before but the new and “improved” version of the bill’s just been leaked by Jay Rockefeller’s office. Remember the Bush years, when the Democrats ferociously opposed executive power? Good times.
If you think they’ve changed now, wait and see what happens if/when the GOP takes back Congress. Article II fee-vah!
A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection…
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”
Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
Here’s the relevant section of the statute. The problem’s not that it explicitly grants Obama all sorts of detailed powers; it’s that it’s not detailed at all, leaving the limits of executive authority in an emergency perhaps only to The One’s imagination. Yet, that said, I’m still troubled by this Times piece from a few days ago about the Conficker virus and how America’s techie brain trust just can’t seem to stop it, even when they put their eggheads together. If it’s some sort of trojan horse, it’s not unthinkable that whoever’s directing it could suddenly take over a huge number of systems, requiring a very rapid quarantine. And even if it isn’t, a future virus might be. The Rockefeller bill isn’t (necessarily) a bogus power grab, in other words, it’s a response to a genuine threat that maybe reaches too far. How do you limit the president’s emergency powers so that he can’t abuse them while keeping his hands untied to fight a new kind of warfare if need be? Any thoughts, techies?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Your simplistic and unsophisticated disregard is all I expect.
Weight of Glory on August 28, 2009 at 9:26 PM
Open source software and what is being discussed here have absolutely nothing to do with one another. I’m not sure what context you refer to about keeping the web “free”, other than to know it is not one that applies here. What is being discussed here is the development of standards to protect information deemed in the nation interest and mitigate disruption to commerce.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM
So, you’re saying you are not smart enough to protect your Protected Level networks against all of our overseas best friends?
Maybe, instead of giving a flaming socialist the singular power to shut down major comm systems nationwide, why don’t you:
a) go to school where those interminable hackers did and learn what they know
or
b) let somebody smarter than you do your job (IOW, quit)
or
c) just isolate your network from the internet when it’s under attack
Or have you already accepted the idiom that only Obama can save the cybernet infrastructure of the US?
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM
I have been telling my friends and family that the main flaw in Alinsky’s Rules is that he did not figure in the internet and the ability of those who actually think to be able to communicate. One of the most powerful weapons against Statism is information. If the radicals can effectively shut up opposition and control information, they can control the people. I do not trust this government or ANY government with the ability to stop free speech.
By the way, first time poster, long time lurker. Hi y’all!
texgal on August 28, 2009 at 9:28 PM
It is saddening that the American population are more afraid of their own duly elected President than they are of a very real and present foreign threat.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 9:09 PM
bileduct: Ya know,here at Hot Air,were enjoying a laugh riot
before the real RIOTS,and you are really putting a
damper on the fun!
However,getting a bit serious,um..ah.I thought the
LEFT was saying the previous President would be
the one to pull this,
so,now,ANYTHING that Hopey/Changey does is legit!
Out of curiousity,have you been paying attention
er,following along since January the 20th!!
canopfor on August 28, 2009 at 9:28 PM
I trust Obama as much as I trust McCain not to defend Obama every chance he gets.
technopeasant on August 28, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Obama doesn’t even have to do this. Didn’t the U.N. ask for direct control of some of the centerpieces of the internet not too long ago? They were rebuffed at the time, but does anyone believe that Obama wouldn’t hand over the keys without a second thought?
Semi-plausible deniability (to the thinking-challenged). “I just did it to be fair. I had no idea that the U.N. would screw it up. They have such an amazing track record on other issues.”
Left Coast Right Mind on August 28, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Wonder what the illegal wiretap libs have to say about this…
jhffmn on August 28, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Welcome! And let me say your first post here is spot on.
You’ll do well here, Grasshopper.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Senator Obama is a decent man and you have nothing to be scared of him as president.
