Not liking this at all...Should the President control the internet...

[oldandslow]

The executive branch just keeps getting stronger. Doesn't matter which side is setting up house.

Ahh well, a little fascism keeps the trains running on time.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet

A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.

—Photo from flickr user marcos papapopolus used under a Creative Commons license.
Thu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST
Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.




The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

[KC Dan]

Is this China? Iran? Russia? When does this power grab stop? If US citizen's hit the streets like Iranian's I bet it would.

[Iowanian]

Is there any segment of American society/govt that Dear Leader isn't trying to make himself Emperor?

[mlyonsd]

LOL, and we thought wire tapping incoming foreign calls was abuse of power.

[irishjayhawk]

Even if I was to agree with this bill - which I don't - what an egregious tactical error to introduce this when people are witnessing what's happening in Iran.

Seriously, our representatives are brain dead apparently.

[irishjayhawk]

LOL @ Cyber-Katrina.

[mlyonsd]

Seriously, our representatives are brain dead apparently.

Worth repeating.

Seriously, our representatives are brain dead apparently.

[Iowanian]

Obama is turning out to be even worse than I had feared or imagined.

[CoMoChief]

Got to love huge govt. They solve all the problems.

[FishingRod]

Well the internet providers have been quite helpful to the Chinese in helping to track down those that are unsupportive of the party. It should work here just as well.

[mikey23545]

Chains you can believe in.

[Mojo Jojo]

Can you only imagine the hell that would be raised if GWB was given these powers?

[petegz28]

The same people who cxried about the Patriot Act allegedly "restricing our freedoms" are going to support this shit.

[wild1]

Between the financial mess, the government takeovers of private industry, and now this proposal to basically give Dear Leader unlimited authority over electronic communication, it's not an exaggeration to say this is building up to be the most disastrous presidency in history. This is all starting to read like a history of how a dictatorship started.

Dear Leader has been taking notes from his buddy Hugo Chavez

[irishjayhawk]

The same people who cxried about the Patriot Act allegedly "restricing our freedoms" are going to support this shit.

Link?

[oldandslow]

The same people who cxried about the Patriot Act allegedly "restricing our freedoms" are going to support this shit.

That's really not fair. I was the OP and I hated the Patriot Act.

[petegz28]

That's really not fair. I was the OP and I hated the Patriot Act.

I meant the politicians...sorry, I should have clarified. And if you hated the PA but don't support this then you are consistent and my comment would not be directed towards you anwyay. :)

[Reaper16]

Is there any segment of American society/govt that Dear Leader isn't trying to make himself Emperor?

Obama is turning out to be even worse than I had feared or imagined.

Between the financial mess, the government takeovers of private industry, and now this proposal to basically give Dear Leader unlimited authority over electronic communication, it's not an exaggeration to say this is building up to be the most disastrous presidency in history. This is all starting to read like a history of how a dictatorship started.

Dear Leader has been taking notes from his buddy Hugo Chavez
I'm missing the connection to Obama. All I see is a couple of idiotic elected officials proposing some BS.

[memyselfI]

I thought you supported Bush Lite. It's your guy taking over everything...

[Iowanian]

At least Obama is following up on the transparency of his administration.....with such top secret information as who is coming in to lobby him....

[BigRedChief]

You are lying to yourself if you don't think they can't already do this. Every ISP in the U.S. has to answer to Uncle Sam.

[Iowanian]

You're mighty flexible for a man of your stature BRC....I'm amazed at how easily you can bend over backwards to support your guy.


Shawn Johnson would probably pull an ab doing what you do in every conversation relating to Obama.

[petegz28]

You are lying to yourself if you don't think they can't already do this. Every ISP in the U.S. has to answer to Uncle Sam.

Then why the need for legislation?

[oldandslow]

I thought you supported Bush Lite. It's your guy taking over everything...

As opposed to HRC or Johnny Mac. You think either one of them wouldn't have opted for the power grab?

My overall point is that the modern presidency has far too much power. It was my hope that a vote for Obama might actually stem this. I have been proven horribly wrong.

The bailouts and things like this cause me shudder.

Obama had a shot to be a game changer. He could have sent the stimulas moneys "trickling up." Instead, he chose the same path Ronald Reagan, GHWB, Bill Clinton, and GWB, chose. Basically, supply side, trickle down, economics.

I wrote an article a few years back entitled 300 whispers. It essentially looked at Bill Clinton's campaign promises to not give China most favored nation trading status - then within 3 months of his election - giving it to them. Why - 300 fortune 500 companies signed a letter basically stating they would ruin him if he did not.

Nothing really changes except the date.

[Donger]

I'm missing the connection to Obama. All I see is a couple of idiotic elected officials proposing some BS.

IIRC, Obama supports the creation of a "Cybersecurity Czar." I presume that this bill would work hand in hand with that office.

[BucEyedPea]

You are lying to yourself if you don't think they can't already do this. Every ISP in the U.S. has to answer to Uncle Sam.

I didn't know the president could shut it down. This is just another step in the wrong direction.

[shitgoose]

How does one go about "shutting down" the internet?

[Brock]

You are lying to yourself if you don't think they can't already do this. Every ISP in the U.S. has to answer to Uncle Sam.

your obligatory shill post.

[Mojo Jojo]

The sad thing is...one day people in Iran will be setting their Twitter locations to the US so the Government will have a tougher time shutting down the truth.

[BigRedChief]

You're mighty flexible for a man of your stature BRC....I'm amazed at how easily you can bend over backwards to support your guy
In no way, shape or form am I saying its right. I'm just pointing out the obvious. And in no way would I support this idea to be "legal". Very bad idea.

[BucEyedPea]

How does one go about "shutting down" the internet?

Ask Obama or those in congress sponsoring or voting for this.

[BigRedChief]

How does one go about "shutting down" the internet?Block the gateways of the ISP's.

[wild1]

"elections have consequences"

[Garcia Bronco]

Block the gateways of the ISP's.

Or shutdown DNS. It won't stop internet traffic, but most people wouldn't understand how to get around it.

[DaneMcCloud]

I'm missing the connection to Obama. All I see is a couple of idiotic elected officials proposing some BS.

This.

And Bi-Partisan at that.

[Calcountry]

Can you only imagine the hell that would be raised if GWB was given these powers?But, Obama is a cool character, smooth, and a good speaker.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

The land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy.

[SNR]

This.

And Bi-Partisan at that.This isn't about "D"s or "R"s.

It's about small "r"s-- retards

[Calcountry]

Then why the need for legislation?Obama promised transparency. :shrug:

[wild1]

This.

And Bi-Partisan at that.

I suppose the white house hasn't been involved at all in the crafting of legislation to attribute power to an office he proposed to create?

Sure, it's bi-partisan in the sense that Snowe is a Republican, which is to say "in name only"

[DaneMcCloud]

I suppose the white house hasn't been involved at all in the crafting of legislation to attribute power to an office he proposed to create?

Sure, it's bi-partisan in the sense that Snowe is a Republican, which is to say "in name only"

Conspiracy theory much?

[bkkcoh]

LOL, and we thought wire tapping incoming foreign calls was abuse of power.

Only when the other party is in charge.


That is what the problem is, you can't distinguish between the 2 parties any more and they are both leading us down the wrong path.

[Guru]

And people complained about Bush.

[DaneMcCloud]

Did anyone read the DATE on that article before the the bitchfest between the Usual Suspects Began?

Furthermore, Obama stated BEFORE he was elected, there would be an a newly created office of National Security Advisor. And many people don't think they're going far enough.

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052900350_2.html?sid=ST2009052902430

Obama Says He Will Name National Cybersecurity Adviser

By Ellen Nakashima and Brian Krebs
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 30, 2009

President Obama used a White House speech yesterday to try to raise national concern about threats to computer networks, drawing praise from some industry executives and lawmakers but criticism from others who said his initiatives do not go far enough.

Obama said he will name a senior White House official to coordinate government efforts to protect a "strategic national asset": the digital networks that handle phone calls, e-mails, government and military data, and also control power grids, nuclear plants and airplane traffic.

Obama was doing what his predecessors had not: addressing the issue in a highly public way, under the chandeliers of the East Room, before an audience of Cabinet members, industry executives and privacy advocates. He noted that the very networks that allow Americans to bank and shop online are also targets for those who can turn a computer into a "weapon of mass disruption."

"We're not as prepared as we should be," he said, "as a government or as a country."

