Zoiks!!!

[loborugger]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

[Rohirrim]

I can see what their intent was, but it has a little too much of a Chinese or Iranian odor to it, if you get my drift.

[footstepsfrom#27]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
I'm always fascinated at how easy it is to spin information. People are inherently lazy, and the vast majority don't bother to check anything they read, even if involves simply clicking a link with a mouse. Here's a good example: the article linked in this post states this:

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

The red portion of this quote is linking to a government report and it makes it sound like the Obama administration is failing in their cyber security measures. Read the article...the quote is dated from 2006 and it's reviewing the Bush adminsitration's failures. Here's the link: http://news.cnet.com/DHS-scores-F-on-cybersecurity-report-card/2100-1009_3-6050520.html?tag=mncol;txt

I'm not saying government control of the internet isn't a concern, but the issue isn't cut and dried. There obviously IS a real and legitimate concern about protecting critical infrastructure from terrorists, and that's the intent of the bill. Is this a covert power grab? I don't know...maybe every government move can be described in that manner, but the prior administration proved without doubt they were unfiendly to civil rights, while this one still has the jury out. In any case, it's inaccurate to depict this as having no legitimate compelling interest for the government because clearly they do have one. Let's see what's in the bill, how it's modified and what the final version is...if it even makes it through Congress.

[loborugger]

Well, that is one way to look at it.

I look at it like this. If a Gov't system is being attacked, it should be shut down. Not the whole damn net. If a Gov't system is too vital, then it shouldnt be out in the net where it can be attacked. I work in Gov't, and we have a system that can not be reached from the outside world. We cant reach the outside world, either. The chance of being hacked is zero.

No, this is just about Gov't gaining more control. Or giving itself the ability to gain more control. Its not like Gov't has ever abused power - cough, cough, wink, wink. There was just a thread on here last week about the WH using the terror alert system for political gain - but I am sure they wouldnt mess with the net, right?

I could go on, but in the end, I am just too damned lazy.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Well, that is one way to look at it.

I look at it like this. If a Gov't system is being attacked, it should be shut down. Not the whole damn net.
As I read the article it didn't say anything about shutting down the whole net, just putting in place the ability to take private computers off-line. That's an assumption and even if they wanted to do it, they couldn't. People could still dial into off shore servers.
If a Gov't system is too vital, then it shouldnt be out in the net where it can be attacked. I work in Gov't, and we have a system that can not be reached from the outside world. We cant reach the outside world, either. The chance of being hacked is zero.
You think it's practical to move the entire US government to Intranets? What about critical non-government stuff? Private defense contractors...financial service providers...hospitals...an entire universe of private enterprise that's mission critical to government being able to function because we're all tied in together now.

Let me turn it around. Do you believe the government should have NO ability to assume control of any portion of the internet in case we were attacked again? Do you think that ability should be locked out somehow, esepcially when we know cyber attacks are not just likely but a virtual future certainty?

There's a balance here somewhere. Technology is light years beyond the law right now...the struggle is in finding the appropriate response and briniging the law current without needlessly impugning civil liberties. I don't think the question should simply be ignored as if it's not a vital security interest. That seems as foolish as giving the government blanket control.