John McCain
Do you believe your own eyes and Glenn Beck or do you believe Maverick?
technopeasant on August 28, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Welcome aboard. It’s obvious you’re one of us.
fogw on August 28, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Nothing. Obama is not Bush
CWforFreedom on August 28, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Those need not be so numerous they become difficult to manage, and as others have said…simply pull the plug. Leave the isolated administrative level network or whatever it is you’re protecting running on its own. Sure you lose convenient methods of control for a bit, but this isnt the kind of stuff that we need federal legislation to deal with…outside of legislation that mandates network infrastructure have as few shared gateways as possible, with contingencies on hand in the event networks need to be forcefully, physically, isolated.
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 9:32 PM
JellyToast on August 28, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Hey! I’ve said plenty!
;-)
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 9:33 PM
What illegal wire taps? Didn’t you hear…Nancy is pushing a bill for unlimited surveillance of telephonic communications, for national security purposes. It’s for the children, you know.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Well, whatever the problems are, it is not wise to give emergency control over anything to the “Don’t let a crisis go to waste” crowd.
reaganaut on August 28, 2009 at 9:34 PM
What is Hussein afraid of?
BigMike252 on August 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Horse hockey…all they’ll lose is email and access to facebook, twitter, DKos, and HuffPo. Just like any other building where the internet goes down.
Oh, unless the Chinese have developed a way to insert commandos via TCP packets…sorta like Tron….OMG….it’s SKYNET!
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 9:36 PM
<What is Hussein afraid of?
BigMike252
Us
texgal on August 28, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Us.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Great minds think alike! lol
texgal on August 28, 2009 at 9:39 PM
Hey, I work in a single floor office and I appreciate having one station that can access my the internet and the interior network we use at the TV station for configuring distribution amps and routers and whatnot. There are some networks that surely have systems in place that are interconnected for real convenience…but it just cant stay that way with critical infrastructure.
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 9:40 PM
If there is a better demonstration of the reason central control is the wrong way to go, this is it. When things can be controlled centrally, all someone has to do to bring the whole country down — either from without or (especially) from within — is to capture that point of control.
RegularJoe on August 28, 2009 at 9:41 PM
I’d vote to give BHO control over the internet just as quickly as I’d agree to his control over my finances and medical records. Trust = 0.
indypat on August 28, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Oh no.
I didn’t support something like this when it was Bush, I certainly won’t under Obama. NO executive should have that level of authority over the people.
TKSnider on August 28, 2009 at 9:42 PM
You can’t infect a hard drive with a worm if it ain’t connected to the Net. We pull the plug, and for a few months we take our economy back to 1997: the fax, the telephone, and human beings carrying boxes of data storage modules from one office to another.
No regulation and no oversight.
There. I know I should have helped the recovery by having some PhDs charge a few hundred thousand for analysis; but I’m irresponsible that way.
Chris_Balsz on August 28, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Bingo!
IK don’t trust government, period, and I don’t mach care which party is running it, either.
Dave R. on August 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM
JellyToast on August 28, 2009 at 9:51 PM
Ok, earnesto and any other “IT Pro”, riddle me this:
Suppose that the NKoreans penetrate the control room of a nuclear power station (certainly “critical infrastructure”) via an internet or other network access.
What could they do? Initiate the Auto-destruct sequence? How about turn it off (as we all know, the most dangerous thing you can do to a reactor, eh?)? Turn it all the way up? And of course, just like in Hollywood the bible clinging, gun toting, sleepy rightwing conservanut operators (all 100 of them) aren’t paying attention.
C’mon Bob, that’s not what we mean.
Wait, Ok, so what if they get their fingers on the NASDAQ servers, and steal all of Bill Gates shares of Microsoft. Again, no one would notice until it’s permanently too late. Sorry Bill, Who Flung Du stole Microsoft from you, nothing we can do about it now….
Yes, here it is….they get the launch codes and instruct the WHOPPER to launch our ICBMS (I hope they think to change the targetting first…some are pointed at them). Hey, it could happen. I saw it.