His speech was nearly in line with a campaign promise to make the issue a priority and appoint what he then called a national cyberadviser who would report directly to him.

Obama said yesterday the new cybersecurity coordinator would have "regular access to me." His speech, which was accompanied by the release of a strategy report, comes as the Pentagon plans to set up a new cybercommand to develop cyber weapons for use in responding to attacks from foreign adversaries.

"It's a thoughtful report that is cautious about what needs to be done," said Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for Homeland Security under President George W. Bush. "But it doesn't try to provide substantive answers to some of the security concerns that quite legitimately the government has."

Left unanswered in the White House's 38-page Cyberspace Policy Review are several major questions: How will the nation respond in the face of a major cyberattack? How can the United States persuade other nations to help defend the global Internet? What should be the role of the U.S. intelligence community in protecting private-sector networks?

To assuage concerns that a government agency such as the National Security Agency might tap into phone calls or e-mails, Obama stressed: "Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring private networks or Internet traffic." He noted that the new office will have a privacy and civil liberties officer.

The military's effort will be led by Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, and will be launched in early June, according to several cybersecurity experts who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Obama did not mention the Pentagon cybercommand in his remarks yesterday.

The White House had said the report, which was the result of a 60-day review of cyberprograms, would not offer detailed policy prescriptions.

The cybercoordinator will be a member of the National Security Council and the National Economic Council, Obama said, an acknowledgment that the threat is both to national security and to the economy. The official will coordinate government cybersecurity policies, work with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agencies have enough money to defend their systems, and coordinate the response to a major cyberattack, Obama said.

Obama stressed the gravity of the threat, noting that in one act alone last year, thieves illegally obtained credit card information in order to steal millions of dollars from 130 automated teller machines in 49 cities around the world -- in 30 minutes. Last year, cybercriminals stole data from businesses worldwide worth up to $1 trillion, he said.

In a serious attack on a military network, he said, several thousand computers were infected last year by malicious software, forcing troops to abandon use of thumb drives. And Obama described how his presidential campaign network had been compromised last fall, with hackers gaining access to policy position papers and travel plans. No donor's personal or financial information was stolen, he said.

The report issued yesterday was the fourth White House cybersecurity strategy or road map, dating to the Clinton administration. In stressing that his plan will be transparent, Obama effectively drew a distinction with the Bush administration's 2008 Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, which was mostly classified and aspects of which raised concerns on the Obama transition team. Yesterday's report called for "continued evaluation" of CNCI activities.

Several experts raised red flags, saying that Obama sidestepped the issue of funds required for the effort, the need to set national computer safety standards for companies that provide critical services, and what incentives would get companies to comply with cyberpolicies.
ad_icon

"Nice words, but mostly a rehash of what we've seen before -- and that hasn't worked," said Jeffrey A. Hunker, a Carnegie Mellon University professor who helped draft the first national plan on cybersecurity, under President Bill Clinton.

Enrique Salem, chief executive of Symantec, said he is concerned that the coordinator would have to answer to "so many masters" that he or he would not "be able to move efficiently."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in an e-mail that "placing a strategy 'czar' in the White House will hinder Congress's ability to effectively oversee federal cybersecurity activities and will do little to resolve the bureaucratic conflicts, turf battles, and confusing lines of authority that have undermined past cybersecurity efforts."

Other industry officials and lawmakers said they were heartened by the speech and report.

Obama is sending "a clear message to our adversaries that the United States will no longer tolerate attacks against our federal or critical infrastructure networks, and we are prepared to defend these networks by all means necessary,'' said Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), House Homeland Security Committee chairman.

"It's a good first step," said Ed Amoroso, chief security officer for AT&T, the world's largest telecommunications company. "Now we have to go and figure out how to implement these good ideas."

John Stewart, chief security officer for tech firm Cisco, said Obama gave a "very blunt assessment" of the "unacceptable" state of the country's networks. "I've not heard that before," he said.

The review suggests incentives and, "as a last resort," regulations, to get companies to share information that can improve overall network security.

"Obama ended up setting down a set of principles that he will navigate by," said Paul Kurtz, a cyberexpert who served in both the Clinton and Bush White Houses. "He seemed to be pushing the system to say we must and we can do more."

[BucEyedPea]

We don't need another office created. We don't need any stinkin' National Cyber Security Advisor. It's all BS whether it's Bush or Obama.

[DaneMcCloud]

We don't need another office created. We don't need any stinkin' National Cyber Security Advisor. It's all BS whether it's Bush or Obama.

Okay.

:rolleyes:

[wild1]

Conspiracy theory much?

That's a conspiracy theory, that the white house probably worked on legislation to empower the office they created?

[DaneMcCloud]

That's a conspiracy theory, that the white house probably worked on legislation to empower the office they created?

Um, since he stated on the campaign trail that he was going to create that office, I think these people's reactions are ridiculous, especially those who made reference to Iran, given the date of this article's publication.

And if you read the article that I linked, many people (CEO's, military, etc.) don't think it goes far enough to protect computer systems.

[bkkcoh]

And people complained about Bush.

But are those same people going to be complaining about this, that is the question.

[bkkcoh]

Um, since he stated on the campaign trail that he was going to create that office, I think these people's reactions are ridiculous, especially those who made reference to Iran, given the date of this article's publication.

And if you read the article that I linked, many people (CEO's, military, etc.) don't think it goes far enough to protect computer systems.

Where are the people that were afraid of their rights being trampled on by phone taps at now? I think that even though half of the crap on the net should be there, the government shouldn't be telling anyone what should or shouldn't be. I would say not everyone needs to be looking at some of the content, but that is a different debate.

[DaneMcCloud]

And people complained about Bush.

Complaining about losing rights due to the Patriot Act and the notion that the President could shut down the internet due to a cyber attack are completely different.

IF the POTUS (no matter who's in office) shutdown the internet for something other than a cyber attack, I guarantee that president would be impeached immediately.

[DaneMcCloud]

Where are the people that were afraid of their rights being trampled on by phone taps at now? I think that even though half of the crap on the net should be there, the government shouldn't be telling anyone what should or shouldn't be. I would say not everyone needs to be looking at some of the content, but that is a different debate.

The biggest threat to America is a cyber attack. Shutting down power plants, computer systems, etc. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with your right to surf porn on the internet.

What is it about this new office that you don't comprehend?

[KCTitus]

Complaining about losing rights due to the Patriot Act and the notion that the President could shut down the internet due to a cyber attack are completely different.

Reacting to a cyber attack and 'declaring a cyber emergency' are two different things...losing rights via PA and losing rights via this BS is NO different.

[blaise]

Where are the people that were afraid of their rights being trampled on by phone taps at now? I think that even though half of the crap on the net should be there, the government shouldn't be telling anyone what should or shouldn't be. I would say not everyone needs to be looking at some of the content, but that is a different debate.

They're still tapping phones just they way they were under Bush, aren't they? I haven't heard much complaining about it lately.

[Donger]

The biggest threat to America is a cyber attack. Shutting down power plants, computer systems, etc. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with your right to surf porn on the internet.

What is it about this new office that you don't comprehend?

Most SCADA systems are NOT connected to the Internet (for obvious reasons).

[Guru]

Complaining about losing rights due to the Patriot Act and the notion that the President could shut down the internet due to a cyber attack are completely different.

IF the POTUS (no matter who's in office) shutdown the internet for something other than a cyber attack, I guarantee that president would be impeached immediately.I'm really not concerned about this. Either way, it is in the interest of national security.

[stevieray]

He isn't taking control of anything, we are standing by and letting him.

[DaneMcCloud]

Reacting to a cyber attack and 'declaring a cyber emergency' are two different things...losing rights via PA and losing rights via this BS is NO different.

I strongly disagree.

IF there is evidence of Cyber Terrorism and the internet is shut down for that reason, it affects every American that uses the internet.

If the government suspects that a person is possibly engaged in illegal activity, they secretly wiretap that person. Justified or not.

I think it's a VERY different situation.

[J Diddy]

Complaining about losing rights due to the Patriot Act and the notion that the President could shut down the internet due to a cyber attack are completely different.

IF the POTUS (no matter who's in office) shutdown the internet for something other than a cyber attack, I guarantee that president would be impeached immediately.

especially if I was in the middle of an online video game

[BigRedChief]

The biggest threat to America is a cyber attack. Shutting down power plants, computer systems, etc. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with your right to surf porn on the internet.

