PDA

View Full Version : Senate To Sneak Through Internet Kill Switch Bill




FrankRep
08-26-2010, 08:26 AM
Senate To Sneak Through Internet Kill Switch Bill (http://www.infowars.com/senate-to-sneak-through-internet-kill-switch-bill/)


Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/)
August 26, 2010


The Senate is attempting to sneak through the infamous Internet kill switch cybersecurity bill by attaching it to another piece of legislation that is almost guaranteed to pass – the defense authorization bill – in an underhanded ploy to avoid the difficult task of passing cybersecurity on its own.

“It’s hard to get a measure like cybersecurity legislation passed on its own,” Democratic Senator Thomas Carper, who is co-chair of a Senate subcommittee with cybersecurity oversight, told Government Information Security (http://www.govinfosecurity.com/articles.php?art_id=2868).

That’s why lawmakers pushing cybersecurity have resolved to introduce the legislation as a “rider” to a Senate defense bill that is likely to be easily passed before the midterm elections.

Senators are still working to merge two different versions of the cybersecurity bill, one sponsored by Senator Joe Lieberman and another sponsored by Democrat Jay Rockefeller, into a single omnibus package, in preparation for a final vote when the Senate returns to session in mid-September.

“We’re very close to where we need to be in developing a joint proposal,” said Carper.

Lawmakers are in a race to pass cybersecurity before the midterms because if they wait until Congress returns after the November 2nd vote, the chances of getting the bill through “would significantly dim should the Republicans pick up a significant number of seats”. That leaves a four week window from the middle of September to the start of election campaigning for Senators to sneak through the legislation.

Lieberman’s version of the cybersecurity bill includes language that would hand President Obama the power to shut down parts of the world wide web for at least four months (http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-can-shut-down-internet-for-4-months-under-new-emergency-powers.html) with no congressional oversight in the event of a cyber attack on critical infrastructure systems in the U.S.

Senators argue that they will be able to attach the Internet kill switch bill to the Defense Authorization Act because cybersecurity is a component of national security. However, the primary justifications behind treating “cybersecurity” as a national security matter are completely overblown and erroneous.

Proponents of cybersecurity have constantly argued that government needs to have more power over the Internet because cyber-terrorists could hack in and dismantle the entire U.S. power grid, large industrial plants, and the national water supply. This is a complete misnomer because, as a recent Wired News article highlighted (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/cybersecurity/), power grid and drinking water systems, “Are rarely connected directly to the public internet. And that makes gaining access to grid-controlling networks a challenge for all but the most dedicated, motivated and skilled — nation-states, in other words.”

As we documented in our piece on the issue (http://www.prisonplanet.com/cybersecurity-lie-exposed-power-plants-are-not-connected-to-the-internet.html), the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is minimal. The perpetrators of an attack on such infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to the systems that operate these plants to cause any damage. Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare the real agenda behind cybersecurity – to enable the government to regulate free speech on the Internet.

This was revealed when Senator Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley that the real motivation behind cybersecurity was to mimic the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.

As we have documented (http://www.prisonplanet.com/liebermans-model-for-america-purging-the-internet-of-dissent.html), the Communist Chinese government does not disconnect parts of the Internet because of genuine security concerns, it habitually does so only to oppress and silence victims of government abuse and atrocities, and to strangle dissent against the state.

The decision to try and sneak through the Internet kill switch bill as part of another package of legislation is undoubtedly a reaction to increasing awareness about how the terms of the bill would completely undermine the foundations of the Internet as an outlet of truly unregulated free speech.


SOURCE:
http://www.infowars.com/senate-to-sneak-through-internet-kill-switch-bill/

FrankRep
08-26-2010, 08:28 AM
http://www.votervoice.net/Files/JBS/Images/JBSemailheader.jpg (http://www.jbs.org/)


Email Senate!!
http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=22245&SiteID=-1



Two bills, S. 3480 and S. 773, have been introduced into the Senate that would endanger Internet freedom through extensive new regulations in the name of cybersecurity and would empower the President to limit access to the Internet with a so-called kill-switch.


Preserve Internet Freedom -- Oppose Cybersecurity Legislation (http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6366-preserve-internet-freedom-oppose-cybersecurity-legislation)


Larry Greenley | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
23 June 2010


“To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and other laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States.” These are the words used to describe the latest cybersecurity bill, S. 3480 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/show) "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010," introduced on June 10 and cosponsored by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.).