Christ. I put as much faith in this issue as I had in the Y2K farce. None.
Just.turn.it.off.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 9:52 PM
I wouldn’t trust Obama with the combination to my Barbie diary; We’ve already seen what he does with e-mail addresses.
anniekc on August 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM
NOW may we borrow Newfounland?
Think pirate radio stations.
katy the mean old lady on August 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Well, there’s no denying that cyber-attacks from foreign powers are on the rise. However, the problem is at MULTIPLE levels, everything from phony Cisco routers [on their way to US Defense labs], missing hard drives, idiots bringing in thumb-drives with malware, DOS attacks, and good old-fashioned system hacks.
Here’s a ‘quick-and-easy’ for getting a feel of things
http://www.spacewar.com/cyberwars.html
[They 'lean' left on other issues http://www.spacewar.com/ , but they're fairly down the middle on cyber issues...]
Cyberdefence is a VERY important issue, but I’ve got some serious issues with giving any President ‘blanket’ powers [this one especially...] over the ENTIRE internet. A more intelligent ‘system-wide’ operational/structural policy is FAR more important than a grant of unlimited authority.
As with any ‘rat proposal, better to look at the ‘fine print’ first, debate the points of the issue, then see what ‘authority’ is ACTUALLY needed.
Without the above happening, NO. And HELL NO. Besides, Rockefeller is behind this, that should be your first cue to be ‘on guard’.
CPT. Charles on August 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM
I didn’t mean to come off like i support this…i most certainly do not.
I was just admitting that yes, there are people who will be inconvenienced by having to protect their networks properly. Its not as if there isnt some cost to doing things properly…but it goes without saying that what they need to do is isolate those networks…not legislate some ambiguous executive authority.
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Hey, anybody in DC ever think about creating legislation that requires IT equipment being used in “critical infrastrucutre” be manufactured in the US, by a US-owned company, staffed by natural born US citizens?
Hey, a real jobs program AND a layer of control…thats’ why it’ll never happen.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Arpanet was the start. DARPA was next – military and research facilities such as universities 1983/1984. Then came the news groups on the BBS’s that you needed Archie as a gopher. Dial up gave you access to a gateway. AOL sprung up and was a portal that gave you a small access to the web. After that it was a free for all when Netscape because the browser of choice and you could program in html for Netscape browsers.
The military does have its own pipeline but it has a packet switch network (stupid).
What Rockefeller needs to have in his bill is:
a) all energy and water (utility) systems need to go to the military dark net
b) the military darknet pipeline needs to be taken off a simple packet switch that can be hacked.
These are the things you learn at black hat conferences and by reading slashdot.
2 simple solutions that would not give the president the power to take over the internet.
Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. READ HIS CRONIES WILL BE AWARDED THE LICENSE SO WE’LL BE SHIT OUT OF LUCK unless we’ve given to ACORN.
If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
Who deems your business critical? What’s the time delay with the government to get your business accessible from multiple locations and have your business deemed critical?
Lastly, let’s say the president doesn’t like HOT AIR nor DRUDGE nor video podcasts of Rush Limbaugh and shuts down their internet. Seems like totalitarianism to me.
athenadelphi on August 28, 2009 at 10:02 PM
FIFY
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 10:03 PM
THAT could never happen.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM
DING DING DING!
We have a winnahhh!
100% Agree. Thats basically all that needs to be done…though its kind of ridiculous that it wasn’t designed that way from the start.
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 10:06 PM
It was designed by those that brought us “You’ve got mail”.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 10:08 PM
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Y2K was a real issue that was overblown by the media with the usual fear, uncertainly and doubt. I know more than a few COBOL programmers who, after years and years of being out of work, were delighted to be paid hundreds of dollars an hour to rewrite decades old code that would have failed with certaintly.