What is it about this new office that you don't comprehend?
There is a pretty well developed zero day network out there now and info is passed to techies and CIO's pretty quickly when something hits the wild.

I agree a cyber attack is the most likely type of attack we will suffer next but I'm still against this idea.

Those who sacrifice freedom for the sake of secuity deserve neither.
/some old and wise guy

[DaneMcCloud]

There is a pretty well developed zero day network out there now and info is passed to techies and CIO's pretty quickly when something hits the wild.

I agree a cyber attack is the most likely type of attack we will suffer next but I'm still against this idea.

Those who sacrifice freedom for the sake of secuity deserve neither.
/some old and wise guy

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Do you guys really believe that the POTUS would shut down the internet at will?

Seriously?

[BucEyedPea]

The biggest threat to America is a cyber attack. Shutting down power plants, computer systems, etc. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with your right to surf porn on the internet.

What is it about this new office that you don't comprehend?

How is that the "biggest threat?" Who gets killed with that? We never had an internet most of our existence.

I heard a congressman, think it was Rockefeller, call the net subversive and he was talking about people's views on it.

[stevieray]

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Do you guys really believe that the POTUS would shut down the internet at will?

Seriously?

Let's ask IG Walprin...

[Brock]

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Do you guys really believe that the POTUS would shut down the internet at will?

Seriously?

Do you believe that the FBI is going to bug your phone for fun?

[dirk digler]

How is that the "biggest threat?" Who gets killed with that? We never had an internet most of our existence.

I heard a congressman, think it was Rockefeller, call the net subversive and he was talking about people's views on it.

Didn't you watch Die Hard 4? :)

Ever thing in this country is run by computers. You take the network you control everything.

[bkkcoh]

He isn't taking control of anything, we are standing by and letting him.

But we don't truly have a choice in that, short of a overthrow. The congress and press seem to be in the back pocket of the TOTUS.

The biggest threat to America is a cyber attack. Shutting down power plants, computer systems, etc. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with your right to surf porn on the internet.

What is it about this new office that you don't comprehend?

I am not so sure about that, if a dirty bomb would go off in NYC or DC, the loss of life might not be large, but the panic that it would cause would be totally devastating

They're still tapping phones just they way they were under Bush, aren't they? I haven't heard much complaining about it lately.

It is amazing that they aren't complaining being they are the ones who can dictate policy.

[DaneMcCloud]

Okay, I give up.

You're all right. The Bush Administration, The Obama Administration, people that have experienced identity theft, CEO's of companies and the military, et al, are all wrong.

I guess I forgot that America's TRUE geniuses all reside in this forum.

My bad.

[stevieray]

.

I guess I forgot that America's TRUE DRAFT geniuses all reside in this forum.




...sound familiar?

[dirk digler]

Where are the people that were afraid of their rights being trampled on by phone taps at now? I think that even though half of the crap on the net should be there, the government shouldn't be telling anyone what should or shouldn't be. I would say not everyone needs to be looking at some of the content, but that is a different debate.

I complain alot about the wire taps but no one really gives a fug.

I think it is prudent to have some plan or person in place to pull the plug in case of a huge cyber attack.

You guys have no idea how much is run by computers now.

[DaneMcCloud]

They're still tapping phones just they way they were under Bush, aren't they? I haven't heard much complaining about it lately.

I complained about it then and still complain now.

I actually had someone on this forum as me if "I had something to hide".

Paranoia's a funny thing.

[jAZ]

I can see how this is both important and dangerous power.

I might be OK with it, if it's well delineated in how and why it's to be used. Doesn't sound like that's going to be the case though.

[BucEyedPea]

Didn't you watch Die Hard 4? :)

Ever thing in this country is run by computers. You take the network you control everything.

It would be a huge pain in the arse but most of us would survive. It can be brought back up too.

[memyselfI]

Anyone else here think that the images we see in Iran could happen here in our lifetime the way the executive branch is power grabbing?

I do.

[Guru]

Okay, I give up.

You're all right. The Bush Administration, The Obama Administration, people that have experienced identity theft, CEO's of companies and the military, et al, are all wrong.

I guess I forgot that America's TRUE geniuses all reside in this forum.

My bad.Take it easy Dane. You know how this forum gets. Your points are definitely valid. So are SOME of the other points. Just SOME though. heh

[SBK]

How does one go about "shutting down" the internet?

Say goodbye to TCOT, Michelle Malkin and any other person who espouses conservative thought.

[SBK]

Anyone else here think that the images we see in Iran could happen here in our lifetime the way the executive branch is power grabbing?

I do.

Nope. Obama won't be in power long enough.

[irishjayhawk]

Say goodbye to TCOT, Michelle Malkin and any other person who espouses conservative thought.

I think it says a lot more that you'd actually want Malkin to express thoughts on behalf of conservatives.

[jjjayb]

IF the POTUS (no matter who's in office) shutdown the internet for something other than a cyber attack, I guarantee that president would be impeached immediately.

And here just a few short months ago I never thought I'd see a president with the power to fire employee's of private businesses. I never thought I'd see a mostly government owned GM. I never thought I'd see the government step in to regulate executive's pay. There are a lot of things that have happened very quickly over the last few months. What's to say shutting down the internet for reasons other than a cyber attack wouldn't be just one more thing I didn't think would happen but did?

[petegz28]

I think it says a lot more that you'd actually want Malkin to express thoughts on behalf of conservatives.

And what does it say? That someone may not have the same view as you?

[HonestChieffan]

And you anti bushies are not seeing this as bad?

[jjjayb]

I think it says a lot more that you'd actually want Malkin to express thoughts on behalf of conservatives.

It's called freedom of expression. Oops, I forgot, freedom of expression should only count if your expressing a liberal view. :rolleyes:

[DaneMcCloud]

And here just a few short months ago I never thought I'd see a president with the power to fire employee's of private businesses. I never thought I'd see a mostly government owned GM. I never thought I'd see the government step in to regulate executive's pay. There are a lot of things that have happened very quickly over the last few months. What's to say shutting down the internet for reasons other than a cyber attack wouldn't be just one more thing I didn't think would happen but did?

I guess the alternative would have been much better: A full collapse of the American financial system.

Hooray! We're free!

[petegz28]

And here just a few short months ago I never thought I'd see a president with the power to fire employee's of private businesses. I never thought I'd see a mostly government owned GM. I never thought I'd see the government step in to regulate executive's pay. There are a lot of things that have happened very quickly over the last few months. What's to say shutting down the internet for reasons other than a cyber attack wouldn't be just one more thing I didn't think would happen but did?

There was a fine line on the Exec pay ordeal. Companies who were begging for tax $'s while handing out millions of $'s in bonuses is bullshit. Paulson started all of that along with the fuckhead Congress by giving the money away in the first place without any strings attached.

[petegz28]

I guess the alternative would have been much better: A full collapse of the American financial system.

Hooray! We're free!

Shit happens. Life goes on. The Sun would rise and stronger more financially stable businesses would come in to clean up the mess.

[DaneMcCloud]

Shit happens. Life goes on. The Sun would rise and stronger more financially stable businesses would come in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I wish they would have let GM go bankrupt. We're supposed to live in a capitalistic society.

But my friends who work on Wall Street said that it would have led to a depression greater than the Great Depression.

I'll defer to them. For now.

[petegz28]

Personally, I wish they would have let GM go bankrupt. We're supposed to live in a capitalistic society.

But my friends who work on Wall Street said that it would have led to a depression greater than the Great Depression.

I'll defer to them. For now.

Sure they said that because they were the ones who caused it and the ones who would be impacted the most. And the pain may have been greater but it would have been for a much shorter period of time.

[jjjayb]

I guess the alternative would have been much better: A full collapse of the American financial system.

Hooray! We're free!

What do any of the things I mentioned have to do with preventing the collapse of our economy? NOTHING.

What does regulated healthcare have to do with preventing the collapse of our economy? NOTHING

Yet they still keep saying if we don't pass government healthcare our economy will be doomed.

And what do we say when the government decides to censor what is available on the internet in order to "save our economy from collapse"? Probably NOTHING just like the masses have been doing for the last few very interesting months.

[jjjayb]

Personally, I wish they would have let GM go bankrupt. We're supposed to live in a capitalistic society.

But my friends who work on Wall Street said that it would have led to a depression greater than the Great Depression.

I'll defer to them. For now.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't they filing Bankruptcy anyway? Even after dumping all that money into them? Oops.