Senate Bill 3480 would convert the White House appointed cyber coordinator into the Director of the Office of Cyber Policy. One concession to “transparency” and “accountability” is that the cybersecurity coordinators inside the White House and the Department of Homeland Security -- under a new agency, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) -- would have to be approved by the Senate.

The DHS would compile a list of companies that rely on the Internet, phone system, or any other feature of the U.S. “information infrastructure” to “conduct risk-based assessments” of the system “with respect to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other large-scale disruptions...” According to terms in the bill “information infrastructure” covers the entire Internet and phone system, and these would be subjected to the broad and almost unrestrained authority of the NCCC:

‘‘(18) the term ‘national information infrastructure’ means information infrastructure—
‘‘(A)(i) that is owned, operated, or controlled within or from the United States; or
‘‘(ii) if located outside the United States, the disruption of which could result in national or regional catastrophic damage in the United States; and that is not owned, operated, controlled, or licensed for use by a Federal agency;

The NCCC would be tasked with monitoring the “security status” of private sector websites, broadband providers, etc. A requirement for private sector companies would be participation in “information sharing” with the federal government. They must certify in writing that they have complied with federally approved security measures -- encryption, physical security mechanisms, or other programming methods -- approved by the director. To make this directive more palatable to technology companies, the bill would offer immunity from civil lawsuits to ISP’s who comply with all federal regulations and standards, so that if those companies cause a website to experience a loss of business in downtime or money from a shutdown due to their own mistakes, or if the shutdown was federally mandated, the business or organization would not be able to recoup any losses by suing their ISP or the government.

Not content with establishing a gigantic framework (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html) for the federal government to control private sector Internet companies and those who use the World Wide Web, the new legislation, under the cosponsors’ claims of building a “public/private partnership” to increase “economic security, national security and public safety,” there is a most disturbing allocation of authority to the Executive Branch (http://beforeitsnews.com/news/77/022/New_Bill_Would_Create_Office_of_Cyber_Policy_in_Wh ite_House_to_Protect_Nation_from_Cyber_Terrorism.h tml).

Emergency response authority would be granted to the President to protect critical infrastructure if any level of cyber vulnerability is detected by the federal government. What defines “emergency” for the feds is:

the term ‘national cyber emergency’ means an actual or imminent action by any individual or entity to exploit a cyber vulnerability in a manner that disrupts, attempts to disrupt, or poses a significant risk of disruption to the operation of the information infrastructure essential to the reliable operation of covered critical infrastructure;

Congress is supposed to be notified in advance of the exercise of the emergency powers and any emergency measures are also supposed to be the least disruptive as possible, expiring in 30 days unless re-extended. But a President could in actuality keep extending the measures indefinitely (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/3776-senate-considers-making-the-president-king-of-cyberspace).

There are several acknowledgements given to international partners of the United States, and international agreements as well. If a declaration of emergency is declared by the President, then the Director has the authority to coordinate responses with certain international partners to protect the critical infrastructure, and even international standards may be relied upon for use as cyber guidelines.

The 197-page bill that creates a super-sized bureaucratic agency with incredible power over private enterprise and private information sources and means of communication containing all sorts of hidden dictates is just another in a list of similar bills that keep coming to the fore. The Senate Commerce Committee had previously approved a bill in March cosponsored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.) that also contained a presidential “kill-switch” provision (http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/lieberman-wants-give-federal-govt-power-over-internet-cybersecurity/2010-06-14). And now Lieberman and Rockefeller have pledged to work together to iron out any differences between the bills so that they can proceed on the path to quick passage for near absolute governmental control of cyberspace. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) indicated that he wants this legislation passed this year as well.

Whether it’s S. 3480, the Lieberman/Collins/Carper caper that gets the nod, or the Rockefeller/Snowe job, S. 773 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/show), the American people need to loudly and strongly voice their opposition to government monitoring and control of Information Technology, whether it’s the Internet, or phone system.

The U.S. already possesses a very healthy and capable private IT security industry. Government interference would only destroy private protection initiatives and efforts, and allow security and intelligence agencies that have very faulty track records to hold sway over the liberties of the people. Help stop this unconstitutional power grab and oppose any government intervention or interference in the private communications network.

Help preserve Internet freedom by contacting your representative and senators (http://www.votervoice.net/Groups/JBS/Advocacy/?IssueID=22245&SiteID=-1) in opposition to the proposed cybersecurity legislation.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6366-preserve-internet-freedom-oppose-cybersecurity-legislation

Deborah K
08-26-2010, 08:37 AM
We really need a sit-in! Really badly, before this socialistic oligarchy turns totalitarian.