Regarding shutting down gateways, the problem is that Government and commerce is so entrenched in online services (that advantage those such as the disabled, those living in rural areas, and the downright lazy) that to simply pull the plug at every perceived threat is going to cause a massive disruption to business as usual, and in one particular scenario I can envisage involving one of our clients, death.
Attacks will always occur and Gateways should be security accredited with a security response plan. The net result is the design of systems that are that mitigate potential and realtime threats, and to stop services in the event of a breach. At least that’s how it works where I live, where our evil socialist Government defines protective standards that third-party companies must comply with when protecting Government data.
I highly doubt and that ballistic missible launch procedures would be accessible from any publicly Internet-connected endpoint. The greatest risks are the Gateways between private/company data and the consumers that access that data, the services that are provided through them and the overall public reliance on them.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 10:20 PM
The same thing that both parties do with phone numbers?
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM
Can the president spell “Internet”?
Dumbass.
NoDonkey on August 28, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Don’t overlook the mischief inherent in the injunction for the WH to “map” the internet.
Maquis on August 28, 2009 at 10:24 PM
And its those gateways that warrant ambiguous executive authority over the internet as a whole? Really?
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM
FIFBobMbx and dittos to his sentiment.
thomasaur on August 28, 2009 at 10:26 PM
I should qualify my use of the word “consumer” as “consumer of information.”
This includes other companies, as consumers, of said data.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 10:29 PM
This is the Dem Congress whose leader Nancy Pelosi got the Congressional franking office to deny mail privileges to Republicans who put phrases she didn’t like in their mailings to their constituents. Like “cap and tax” instead of “cap and trade.”
If Obama wants to do this I don’t think Congress will mind.
YehuditTX on August 28, 2009 at 10:38 PM
fullogas on August 28, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Funny how insurance companies, mortgage lenders, and other actuarial service industries didn’t have any issues with the “date” problem as they amortized loans and insurance policies that spanned the Y2K “failure”. If it was a real problem, it would have been noticed the first time a 30 year mortgage scehdule didn’t work right. That would have happened as early as 1969, and would have occurred everytime the algorythm was run. No, it wasn’t a problem until 1998, two years before it was supposed to crash the planets into each other.
I do system safety engineering for weapon systems. What you described above is just bad design. Allowing a system failure to result in death without mitigation or backup. Piss poor design. And, that’s not a cyber security issue. As far as the business disruptions, that doesn’t require POTUS intervention, or does it? Sounds like US IT pros need some more training.
I laugh. They can’t design or run a $1 Billion rebate program. And it seems that you believe the government should establish standards for all things digital? Ever give any thought that those evil socialist Government protective standards are junk? Created by political appointees? Intertubes?
You are correct about the ICBMs. Hack all you want, lil Kim. There ain’t nothing there to hack into. But I did see it on TV. It took a couple of kids to save the world.
Again with the B2B interfaces. Thats their problem. They can solve it without reaching into my pocket or giving the off switch to some one who thinks Chavez is a pretty cool guy.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Good grief. What you are referring to regards the classification of data and putting in effective controls in place to manage risk from both technology and individuals.
The industry standard for technology security compliance is Common Criteria and EAL certification. Product that are EAL certified have been rigorously tested to meet security standards.
Individuals are security rated by means of a standard background check, looking for criminal history, etc., a practise that is already widespread in the workplace.
This policy is about classifying and protecting data, and ensuring that the systems that hold the data and the people accessing it have been vetted to some degree.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 10:43 PM
That sounds less like a single ‘emergency scenario’ and more like the every day price of doing business. If this is an emergency measure, why are we sitting here talking about gateways that handle commercial data as the justification for executive authority.
I mean if conservatism’s not your thing, and government ‘encroachment’ isnt necessarily a bad thing to you, you’ve still got to assume some hasty executive authority need not be our first foray into large scale federal cybersecurity.
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Are you familiar with TEMPEST?