[Saul Good]

Personally, I wish they would have let GM go bankrupt. We're supposed to live in a capitalistic society.

But my friends who work on Wall Street said that it would have led to a depression greater than the Great Depression.

I'll defer to them. For now.

Yep. Good thing Obama saved the day. Now GM isn't bankrupt.

[KcFanInGA]

This is insane. I am considering dropping off the grid, John Twelve Hawks style.

[KCTitus]

I strongly disagree.

IF there is evidence of Cyber Terrorism and the internet is shut down for that reason, it affects every American that uses the internet.

If the government suspects that a person is possibly engaged in illegal activity, they secretly wiretap that person. Justified or not.

I think it's a VERY different situation.

It's all how you 'couch' the terms isnt it?

Ok, I'll play...

If there is evidence of a person is engaged in illegal/terrorist activity, they secretly wiretap that person (if the call is going outside the United States -- according to the PA)

If the government suspects that cyber terrorism is possibly happening (or is being engaged in), the internet is shut down for all, secretly affecting every American.

I have not horse in this race, both are wrong...hopefully, you see the game being played here.

[Saul Good]

It's all how you 'couch' the terms isnt it?

Ok, I'll play...

If there is evidence of a person is engaged in illegal/terrorist activity, they secretly wiretap that person (if the call is going outside the United States -- according to the PA)

If the government suspects that cyber terrorism is possibly happening (or is being engaged in), the internet is shut down for all, secretly affecting every American.

I have not horse in this race, both are wrong...hopefully, you see the game being played here.

We have a winner!

[orange]

If the government suspects that cyber terrorism is possibly happening (or is being engaged in), the internet is shut down for all, secretly affecting every American.


Where does it say that - or anything even remotely like that?

Actual words from article above:

"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security.""

[Saul Good]

Where does it say that - or anything even remotely like that?

Actual words from article above:

"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security.""

How is that different than the PA allowing specific conversations of interest to be tapped? It's not tapping all conversations, either.

[DaneMcCloud]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't they filing Bankruptcy anyway? Even after dumping all that money into them? Oops.

Yep. Good thing Obama saved the day. Now GM isn't bankrupt.

I was going in and out of meetings and said the wrong thing.

I wanted them to go OUT OF BUSINESS.

Not bankruptcy. Not restructure.

Gone. Finito.

[Saul Good]

I was going in and out of meetings and said the wrong thing.

I wanted them to go OUT OF BUSINESS.

Not bankruptcy. Not restructure.

Gone. Finito.

You think that GM would have just been swallowed up by the earth? Nothing would have been done with their assets?

[DaneMcCloud]

It's all how you 'couch' the terms isnt it?

Ok, I'll play...

If there is evidence of a person is engaged in illegal/terrorist activity, they secretly wiretap that person (if the call is going outside the United States -- according to the PA)

If the government suspects that cyber terrorism is possibly happening (or is being engaged in), the internet is shut down for all, secretly affecting every American.

I have not horse in this race, both are wrong...hopefully, you see the game being played here.

How does it "secretly" affect Americans if America is under attack and the internet is shut down?

Furthermore, shutting down the internet would harm for any reason other than an attack would cause an enormous amount of strain on our financial system as well.

Enormous.

[dirk digler]

Where does it say that - or anything even remotely like that?

Actual words from article above:

"The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security.""

The scary thing is I would have thought they already had plans for this type of scenario.

[DaneMcCloud]

You think that GM would have just been swallowed up by the earth? Nothing would have been done with their assets?

The point is that the government, IMO, should have been allowed to intervene that GM would in affect, "go out of business".

But, apparently, that wasn't the correct course of action.

Or so I'm told.

[DaneMcCloud]

You think that GM would have just been swallowed up by the earth? Nothing would have been done with their assets?

The assets aren't the issue. The issue is the more than 2 million Americans that would have been immediately unemployed.

[Saul Good]

[QUOTE=DaneMcCloud;5843807]How does it "secretly" affect Americans if America is under attack and the internet is shut down?/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure the potential to thwart potential attackers of America was the thought process behind the PA as well. There is no argument that you can make for this bill that can't be made for wiretapping. The biggest difference is that the murder of thousands of Americans can't be carried out solely by hacking a computer.

[orange]

How is that different than the PA allowing specific conversations of interest to be tapped? It's not tapping all conversations, either.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Spies/terrorists should be thwarted. They should not have the right to private conversations. The law should include safeguards to prevent abusive wiretaps - like warrants.

Cyberattacks should also be thwarted. Cyberterrorists should not have the right to unfettered access to the Internet during an attack. If this means shutting down the affected network temporarily to forestall the damage, so be it.



Which do you disagree with?

[Saul Good]

The assets aren't the issue. The issue is the more than 2 million Americans that would have been immediately unemployed.

Either there is enough demand in the world for automobiles to employ those 2 million Americans or there isn't. If there is enough demand, those people would have been hired somewhere else. If there isn't, they will lose their jobs soon enough.

[Saul Good]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Spies/terrorists should be thwarted. They should not have the right to private conversations. The law should include safeguards to prevent abusive wiretaps - like warrants.

Cyberattacks should also be thwarted. Cyberterrorists should not have the right to unfettered access to the Internet during an attack. If this means shutting down the affected network temporarily to forestall the damage, so be it.



Which do you disagree with?

I don't necessarily disagree with either. My point was to highlight the hypocrisy in simultaneously assailing Bush for allowing wiretapping to be an option of thwarting terrorists while defending Obama for implementing a contingency plan for restricting the internet in the case of cyberterrorism.

I suppose that it's the warrants that are at issue with you, but warrentless doesn't mean without oversight.

[orange]

The scary thing is I would have thought they already had plans for this type of scenario.

They do, but they were muddled and ineffective. This bill (which may not be the final one) is an attempt to fix that.


Cybersecurity Report Nears Obama's Desk
President awaits results from 60-day cybersecurity review that could inform controversial legislation pending in the Senate.

April 20, 2009
By Kenneth Corbin

The team commissioned by President Obama to conduct a sweeping evaluation of the government's cybersecurity activities has completed its report, which it is in the process of submitting to the White House for review.

The two-month review, which scrutinized the programs in place to protect the nation's digital infrastructure throughout the government and into the private sector, was billed as a first step toward a thorough revamping of the government's much-maligned cybersecurity apparatus.

"The report being submitted summarizes the review team's conclusions and outlines the beginning of the way forward in building a reliable, resilient, trustworthy digital infrastructure for the future," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "After the president has had an opportunity to carefully review the group's report, we will begin discussing the results."

The conclusion of the review comes as Obama's tech-policy team is taking shape. The president recently tapped Vivek Kundra to serve as the country's first chief information officer, and over the weekend he named Aneesh Chopra chief technology officer, another new position.


The review was headed by Melissa Hathaway, a former intelligence official in the George W. Bush administration who is seen as a strong candidate for the new position of cyber adviser Obama has said he plans to create.

Hathaway's review will likely weigh in on how that position should be structured, as well as offer recommendations for how to fund government cybersecurity programs. In his proposed budget for fiscal 2010, Obama proposed $355 million for cybersecurity programs in the Department of Homeland Security, as well as an undisclosed amount for the classified work at the National Security Agency.


Controversy on the Hill

Balancing the cybersecurity responsibilities among those two agencies and the many others across the government has been the subject of considerable interest on Capitol Hill.

In the Senate, Commerce Committee Chairman John Rockefeller, D-W.V., introduced a sweeping cybersecurity reform bill that, among other things, seeks to promote government partnerships with private industry and develop a coordinated national strategy for shoring up information and communications systems.

But the Cybersecurity Act has drawn sharp criticism from groups that warn the bill's vague language would give the government sweeping authority to interfere with the commercial Internet.

One of the most controversial provisions in the bill would direct the Commerce Department to establish a clearinghouse for information about security threats and vulnerabilities across all government and private networks supporting critical infrastructure.

"The Secretary of Commerce," the bill reads, "shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

Echoing concerns from groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the conservative-leaning Washington Examiner blasted the bill in a recent editorial, describing it as a more aggressive assault on civil liberties than the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program.

"This bill, which is a full frontal assault on our First Amendment rights, should be deleted from the congressional agenda immediately," the paper wrote. Bypassing existing privacy laws to monitor electronic communications would amount to "warrantless wiretaps on steroids," it said.

Following a two-week recess, Congress is back in session today, and the progress of the bill could be largely shaped by the findings of Hathaway's review. Members of Hathaway's team were in contact with the offices of Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe as they conducted their review, the Maine Republican who co-sponsored the legislation, aides to the senators told InternetNews.com.

Looking ahead, the bill could be the subject of a hearing in short order, pending the release of Hathaway's report.

A spokeswoman for Rockefeller recently told InternetNews.com that "this legislation is the very beginning of the process -- the objective of this cybersecurity bill is to start the debate."

http://www.internetnews.com/government/article.php/3816281/Cybersecurity+Report+Nears+Obamas+Desk.htm

[dirk digler]

The biggest difference is that the murder of thousands of Americans can't be carried out solely by hacking a computer.

Wrong. It depends what network they can't hack into. Imagine if they hacked into the FAA and could reroute planes into each other?

What about hacking into the Defense Department to set off weapon systems?

These are all plausible scenarios because in the case of the FAA it actually has happened...well almost.

And in 2006, a virus spread to the air traffic control (ATC) systems, forcing the FAA to shut down a portion of its systems in Alaska, according to the report.
The attacks so far have primarily disrupted mission-support functions, but attacks could spread over network connections from those areas to the operational networks where real-time surveillance, communications and flight information is processed, the report warned.

[orange]

I don't necessarily disagree with either. My point was to highlight the hypocrisy in simultaneously assailing Bush for allowing wiretapping to be an option of thwarting terrorists while defending Obama for implementing a contingency plan for restricting the internet in the case of cyberterrorism.

I suppose that it's the warrants that are at issue with you, but warrentless doesn't mean without oversight.

Bush overrode the warrants built into the system to prevent abusive surveillance. That was the main problem with him on this issue - though there are privacy extremists on both sides of the political spectrum who would have assailed any wiretapping then, just as now.

[DaneMcCloud]

Either there is enough demand in the world for automobiles to employ those 2 million Americans or there isn't. If there is enough demand, those people would have been hired somewhere else. If there isn't, they will lose their jobs soon enough.

If only such things were so black and white.

[Saul Good]

Wrong. It depends what network they can't hack into. Imagine if they hacked into the FAA and could reroute planes into each other?

What about hacking into the Defense Department to set off weapon systems?

These are all plausible scenarios because in the case of the FAA it actually has happened...well almost.

And that was done via the internet? Did they log onto www.flyplanesintoeachother.com ?

[Saul Good]

If only such things were so black and white.

Nice use of the non-sequitur. Care to debate the point, or are you content to dismiss it out of hand?

[dirk digler]

And that was done via the internet? Did they log onto www.flyplanesintoeachother.com (http://www.flyplanesintoeachother.com) ?

Actually yes.

We know the Russians and Chinese constantly try to hack into our network.

I don't know how many other IT people are in here but in the case of where I work where I helped write the policy one of the last resorts in case of a network attack is to actually pull the plug or block all incoming and outgoing ports.

[Mojo Jojo]

Complaining about losing rights due to the Patriot Act and the notion that the President could shut down the internet due to a cyber attack are completely different.

IF the POTUS (no matter who's in office) shutdown the internet for something other than a cyber attack, I guarantee that president would be impeached immediately.

I think you misused the word "impeached" for your position. Impeachment is only the first step to remove from power. Being impeached means that charges have been brought and that a trial could happen in the governing legislative body. Bill Clinton was impeached, but never removed from office. Many state judges have been impeached, but very few have been removed from the bench.

[Saul Good]

Actually yes.

We know the Russians and Chinese constantly try to hack into our network.

I don't know how many other IT people are in here but in the case of where I work where I helped write the policy one of the last resorts in case of a network attack is to actually pull the plug or block all incoming and outgoing ports.

What network is that? I'm not a computer expert, but I believe that there is a difference between a computer system and the internet.

[DaneMcCloud]

Nice use of the non-sequitur. Care to debate the point, or are you content to dismiss it out of hand?

What do you want to debate? The undebatable?

I really can't understand why people like you aren't advising the President.

No, really.

[Saul Good]

What do you want to debate? The undebatable?

I really can't understand why people like you aren't advising the President.

No, really.

Sorry that my argument doesn't stack up to your "If it weren't for Obama, GM would be bankrupt" argument.

Tell me where the flaw is in my logic in saying that if there is a need for cars, those who know how to build them will be hired and that if there is not a need for cars, those who are paid to build them will lose their jobs.

I know that it's a pretty radical concept. I'm just curious as to where the fallacy in my conclusion lies.

[dirk digler]

What network is that? I'm not a computer expert, but I believe that there is a difference between a computer system and the internet.

I use the word network but in reality it is an internet based attack like Denial of Service attacks. Sometimes the only option left is pull the plug.

I understand the concern of this bill but somebody is going to have to make that decision when it comes to last resort options.

[Saul Good]

I use the word network but in reality it is an internet based attack like Denial of Service attacks. Sometimes the only option left is pull the plug.

I understand the concern of this bill but somebody is going to have to make that decision when it comes to last resort options.

A denial of service attack via the internet almost caused planes to crash? One of us is confused.

[dirk digler]

A denial of service attack via the internet almost caused planes to crash? One of us is confused.

No I was just using that as an example. There is hundreds of ways they can attack the government network.

[Saul Good]

No I was just using that as an example. There is hundreds of ways they can attack the government network.

Okay, but how would shutting down the internet have impacted the example you gave involving crashing planes?

[DaneMcCloud]

Sorry that my argument doesn't stack up to your "If it weren't for Obama, GM would be bankrupt" argument.

Tell me where the flaw is in my logic in saying that if there is a need for cars, those who know how to build them will be hired and that if there is not a need for cars, those who are paid to build them will lose their jobs.

I know that it's a pretty radical concept. I'm just curious as to where the fallacy in my conclusion lies.

Um, I already said that I think they should have been allowed to go out of business.

Other people, financial people (you know, the actual, smart Wall Street people who makes tens of millions a year that advise the Treasury & the POTUS) disagreed. The GM situation is far more complex than just some cars and "someone will buy their assets".

GM has been making an inferior product for nearly 30 years. But there were far too many factors involved (including the poor state of our economy) to let them just go out of business at this time.

[Saul Good]

Um, I already said that I think they should have been allowed to go out of business.

Other people, financial people (you know, the actual, smart Wall Street people who makes tens of millions a year) disagreed. The GM situation is far more complex than just some cars and "someone will buy their assets".

GM has been making an inferior product for nearly 30 years. But there were far too many factors involved (including the poor state of our economy) to let them just go out of business at this time.

So when smart, rich people agree on something that they have a vested interest in, that makes for good public policy? Madoff would probably advocate being pardoned. Will you defer to his judgment, or would you say that a conflict of interest can supersede intelligence?

[DaneMcCloud]

So when smart, rich people agree on something that they have a vested interest in, that makes for good public policy? Madoff would probably advocate being pardoned. Will you defer to his judgment, or would you say that a conflict of interest can supersede intelligence?

I'd say that all you like to do is question other people and argue.

That may be a nice time waster for you.

But it's not for me. Goodbye.

[Dave Lane]

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)

Bi-partisan

[Saul Good]

I'd say that all you like to do is question other people and argue.

That may be a nice time waster for you.

But it's not for me. Goodbye.

Thanks for your addition to the thread. Come by any time you want to educate us on how Obama saved GM from bankruptcy, helped defeat Ahmadinejad, or saved us from reaching 9% unemployment.

[Saul Good]

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)

Bi-partisan

That's like saying that Zell Miller voted for Bush, so he was a very bi-partisan president.

Just because you can pick off the most left-leaning Republican doesn't mean that it's bipartisan.

[KCTitus]

Where does it say that - or anything even remotely like that?

It didnt say anything like that...I was playing the game that Dane was playing. If you dont follow, we're playing the 'how you word the threat' game. Making one option sound worse than the other when both are bad.

I realize what it says, and it's an intrusion on our rights as American citizens.

[KCTitus]

How does it "secretly" affect Americans if America is under attack and the internet is shut down?

Furthermore, shutting down the internet would harm for any reason other than an attack would cause an enormous amount of strain on our financial system as well.

Enormous.

You're right...if Obama or any other president shut down the internet, it wouldnt be a secret. My apology for using that term. Obviously, I didnt play the game as well.

As for the financial system, you need not worry, it's backed and covered by the full faith and credit of the United States goverment. Apparently the one you trust implicitly with you internet privileges as well.

