Is the "electric grid attack" a false flag to pass the "cybersecurity bill" ?

[ChooseLiberty]

electric grid
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9131297


cybersecurity bill
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/2009/04/05/could-obama-close-the-internet/

[LATruth]

So far we have heard of a few "attacks" on our computer infrastructure via the web. All with little interest from the public. It seems to me, IMO, that they are going to continue to release information about these attacks (which we can not and never will be able to verify due to their nature) until one strikes a chord and instills fear in the American populace. Then we will see the legislation sold to us like never before, and the sheeple will adopt it.

[NMCB3]

So far we have heard of a few "attacks" on our computer infrastructure via the web. All with little interest from the public. It seems to me, IMO, that they are going to continue to release information about these attacks (which we can not and never will be able to verify due to their nature) until one strikes a chord and instills fear in the American populace. Then we will see the legislation sold to us like never before, and the sheeple will adopt it.That appears to be SOP for the cabal.

[pcosmar]

Is the "electric grid attack" a false flag to pass the "cybersecurity bill" ?

Of course it is.
They are too busy chasing imaginary boogie men to apply any real security where it matters.

[jrich4rpaul]

Of course it is.

This administration is using fear even more than Bush did.

78 days and I already almost miss him.

[Pepsi]

They just simply should take the electic power grid off the internet, and replace the system with a pre-internet one, with no computers.

[Elle]

They just simply should take the electic power grid off the internet, and replace the system with a pre-internet one, with no computers.

this.

false flag for sure.

[coyote_sprit]

They just simply should take the electic power grid off the internet, and replace the system with a pre-internet one, with no computers.

Take the power grid off the internet? That's like saying hit a single target with a 10 megaton bomb. The internet is so decentralized that they couldn't possibly do that but they could however nationalize all ISPs and filter content in the name of security.

[FindLiberty]

YES that's the way it works...

BTW, elections do not come into play - this is all happening behind the scenes, all the time.

Computers and high speed printing help keep the noose snug whenever there is an opportunity to tighten it a little (ready to print hours after any natural or false flag event).

The rest of the time it's a pre-planned coordinated MSM and entertainment propaganda sortie to soften up the public for the next new law restricting freedom and/or pushing the government's latest campaign to expand power and/or reward a particular contributor or business (via competition protection or funding huge piles of new cash for research grants or ugly things like domestic police militarization and telecommunication companies get CALEA candy cash). It also creates mandatory sales to the compliant masses (e.g., requiring smoke and CO detectors on each level of all homes).

Golly, we would not want the lights to all go out. (this reminds me of Vin Suprynowicz's fictional unquestioned government run "oxygen generators" in his book, "Send in the Waco Killers". We all need oxygen, right?)

I wonder what else this latest cybersecurity bill might contain. Perhaps it includes (for the children of course) another recent pre-planned invasion of privacy:

Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth (SAFETY) Act of 2009 also known as H.R. 1076 and S.436 requiring providers of "electronic communication or remote computing services" to "retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user."

[tangent4ronpaul]

[

I wonder what else this latest cybersecurity bill might contain. Perhaps it includes (for the children of course) another recent pre-planned invasion of privacy:


clickie, clickie...

Draft of bill:
http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf

Few higlights:
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 introduced in the Senate would allow the president to shut down private Internet networks. The legislation also calls for the government to have the authority to demand security data from private networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.
According to the bill's language, the president would have broad authority to designate various private networks as a "critical infrastructure system or network" and, with no other review, "may declare a cyber-security emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from" the designated the private-sector system or network
The bill would also impose mandates for designated private networks and systems, including standardized security software, testing, licensing and certification of cyber-security professionals.

"Requiring firms to get government approval for new software

The legislation also calls for a public-private clearinghouse for cyber-threats and vulnerability information under Department of Commerce authority. The Secretary of Commerce would have the authority to access "all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

In another section of the bill, though, the president is required to report to Congress on the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program "with appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections."

Nojeim complained the bill is "not only vague but also broad. Its very broad language is intended to confer broad powers." Nojeim also speculated that the bill's vague language and authority may prove to be powerful incentive for the private sector to improve its cyber-security measures.

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

"The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer
"I don't like the chances of the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in the direct control of the president."

Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional bounds:

First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president.

Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information," including the monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the "critical infrastructure."

Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.

And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they object to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of government power.

"There are some problems that we face which need the weight of government behind them," writes Seltzer in eWeek. "This is not the same as creating a new federal bureaucracy setting rules over what computer security has to be and who can do it."

"It's an incredibly broad authority," CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim told the Mother Jones news website, troubled that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us."

According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the "critical" networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.

"What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are 'banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.' Let's think about this," writes Seltzer. "I'm especially curious as to how you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in cash."

S. 778, which would establish the Office of the National Security Advisor, and S. 773, which provides for developing a cadre of governmental cybersecurity specialists and procedures, have both been read twice and referred to committee in the Senate.

Senate document explaining the bill:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/Cyberbillsummaryonepagerplusthreepagesummarypressr elease1Apr090.pdf

-t

[Kraig]

Has ANYONE besides the government even reported these attacks? Seems like they didn't even have to bother with the FF, they just came out and said "it happened and we are the only ones the noticed". To me this one couldn't have been more obvious.

[Deborah K]

I've been worried about them taking the internet from us for a while: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=162019

[acptulsa]

Doesn't really matter if it's false flag or really from someone external, or if it's real or imagined. We still see that they're taking it and running with it, and they're running in the wrong direction (of course).


Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth (SAFETY) Act of 2009 also known as H.R. 1076 and S.436 requiring providers of "electronic communication or remote computing services" to "retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user."

So, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is designed to punish patriots, and the S.A.F.E.T.Y. Act is designed to put teens in severe danger of being branded for life as sexual predators. How long before we see the Legislation Intended to Betray Everything that Real True Americans Revere In the American Nation Act?

[tangent4ronpaul]

You can bet that it would happen every time unpopular legislation was coming up and possibly arround elections - depending who was ahead. And then selectively - with red states finding themselves offline while blue states were "spared" the attack...

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Doesn't really matter if it's false flag or really from someone who intends us harm, or if it's real or imagined. We still see that they're taking it and running with it, and they're running in the wrong direction (of course).


There's a difference?

-t

[acptulsa]

There's a difference?

-t

Good point. Nope. Think I'll fix that...

[Kraig]

Good point. Nope. Think I'll fix that...

Well to me the difference is, and correct me if I am wrong, that there has been no damage done, no victim, no complaints, NOTHING but the government saying it was infiltrated, and it could do damage later on. Pure scare tactics if you ask me, not even a FF, just a bold faced lie to scare you.

[tangent4ronpaul]

If they get the control they want there will be damage.

-t

[Deborah K]

Well to me the difference is, and correct me if I am wrong, that there has been no damage done, no victim, no complaints, NOTHING but the government saying it was infiltrated, and it could do damage later on. Pure scare tactics if you ask me, not even a FF, just a bold faced lie to scare you.

And if it were truly a security threat, wouldn't it be classified?

[Kraig]

And if it were truly a security threat, wouldn't it be classified?

haha good point, it seems like just about everything else is

[Minarchy4Sale]

Doe B.H. Obama have jug ears?

[tangent4ronpaul]

And if it were truly a security threat, wouldn't it be classified?

Yes, and as an example after the Internet Worm (Morris Kid) it was never publically released that there was a bug in one of the communications routines that made latter worms easier to spot. There were a number of copycat worms after that that were based on the original (reverse enginered) source code and this information was never released to the public as they were contained quickly enough.

The original worm got out of control and bogged down the Internet, so was very noticeable and couldn't be swept under the carpet.

Hostile break-ins to government computing facilities and results of successful penetration testing are NEVER released to the public.

-t

[ChooseLiberty]

Interesting timing on the release of the "attack" new then.



Yes, and as an example after the Internet Worm (Morris Kid) it was never publically released that there was a bug in one of the communications routines that made latter worms easier to spot. There were a number of copycat worms after that that were based on the original (reverse enginered) source code and this information was never released to the public as they were contained quickly enough.

The original worm got out of control and bogged down the Internet, so was very noticeable and couldn't be swept under the carpet.

Hostile break-ins to government computing facilities and results of successful penetration testing are NEVER released to the public.

-t