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Oh come on…private brown shirt army, missing birth certificate and other records, Commies in high places, shutting down conservative talk radio, we can even throw in “Arkancide” and now this.
Take the tinfoil hats off you loons. The PTB here and on other forums, RINOs, and the more sane conservatives have tried to tell you this is just good old fashioned politics as usual…nothing to see here, folks, let’s move it along there.
Dr. ZhivBlago on August 28, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Hey Allah:
This doesnt necesarrily require a “techue” approach to what powers and responsibilities the President should have. It instead requires that the bill empower him to do just what they are trying to do the opposite of now.
As the internet now has come the cornerstone of modern communication in a free society, the President of the United States should be empowered, and required to do everything within his power during emergencies, to insure that this vital line of free democratic communication is mantained and unrestricted. If the internet in the USA comes under attack from outside our borders, the President should be authourized with the means to thwart such attack, but to insure that the vital and free flow of information is maintained. By enlisitng the President into service and insuring the internet remains fully operational in it’s present form, we limit his power to bring it down and to restrict it.
paulsur on August 28, 2009 at 10:54 PM
I am familiar TEMPEST, yes.
The subject matter of TEMPEST is taken into account when designing datacenters and Protected level (or higher, my Government’s classification) enclaves.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Is TEMPEST applicable to the internet? My last touch with it was pre-internet.
BobMbx on August 28, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I don’t read the bill with the same understanding of ‘encroachment’ that you do.
The specific portion of the bill that is at contention here I see as a safeguard for the President to, in the event of the declaration of a National emergency, to act in coordination with key sector representatives to act where the existing legislation or response plan is deemed insufficient to deal with the threat at hand.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Am I the only one getting all manner of John Ringo’s “The Last Centurion” vibes these days?
Blacksmith on August 28, 2009 at 11:13 PM
And as we’ve already discussed, the potential threats at hand are of debatable significance. Seems as if this legislation is unnecessary.
ernesto on August 28, 2009 at 11:19 PM
I’m sure you could argue a case that it is, but the standards that I am required to apply deal primarily with physical proximity based “snooping” of different sorts of equipment emanations that, when paired with a classified system, mandate the implementation of certain environmental features (ie: wall thickness and composition, absence of windows, etc.).
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM
It’s not just Obama — I don’t think liberals would be thrilled about a Republican president wielding this power, and there will be a Republican president again some day.
Also — how are the private sectors of the internet so crucial? Can’t the military and critical government servers be isolated at need without taking over private servers?
Does the president have such power to take over private cell phone, land phone, television, radio, ham, satellite and other private communication systems? They are so teched-up nowadays that a virus or hacker could take them down as well.
starboardhelm on August 28, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Key Government systems and services are often outsourced to IT communications and services companies such as IBM, EDS, CSC, or more regionalised players.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Additionally, large portions of the internet backbone are privately owned networks that are crucial to commerce and many other matters of public interest.
bileduct on August 28, 2009 at 11:41 PM
What about websites outside of the United States?
Crux Australis on August 29, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Me thinks,I could be wrong,but this Administration
seems to have a pattern!
And,it ain`t good!!!!!!!!!!!!!
canopfor on August 28, 2009 at 9:10 PM
NOW may we borrow Newfounland?
Think pirate radio stations.
katy the mean old lady on August 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM
katy the mean old lady: Like Napolean,I think Obama should
be exiled to Newfoundland,Obamaspeak
will sound the same as Newfie-speak,
ahem,hehe:)
canopfor on August 29, 2009 at 12:19 AM
All I can tell you about is my own personal experience between ’98 (when I started with the Company) and ’00 being involved in the millenium testing of our z/OS systems which ran many processes and applications written in COBOL. I personally watched batch procedures abend when performing date calculations during test procedures.
The reason it became an emergency in ’98 is because a lot of businesses left it until the last minute to assess and mitigate their exposure, and the media whipped up a frenzy of fear, uncertainty and doubt.