[irishjayhawk]

And what does it say? That someone may not have the same view as you?

No. More that the conservative camp would want a lunatic like Malkin to be their spokesperson.

[irishjayhawk]

It's called freedom of expression. Oops, I forgot, freedom of expression should only count if your expressing a liberal view. :rolleyes:

Reading comprehension fail.

Why is it that lots of people are quick to play the 1st Amendment card when it doesn't actually apply or they don't understand it?

Please state where I said anything like that.

[petegz28]

No. More that the conservative camp would want a lunatic like Malkin to be their spokesperson.

Yes cause Janine and Smalley are such great intellectuals....

[irishjayhawk]

Yes cause Janine and Smalley are such great intellectuals....

I don't even know who those people are.

[petegz28]

I don't even know who those people are.

Well that surprises me not. Which is why you have no idea what a moderate is.


One must see all sides of the square young grasshopper, to know that it is indeed a sqaure.

If you don't know who Janine and Smalley are then you are too uninformed to be telling people they are or are not moderate, for you lack an understading of several chapters in this book

[BigRedChief]

The Chinese and Russian gangs are attacking or trying to attack some Federal server/database on a daily basis. Now how much more is actual Country approved hacking? How many more criminal gangs are trying to get in on a daily basis? at least literally thousands of them.

But if they are successful on a large scale there are plans in place in every large enterprise business to stop the attack and recover. We don't need the president to have all encompassing power/control of the gateways.

[BucEyedPea]

You're right...if Obama or any other president shut down the internet, it wouldnt be a secret. My apology for using that term. Obviously, I didnt play the game as well.

As for the financial system, you need not worry, it's backed and covered by the full faith and credit of the United States goverment. Apparently the one you trust implicitly with you internet privileges as well.

And the one that is bankrupt.

[irishjayhawk]

Well that surprises me not. Which is why you have no idea what a moderate is.


One must see all sides of the square young grasshopper, to know that it is indeed a sqaure.

If you don't know who Janine and Smalley are then you are too uninformed to be telling people they are or are not moderate, for you lack an understading of several chapters in this book

There are two problems with this post. First, one doesn't have to be too informed to know whether someone is a moderate or not. Moreover, some people may not consider Janine or Smalley to be moderates and therefore would disagree with you. I don't know because I've never heard of them before.

Secondly, in the context of the thread, the tangent is an irrelevant side note that had nothing to do with my original post. There are many posts of yours like that with many people. They post one thing and you offer a strawman or the like in the following post.

[Garcia Bronco]

Did anyone read the DATE on that article before the the bitchfest between the Usual Suspects Began?

Furthermore, Obama stated BEFORE he was elected, there would be an a newly created office of National Security Advisor. And many people don't think they're going far enough.

------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052900350_2.html?sid=ST2009052902430

Obama Says He Will Name National Cybersecurity Adviser

By Ellen Nakashima and Brian Krebs
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 30, 2009

President Obama used a White House speech yesterday to try to raise national concern about threats to computer networks, drawing praise from some industry executives and lawmakers but criticism from others who said his initiatives do not go far enough.

Obama said he will name a senior White House official to coordinate government efforts to protect a "strategic national asset": the digital networks that handle phone calls, e-mails, government and military data, and also control power grids, nuclear plants and airplane traffic.

Obama was doing what his predecessors had not: addressing the issue in a highly public way, under the chandeliers of the East Room, before an audience of Cabinet members, industry executives and privacy advocates. He noted that the very networks that allow Americans to bank and shop online are also targets for those who can turn a computer into a "weapon of mass disruption."

"We're not as prepared as we should be," he said, "as a government or as a country."

His speech was nearly in line with a campaign promise to make the issue a priority and appoint what he then called a national cyberadviser who would report directly to him.

Obama said yesterday the new cybersecurity coordinator would have "regular access to me." His speech, which was accompanied by the release of a strategy report, comes as the Pentagon plans to set up a new cybercommand to develop cyber weapons for use in responding to attacks from foreign adversaries.

"It's a thoughtful report that is cautious about what needs to be done," said Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for Homeland Security under President George W. Bush. "But it doesn't try to provide substantive answers to some of the security concerns that quite legitimately the government has."

Left unanswered in the White House's 38-page Cyberspace Policy Review are several major questions: How will the nation respond in the face of a major cyberattack? How can the United States persuade other nations to help defend the global Internet? What should be the role of the U.S. intelligence community in protecting private-sector networks?

To assuage concerns that a government agency such as the National Security Agency might tap into phone calls or e-mails, Obama stressed: "Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not -- I repeat, will not include -- monitoring private networks or Internet traffic." He noted that the new office will have a privacy and civil liberties officer.

The military's effort will be led by Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, and will be launched in early June, according to several cybersecurity experts who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Obama did not mention the Pentagon cybercommand in his remarks yesterday.

The White House had said the report, which was the result of a 60-day review of cyberprograms, would not offer detailed policy prescriptions.

The cybercoordinator will be a member of the National Security Council and the National Economic Council, Obama said, an acknowledgment that the threat is both to national security and to the economy. The official will coordinate government cybersecurity policies, work with the Office of Management and Budget to ensure agencies have enough money to defend their systems, and coordinate the response to a major cyberattack, Obama said.

Obama stressed the gravity of the threat, noting that in one act alone last year, thieves illegally obtained credit card information in order to steal millions of dollars from 130 automated teller machines in 49 cities around the world -- in 30 minutes. Last year, cybercriminals stole data from businesses worldwide worth up to $1 trillion, he said.

In a serious attack on a military network, he said, several thousand computers were infected last year by malicious software, forcing troops to abandon use of thumb drives. And Obama described how his presidential campaign network had been compromised last fall, with hackers gaining access to policy position papers and travel plans. No donor's personal or financial information was stolen, he said.

The report issued yesterday was the fourth White House cybersecurity strategy or road map, dating to the Clinton administration. In stressing that his plan will be transparent, Obama effectively drew a distinction with the Bush administration's 2008 Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, which was mostly classified and aspects of which raised concerns on the Obama transition team. Yesterday's report called for "continued evaluation" of CNCI activities.

Several experts raised red flags, saying that Obama sidestepped the issue of funds required for the effort, the need to set national computer safety standards for companies that provide critical services, and what incentives would get companies to comply with cyberpolicies.
ad_icon

"Nice words, but mostly a rehash of what we've seen before -- and that hasn't worked," said Jeffrey A. Hunker, a Carnegie Mellon University professor who helped draft the first national plan on cybersecurity, under President Bill Clinton.

Enrique Salem, chief executive of Symantec, said he is concerned that the coordinator would have to answer to "so many masters" that he or he would not "be able to move efficiently."

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in an e-mail that "placing a strategy 'czar' in the White House will hinder Congress's ability to effectively oversee federal cybersecurity activities and will do little to resolve the bureaucratic conflicts, turf battles, and confusing lines of authority that have undermined past cybersecurity efforts."

Other industry officials and lawmakers said they were heartened by the speech and report.

Obama is sending "a clear message to our adversaries that the United States will no longer tolerate attacks against our federal or critical infrastructure networks, and we are prepared to defend these networks by all means necessary,'' said Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), House Homeland Security Committee chairman.

"It's a good first step," said Ed Amoroso, chief security officer for AT&T, the world's largest telecommunications company. "Now we have to go and figure out how to implement these good ideas."

John Stewart, chief security officer for tech firm Cisco, said Obama gave a "very blunt assessment" of the "unacceptable" state of the country's networks. "I've not heard that before," he said.

The review suggests incentives and, "as a last resort," regulations, to get companies to share information that can improve overall network security.

"Obama ended up setting down a set of principles that he will navigate by," said Paul Kurtz, a cyberexpert who served in both the Clinton and Bush White Houses. "He seemed to be pushing the system to say we must and we can do more."


You are an idiot. Once the Governemnt can get involved in the technology decisions of businesses then it controls that business and the information within. Powerplant systems for example should be on a closed network, meaning any attack would come from someone who already had access.

[BigChiefFan]

Don't give up your freedoms based on fear. Wake up, people.

[BigRedChief]

You are an idiot. Once the Governemnt can get involved in the technology decisions of businesses then it controls that business and the information within. Powerplant systems for example should be on a closed network, meaning any attack would come from someone who already had access.
A business can't function without internet and email access. But all you have to do is autheticate through a secure point inside the DMZ and then have the employees go out from there.

[orange]

There are two problems with this post. First, one doesn't have to be too informed to know whether someone is a moderate or not. Moreover, some people may not consider Janine or Smalley to be moderates and therefore would disagree with you. I don't know because I've never heard of them before.


One reason you don't know who "Smalley" is, is that there is no "Smalley." It's an insult that right-wingers toss around at Al Franken (one of the characters he's played on SNL).

Not saying that petegz28 is a right-winger or anything.

http://fupaper.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/stuart-smalley-posters.jpg

[irishjayhawk]

One reason you don't know who "Smalley" is, is that there is no "Smalley." It's an insult that right-wingers toss around at Al Franken (one of the characters he's played on SNL).

Not saying that petegz28 is a right-winger or anything.

http://fupaper.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/stuart-smalley-posters.jpg

Thank you, that would explain part of it.

[Garcia Bronco]

A business can't function without internet and email access. But all you have to do is autheticate through a secure point inside the DMZ and then have the employees go out from there.

That's what these people don't get. You can't just break into a network like it's the movie 'War Games'. You have to have a bunch of information first. Even if you have a user name and a quantum based processor it would still take a lifetimeto authenticate as a user on even a Windows based directory services infrastructure. And that's just getting into servers and workstations. It doesn't even include getting through a top tier FW or mid tier FW and or switches. Plus if I have a strong ISA implementation forget about it. You aren't getting in unless you ALREADY had access.

We don't need Governemnt managing our publically traded companies infrastructure.

[orange]

Thank you, that would explain part of it.

... and I assume "Janine" is Janeane Garofalo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janeane_Garofalo

[Mojo Jojo]

Where is Orange, Irishjayhawk, and all today talking about our AG saying that wiretapping is NOT illegal. Please give us your spin. This administration is carrying on the work of the previous one. I don't see you jumping up and down calling for investigations of this White House and its appointees. Come on and stand up for something. If one guy does it and it is bad; when your guy does the same thing IT IS STILL BAD.

[irishjayhawk]

Where is Orange, Irishjayhawk, and all today talking about our AG saying that wiretapping is NOT illegal. Please give us your spin. This administration is carrying on the work of the previous one. I don't see you jumping up and down calling for investigations of this White House and its appointees. Come on and stand up for something. If one guy does it and it is bad; when your guy does the same thing IT IS STILL BAD.

If you have a link, I'd appreciate it. I've been invested in Iran lately.

[orange]

He said it violated FISA. And that the new program does not. He refused to take Feingold's bait and specifically call it "illegal" because there aren't going to be any prosecutions.

This was a dead issue a year ago when Obama helped telecom immunity pass. Anyone who thought Obama was Russ Feingold has only himself to blame.

Mojo Jojo, are YOU calling for Bush to be prosecuted for warrantless wiretapping?



[edit] If you have a link, I'd appreciate it. I've been invested in Iran lately.

Try this one: http://washingtonindependent.com/47521/holder-dodges-questions-about-legality-of-bush-era-warrantless-wiretapping

[irishjayhawk]

He said it violated FISA. And that the new program does not. He refused to take Feingold's bait and specifically call it "illegal" because there aren't going to be any prosecutions.

This was a dead issue a year ago when Obama helped telecom immunity pass. Anyone who thought Obama was Russ Feingold has only himself to blame.

Are YOU calling for Bush to be prosecuted for warrantless wiretapping?



[edit]

Try this one: http://washingtonindependent.com/47521/holder-dodges-questions-about-legality-of-bush-era-warrantless-wiretapping

It sounds, based on your link, that his position is that it was illegal under Bush because he didn't not get Congressional approval/input but Congress has given Obama approval/input and therefore it isn't illegal.

Correct?

[orange]

Mojo Jojo, are YOU calling for Bush to be prosecuted for warrantless wiretapping?


http://www.congocart.com/images/chimp-looking-at-watch.gif

[Mojo Jojo]

He said it violated FISA. And that the new program does not. He refused to take Feingold's bait and specifically call it "illegal" because there aren't going to be any prosecutions.

This was a dead issue a year ago when Obama helped telecom immunity pass. Anyone who thought Obama was Russ Feingold has only himself to blame.

Mojo Jojo, are YOU calling for Bush to be prosecuted for warrantless wiretapping?



[edit]

Try this one: http://washingtonindependent.com/47521/holder-dodges-questions-about-legality-of-bush-era-warrantless-wiretapping

Congress passed the act...bring all involved up on charges.

[Mojo Jojo]

http://www.congocart.com/images/chimp-looking-at-watch.gif

In probably the most disturbing testimony to hit Capitol Hill since Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in May and refused to rule out lawless detention or to agree that government officials can sometimes be prosecuted for their crimes, on Wednesday Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and, among much else, refused five times to agree that warrantless spying is illegal and unconstitutional.

[blaise]

It sounds, based on your link, that his position is that it was illegal under Bush because he didn't not get Congressional approval/input but Congress has given Obama approval/input and therefore it isn't illegal.

Correct?

Yes, it's much different ethically now.

[orange]

Congress passed the act...bring all involved up on charges.

Alas, it's not going to happen. It was never going to happen.

This was a dead issue a year ago when Obama helped telecom immunity pass. Anyone who thought Obama was Russ Feingold has only himself to blame.

[orange]

In probably the most disturbing testimony to hit Capitol Hill since Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in May and refused to rule out lawless detention or to agree that government officials can sometimes be prosecuted for their crimes, on Wednesday Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and, among much else, refused five times to agree that warrantless spying is illegal and unconstitutional.

Why don't you post the link? http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/837

Afraid to be connected to DemocraticUnderground?

[Mojo Jojo]

Congress passed the act...bring all involved up on charges.

FYI...some of those that should also be investigated from the Senate vote include...
Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Daschle, Feinstein, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Schumer. They approved the wire taps, so they are also guilty.

[Mojo Jojo]

Why don't you post the link? http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/837

Afraid to be connected to DemocraticUnderground?

I read the DU several times a day, as well as kos. If you would pay any attention you would know that I quote or reference DU and kos all the time. How many right wing sights do you read?

[orange]

FYI...some of those that should also be investigated from the Senate vote include...
Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Daschle, Feinstein, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Schumer. They approved the wire taps, so they are also guilty.

I have no idea what act you're talking about.

If it was the original FISA, that act REQUIRED warrants. Bush was IN BREACH of that law.

If it was the Amendment from 2008, Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Schumer voted AGAINST CLOTURE on Telecom Immunity (Daschle wasn't around anymore, Biden voted with his running mate), and AGAINST THE ACT (joined by Biden).

http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/09/fisa-final-votes-on-the-fisa-amendments-act/

[orange]

I read the DU several times a day, as well as kos. If you would pay any attention you would know that I quote or reference DU and kos all the time. How many right wing sights do you read?

I don't go to any right-wing sites per se (left-wing either). I check HuffingtonPost, Drudge Report, Politico and MSNBC (my homepage) and follow the links from the top stories wherever they lead - and Google for partial stories like you posted. I end up on news sites much more than blogs.

[SHTSPRAYER]

LOL, and we thought wire tapping incoming foreign calls was abuse of power.

Yes it is high comedy how the moonbats who cried about that are fighting each other to the front of the line to toss B.O.'s salad every night.

[cdcox]

With the huge migration of the media to the internet, I see this as a first amendment issue. If this crap passes, it needs to be challenged in the courts. I'm getting to hate politicians of all stripes.

[BucEyedPea]

In probably the most disturbing testimony to hit Capitol Hill since Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in May and refused to rule out lawless detention or to agree that government officials can sometimes be prosecuted for their crimes, on Wednesday Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and, among much else, refused five times to agree that warrantless spying is illegal and unconstitutional.

Wow, that is scarey. Now I think we're going totalitarian.

[blaise]

I don't go to any right-wing sites per se (left-wing either). I check HuffingtonPost, Drudge Report, Politico and MSNBC (my homepage) and follow the links from the top stories wherever they lead - and Google for partial stories like you posted. I end up on news sites much more than blogs.

I would say the posts on huffingtonpost run about 90/10 liberal these days. I consider it a left-wing site.

[Bwana]

"CHANGE" most of us can do without.

[Saulbadguy]

I think they should edit the bill to allow all porn sites to remain operational...

[BucEyedPea]

I would say the posts on huffingtonpost run about 90/10 liberal these days. I consider it a left-wing site.

Definitely.