And it will all happen again between ’36 and ’38.
I have given it thought, however it is pretty clear to me that the standards are developed in conjunction with and endorsed by relevant independant bodies and subject matter experts.
If you can find fault with Common Criteria, then I am all ears.
You brought up TEMPEST. Did you think that was bunk?
bileduct on August 29, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Have you not been paying attention in the last few years?
When something like this comes along, you have to take a look down the road. This is point A, what happens at point C, D,… G….
It’s easy to spout, “Oh, it’s just a big conspiracy” and laugh it off. Everything starts small, and when the federal government is involved it grows and grows.
Smart people stay ahead of the game and plan for the worst. If you can succeed in the worst of times, you will enjoy fantastic success in even mediocre times.
reaganaut on August 29, 2009 at 12:39 AM
If Americans keep putting us with this crap, then we deserve what we get.
mobydutch on August 29, 2009 at 12:42 AM
As is so often said here:
PoodleSkirt on August 29, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Wow, that’s really quite interesting, unless my sarcasm detector has failed.
Not that I completely disagree, but let’s look at what you just said:
The Federal Government should and will dictate to private companies on what equipment they can buy, who they can employ and who their shareholders can be.
This is Hot Air, yeah? Free market, rah rah rah?
bileduct on August 29, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Without seeing more of the bill, I have several problems with it. There is no specificity to the definition of a threat to national defense and security. There is no detail of who decides, and under what circumstances. As the article states, there is no detail or limitation of what the Executive branch can and cannot do. My impression is the President can decide there is an emergency and do whatever he chooses, to anyone he chooses.
That there are national security threats in this area nobody disputes, but giving such vague powers to a President is not the right solution.
Having been acquainted with governmental involvement with computers at the state level, the outstanding characteristic was self-defeating incompetence. California for the most part still uses archaic equipment, software, and networking, burdened by incredible restrictive rules to further decrease the usability. They spend incredible amounts of money for techs, whose hands they tie with regulations. I see no reason to expect better of the fed.
And, as a previous poster said, without definition and limits, I would trust no President with this, particularly this one.
jodetoad on August 29, 2009 at 1:12 AM
LOL… no actualy, most of my experience is in the Military… you know, little systems like CUDIXS II (wrote the Maintenence course), SSSIXS (4 years as COMSUBPAC), TACINTEL… I put the first Fiber Optics systems into Hawaii…. worked on little things dealing with… oh… Failsafe? You know, those little ole CLASSIFIED systems?
I also TAUGHT Computer security… I also worked for, and eventualy RAN a Software Development company, where we developed SECURITY software…
But please, don’t let your limited knowledge of my background stop you from trying to use snark to denegrate a technical position… one which we in the Security industry saw coming Years ago (ie, the mixture of secure and nonsecure networks…).
We’ve known for years that the ONLY way to adequatly secure a Network is to isolate it. Eventualy the Blackhats will figure out a way to get into any system… and the Whitehats will find way to degrade your security.
Putting the data systems of the infrastructure on the Internet was a really bad idea… one many of us fought for years… but it won out due to cost, and “convenience”.
But of course… according to you I’m nothing but a… lets see… “server monkey” who does not have the “capacity to understand”?
Oh, and for the record? CISSP was a joke… and I no longer claim it due to the three year renewal time, its not a current cert… just like I didn’t claim my now defunct MCT status, or A+, or Net+, CIWS, or talk about a 30 year old Associates in Programing… cause COBOL and FORTRAN are not really relevent.
But plese, continue to dismiss… you amuse me.
Romeo13 on August 29, 2009 at 1:14 AM
bileduct on August 29, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Darn, I was gonna smack you again but now I don’t have to…cause Romeo13 got ya.
spacewife on August 29, 2009 at 1:21 AM
I see more and more “Shades of Chavez” in the acts of Obama.
Venezuelans didn’t see it coming either.
Obama is a liar and Truth is
killing his Marxist agenda.
Army Brat on August 29, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Internet and security put together pretty much define an oxymoron.
MB4 on August 29, 2009 at 2:25 AM
WOW – I haven’t seen a butt kicking like that in a long time. Way to go Romeo13.
There have been a number of other instances of state and federal government meddling in the internet… always with negative consequences.
This thing smells like Ozero talking with his kissing buddy, the dictator Hugo Chavez, and having Chavez whisper in ozer’s ear “Signore Barry, you need to control that steenking eeenternet if you want to have the complete power like me”
bullseye on August 29, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Just letting you two know that I am now chaperoning you on Twitter.
I see you when you’re sleeping
I know when you’re awake
I know if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!
Loxodonta on August 29, 2009 at 8:06 AM
About 20 some years ago, there was an article in NAval Institute Proceedings. The author was concerned about programmers with foreign interests putting easter eggs in our weapons system code. He showed how a programmer could sabotage a tomahawk system with 3 lines of ada code. If the missile were fired at any country except the programmers then it would perform normally. If it were fired at the programmer’s then the instructions would be to fly out a mile or so, return to the point of origin and detonate.
Back to the topic though, this is really scary in that ozero wants the ability to shut down the internet. The big question is WHY??? WHY would he want that power?
I just watched the ‘revenge of the sith’. Art has no bearing on reality when they depict someone trying to grab all the power they can right???
I’m also disturbed by the apparent requirement that you will need a government certified security administrator.. WHY??
bullseye on August 29, 2009 at 8:11 AM
So we can’t afford to voluntarily leave the Net for a spell. What we need is a highly complex, constitutionally questionable, expensive, federally regulated program that will take us off the Net for a spell whenever it fails.
You know they put man on the moon with 48kb processors working in series? It really doesn’t have to get as complex as possible. The purpose of SysAdmin lies beyond SysAdmin.
The last is a social issue and if it’s resolved by maintaining alternative methods of communication and information, then the first two become less vital. Surely if that’s cheaper and easier than this bill, its preferrable.
Chris_Balsz on August 29, 2009 at 8:12 AM
One simple way to greatly reduce the threat is for people to stop using Microsoft products. The Windows Operating System was not designed with networks like the Internet in mind. Apparently, after all these years, Microsoft still hasn’t figured out how to make it remotely safe. The ideas that shaped Linux came from a networked computing environment, and that why there have been few to none Linux viri (viruses) in the wild.
If firms and people stop using Windows, we’ll see other benefits. Spam, the junk mail in your email, comes almost exclusively from Windows PC machines that have been compromised.
thuja on August 29, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Sieg heil, Barack! (Or do you prefer Barry?)
Cybergeezer on August 28, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Cybergeezer on August 29, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Yes. Don’t allow Microsoft Windows to run an any home system or server. Require all platforms to be Linux/Mac OS or Sun.
Problems solved.
BierManVA on August 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM
How long a time period will the disconnect last? Our commerce,economy and even personal business will stop dead in it’s tracks. It’s just more control over people and business. John McCain sure does love to waltz.
Kissmygrits on August 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM
No, it just occurred to me that DOD had programs in place for years to contain “interference” with classified information (TEMPEST). I was interested in learning if TEMPEST has graduated from RF to the digital domain, or if a TEMPEST-like program had been developed.
BobMbx on August 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Huh. Good point. You know, we could probably outfit the Air Force for 1/10th what we pay now, if we had our aircraft manufactured in China, or, if we just bought Chinese aircraft. Evil Grumman/Lockheed/Boeing.
So it seems the point we’re talking about is limited to what is encompassed by the term “Critical Infrastructure”. Applied too broadly (my arguement) allows the Executive to selectively isolate threats as he determines. The ability of Google to provide internet search capabilty is not critical infrastructure. The ability of the FAA to communicate and control commercial aircraft is critical infrastructure.