[BigRedChief]

That's what these people don't get. You can't just break into a network like it's the movie 'War Games'. You have to have a bunch of information first. Even if you have a user name and a quantum based processor it would still take a lifetimeto authenticate as a user on even a Windows based directory services infrastructure. And that's just getting into servers and workstations. It doesn't even include getting through a top tier FW or mid tier FW and or switches. Plus if I have a strong ISA implementation forget about it. You aren't getting in unless you ALREADY had access.

We don't need Governemnt managing our publically traded companies infrastructure.
On this we can agree....

The 2009 model of security involves multi layers not just put a firewall and your done. The greatest hole in the plan is someone getting the username and password of an enterprise administrator that has access to the enterprise. But thats no reason to get drackonian.

[dirk digler]

That's what these people don't get. You can't just break into a network like it's the movie 'War Games'. You have to have a bunch of information first. Even if you have a user name and a quantum based processor it would still take a lifetimeto authenticate as a user on even a Windows based directory services infrastructure. And that's just getting into servers and workstations. It doesn't even include getting through a top tier FW or mid tier FW and or switches. Plus if I have a strong ISA implementation forget about it. You aren't getting in unless you ALREADY had access.

We don't need Governemnt managing our publically traded companies infrastructure.

I went to a Microsoft Conference where one of their lead security guys, I can't remember his name off hand, was able to crack into a Windows Domain in under 5 minutes. He was able to get all the admin passwords including domain and enterprise accounts and passwords.

[blaise]

I went to a Microsoft Conference where one of their lead security guys, I can't remember his name off hand, was able to crack into a Windows Domain in under 5 minutes. He was able to get all the admin passwords including domain and enterprise accounts and passwords.

That was Nick Burns.

[BucEyedPea]

I love having a Mac. I feel secure.

[BigRedChief]

I went to a Microsoft Conference where one of their lead security guys, I can't remember his name off hand, was able to crack into a Windows Domain in under 5 minutes. He was able to get all the admin passwords including domain and enterprise accounts and passwords.
Nothing will ever be completely safe. Those days are gone. There is always going to be risk. Most companies have a whole department devoted to Risk Managment. If cracking a secure network was so easy we would already have choas.

[Saulbadguy]

I love having a Mac. I feel secure.

ROFL

[dirk digler]

Nothing will ever be completely safe. Those days are gone. There is always going to be risk. Most companies have a whole department devoted to Risk Managment. If cracking a secure network was so easy we would already have choas.

It was that easy. Though I will add a caveat is that he used his own tools and he said these hopefully will never be discovered and get out into the wild.

He also said Microsoft at first didn't like him showing people this but he felt he was obligated to.

[BigRedChief]

I love having a Mac. I feel secure.ROFL You are clueless and niave if you think Mac or Linux is more secure than Windows.

[BigRedChief]

It was that easy. Though I will add a caveat is that he used his own tools and he said these hopefully will never be discovered and get out into the wild.

He also said Microsoft at first didn't like him showing people this but he felt he was obligated to.
Terrorists recruit for cyberwar, official says

Islamic extremists increasingly using the Internet as outreach tool
The Associated Press
updated 4:58 p.m. CT, Thurs., June 18, 2009

<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633809591236730000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - Terrorist groups that have long used the Internet to spread propaganda are increasingly tapping the Web to teach Islamic extremists how to be hackers, recruit techies for cyberwarfare and raise money through online fraud, U.S. officials say.
A senior defense official said intelligence reports indicate extremist groups are seeking computer experts, including those capable of breaching government or other sensitive network systems.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information, said the extent and success of those recruiting efforts are unclear.

But jihadists' interest in hacking is evident in forums across the Internet. Law enforcement officials say terrorists are branching out into Internet fraud to raise money for their operations.

'Experts in the electronic jihad'
One Internet forum, the Mujahedeen Electronic Net, offers hacking instructions in a number of postings. A lengthy posting markets a weekly course and limits it to regular contributors to the Web site who confirm they are committed to Islam. The author of the offer claims the course will be taught by "experts in the electronic jihad," according to a translation of the posting.
Last week, U.S. and Italian authorities broke up an international telephone fraud ring that had roots in Italy and employed hackers in the Philippines. The operation is believed to have funneled thousands of dollars to terrorist groups in Southeast Asia.
Italian officials drew a fragile link to Osama bin Laden. They said one of the men charged with financing the hacking scheme had close ties to members of the International Islamic Efforts Foundation, a Philippines-based group linked to an Islamic charity organization once headed by one of bin Laden's brothers-in-law, Muhammad Jamal Khalifa. Khalifa was reported killed in 2007 during a burglary in Madagascar, where he had a sapphire business.

To date, experts say extremists largely have engaged in "sport hacking" — defacing or taking down Web sites belonging to groups they consider enemies, such as sites featuring Shiite, Jewish or Christian beliefs.

"It's more for propaganda value than for tactical value," said Jarret Brachman, a former West Point researcher who is an expert on jihadist groups.
These "hacktivists" prefer to use the electronic media for advertising and spreading their beliefs. Internet sites that promote Islamic extremism abound, as do sites that instruct followers how to build bombs or conduct other types of attacks.

Aggressive push among extremists?
But some recent activity suggests there may be an aggressive push among extremists for expertise such as engineering and technical backgrounds that could be used against the U.S. government or other vital systems.
A senior counterterrorism official, who also requested anonymity in order to speak on the sensitive matter, said al-Qaida is known to seek out followers with scientific knowledge, and computer ability is a logical step.

Adam Raisman, a senior analyst at the Washington-based SITE group, an organization that monitors militant Web sites, said he has seen pitches for people adept at photo or flash video programs that can be used to build propaganda Web sites or take down sites considered offensive.

But, he added, "It's very difficult to gauge what they will do if they have the ability to penetrate a network and realize the damage they can create."

Brachman described a growing network of people in the U.S. who go online and "cheer from the sidelines. They will never do anything violent, but they have the skill sets to do low-level hacking and this is a way they can play."

Bringing consumers into the jihad
The challenge for extremist organizations, he said, is to find those people and then "get them to take the step from being a consumer to actually being an active participant" in the jihad.


Terrorist groups lack the skills to match the abilities of sophisticated governments such as the U.S., China and Russia in launching widespread Web attacks, but they could hire someone who does, Steven Chabinsky, assistant deputy director of cyberissues for the Obama administration's director of national intelligence, recently told a technology conference.

Reaching out to hackers with equipment and expertise could enable those groups to transmit viruses or worms to take over computers and direct them to send spam, carry out identity-theft or take down Web sites.

Some officials contend that extremists don't have to take down a critical network or system to have an impact. Even the ability to penetrate and deface a well-trafficked Web site could shake public confidence in the government.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31431415/ns/world_news-terrorism/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31431415/ns/world_news-terrorism/)

[StcChief]

Well Democrat Al Gore created it, he should take control to protect us

[BucEyedPea]

ROFL You are clueless and niave if you think Mac or Linux is more secure than Windows.

Well it is over swiss cheese pc's. Don't know anything about Linux. I've NEVER had a virus since 1995.
My tek tells me the same thing about pcs which I work on at work. I HATE it. It's weird and clunky to operate.
My boss a programmer now in marketing says the same. PC folks always fret about such things.
But I imagine if the there was a massive cyber attack it would be different.

Maybe you don't know anything about Macs.

[BigRedChief]

Well it is over swiss cheese pc's. Don't know anything about Linux. I've NEVER had a virus since 1995.
My tek tells me the same thing about pcs which I work on at work. I HATE it. It's weird and clunky to operate.
My boss a programmer now in marketing says the same. PC folks always fret about such things.
But I imagine if the there was a massive cyber attack it would be different.

Maybe you don't know anything about Macs.
Don't make me break out my big tech stick and knock some sense into you.:)

[BucEyedPea]

Don't make me break out my big tech stick and knock some sense into you.:)

Well, my first saying I felt safe with Mac in regards to a net attack was tongue n' cheek. If the net goes down it goes down. Are you that literal, that you have no sense of humor.
But in relation another computer, like a PC, on other security issues, it is safer. And I'll just sic my own tech who knows both systems on ya' when you bring out your big stick.

[googlegoogle]

ROFL You are clueless and niave if you think Mac or Linux is more secure than Windows.

you serious. all i hear is that mac is more secure. do you have any research to back that up?

[BigRedChief]

you serious. all i hear is that mac is more secure. do you have any research to back that up?
I'm suppose to talk serious research with a poster that has a handle name like yours?