Is not the government at this very moment dictating what the salaries of senior executives of
privately ownedWhite House-owned companies? Did the Car Czar fire senior GM/Chrysler executives? Doesnt’ the Stimulus Bill contain “Buy American” provisions? I see no conflict with requiring the FAA to “Buy American”. I see huge conflict with requiring Google to “Buy American”. I also see a huge potential for political abuse of the powers proposed by Rockefellers bill.BobMbx on August 29, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Every unit in the Soviet Military had a billet we never had…the Political Officer.
Certified IT Guy = Political Officer
BobMbx on August 29, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Taxes and registration with the internet czar to follow.
Kissmygrits on August 29, 2009 at 11:25 AM
It is certainly wise to have a kill switch. Ask any gas station attendant.
IF the fear is In the event the Prez gets sick ‘n tired of letting the populace communicate, coordinate, cooperate in order to limit the left’s potential harm to America, and decides to flip the switch for the sake of “national security” (his own job security), I’m pretty sure that a couple of things will happen. Communication will continue. Ham radios are still everywhere, mostly in the hands of conservatives, commonly called “right wing survivalist whackos”, CB’s under the dashboards of 250,000 trucks traveling the entire US, and low and behold, regular old telephones. Somehow I believe Articles of Impeachment could still be discussed broadly, my second point.
Robert17 on August 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM
More like “Nice Internet ya got there.” “Be a shame if something happened to it”.
44Magnum on August 29, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Chris Muir has no doubts (I don’t either) about what this means!
Webrider on August 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
Webrider on August 29, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Because in order to get and maintain total control,
Big BrotherObama and the Dems need to make sure we hear and abide by only what they tell us.SouperConservative on August 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM
“How do you limit the president’s emergency powers so that he can’t abuse them while keeping his hands untied to fight a new kind of warfare if need be?”
To answer that you need clear up a common misconception. There really is no such thing as “the internet”. There is no wire or piece of infrastructure or physical entity called “the internet”. The Internet is an abstract term that describes thousands of global networks that communicate with each other privately. When a Comcast user looks at Yahoo.com, there is a good chance the traffic went directly from Comcast to Yahoo and back without touching anyone else’s network.
Or if user goes to another site that only has a connection to one “upstream” small ISP that doesn’t have great peering connections with other networks, say a site at Rackspace.com that uses someone like Above.net as an ISP, the user traffic might go from their immediate provider to Above.net who then hands the traffic off to Rackspace. In no case did the traffic touch “the internet”.
“Critical Networks” might be the networks that serve the root name servers. Without these, nobody would be able to find anything. If you want to go to http://www.joeblow.com, you need to find out where to get IP addresses for “joeblow.com” and it is the root name servers that are the starting point for finding that. You first ask the root server “who handles dns for .com” and you get a response. Then you go to the server indicated by that response and ask “who handles DNS for joeblow.com” and you get a response. Then finally you go to the address indicated by that response and ask for the address of http://www.joeblow.com” and you get it.
Without the root name servers, the internet fails … but the root name servers don’t belong to the US. They are not under the jurisdiction of the US government. They are basically run by volunteers and they are scattered across the world.
But the point is that the government is going to have a very difficult time telling a private network that they can not exchange traffic with another private network over private infrastructure. It is an exercise in cat wrangling and is the kind of silly when you consider that “the internet” is global.
The Internet is a best effort cooperation between private networks. Do not EVER rely on the Internet working. It is subject to glitch, fail, disrupt, or work perfectly. All without ever touching anything called “the internet”.
It is legislation created by people who have no idea what they are talking about or trying to regulate.
crosspatch on August 29, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Internet voting (powered by ACORN) sounds pretty secure about now.
Not.
Shades of Adam Selene.
Peri Winkle on August 29, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Anyone who believes that the president is concerned about our security, is full of crap.
mobydutch on August 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »