Bill Gives Feds "Emergency" Powers To Secure Civilian Nets 505
ziani writes "Joe Lieberman wants to give the federal government the power to take over civilian networks' security if there's an 'imminent cyber threat.' From the article: 'Lieberman and Collins' solution is one of the more far-reaching proposals. In the Senators' draft bill, "the President may issue a declaration of an imminent cyber threat to covered critical infrastructure." Once such a declaration is made, the director of a DHS National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications is supposed to "develop and coordinate emergency measures or actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of covered critical infrastructure."'"
WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Which will be extended to? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, during normal peace time a lot of things like water pipes, electricity, phone lines etc. basically what you call critical infrastructure is a civilian matter. In a real emergency or military conflict the military can send an engineer corps to fix it, and I doubt any civilian has the authority to stop them. This sounds like something fairly similar for cybersecurity. If they need to plug in some extra cryptoboxes or firewall rules or armed guards at interconnects to secure the network infrastructure, they can and will. I'm just saying that depending on what exactly this means, it might be quite similar to what's already happening for other infrastructure.
i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope (Score:5, Interesting)
the slippery slope implies that there is no rational thinking people in the room
its the same argument used by those who stand against gay's right to marry: "if we let gays marry, then people will be marrying sheep! polygamy will be legal too!" bullshit. people understand that homosexual marriage is not bestiality or multiple wives
or howabout: "if they legalize marijuana they will legalize meth and heroin too!" no. meth is not marijuana. heroin is not marijuana. everyone understands the radical differences between these drugs
if you can understand that those who use the bullshit tactic of the slippery slope against gay marriage or marijuana legalization are trafficking in fear and hysteria, then maybe you can see that in your own words, is the exact same fear and hysteria
so, just so you clearly understand... no: a cyberattack is not piracy. a cyberattack is not pedophilia. common sense attempts to secure a network is not going to be confused with efforts against piracy. or pedophilia
really. we all understand the difference. really
people, please: shut up with the bullshit slippery slope arguments. whenever you find yourself arguing in terms of the slippery slope, you have lost your grasp on rationality and reason and are simply fearful, hysterical, and confused. there is no such thing as a slippery slope. repeat: there is no such thing as a slippery slope
Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Uncle Sam Knows Best (Score:4, Interesting)
How is a 3rd party, who has rarely if ever seen your system, going to come in and magically fix issues when the person who uses it everyday cannot?
You're under the delusion that this bill's true intention is to help, but truthfully it's nothing more then a power grab. First they got control of the car companies under a financial emergency, next they went after control of health care because of a health care emergency, they are currently going after control of wall street because of the financial emergency, why would it surprise you that they are going after the internet (where information is freely disseminated) to control it under the threat of a cyber-emergency.
“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” Rahm Emanuel
They'll screw it up anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, I'm am no "all government intervention is bad" arm flapper. Far from it, but I'm sorry. There are clearly better hands for this task. They're running the net every day and repelling attacks every day. So what "threat", pray tell, would be so dire that only ham-fisted government cowboys could save us?
Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets add to that scenario that it is the middle of winter in one of the northern states, so people are starting to freeze to death.
In that equation, would you still not hand over your root password to safe lives? Just because it is "private property"?
I'm not saying that you are incompentent as a sys-admin - but I'm saying that there may be incompetent sys-admins out there in very critical private companies (in fact - I'm sure there is - at least incompetent when it comes to fighting a competent blackhat).
I'm not sure of the details of this bill - but as in the above scenario I can certainly think of situations where intervention by specialist government experts may be needed for the greater good or to save lives.
Can't see the forest for the trees. (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm, excuse me Government there is a secret I think you should know:
If your 'Critical infrastructure' is connected to a PUBLICLY accessible Internet, then you are doing something wrong.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:2, Interesting)
The probability that your systems and behaviours are really secure is much higher if you actively looked for weaknesses and fixed those you found.
Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uh, no, you can't have my network (Score:3, Interesting)
"How many times have we seen laws "creatively interpreted" to allow someone to do something that might otherwise be considered illegal?"
Eminent Domain. One of the best known times it was used in this (ooops, LAST century, now) century, was when Ike wanted the interstate highway system. Nowadays, any bunch of frat boys can go to city hall, convince the mayor and the city council that they can make more taxes off of a property, and that property is pretty much handed over to the frat boys. I'm quite certain THAT was a pretty creative "interpretation" of eminent domain.
when you argue in the realm of the theoretical (Score:3, Interesting)
anything is possible
but when you argue in the realm of the realistic, then its obvious that men seek to accumulate women 99x more times than the reverse, and that the romantic harem may exist, but for the other 99% of harems, its pretty much a financial arrangement
occam's razor: when you hear hoofbeats, its going to be horses, not zebras
likewise, when you talk about polygamy, you're talking about a rich guy with a bunch of women
the exotic theoretical offerings you allude to simply have no probative value or logical coherence, because they are so exceedingly rare, and always will be (this is where you argue that your exotic utopian visions are possible. yes, all sorts of things are possible if you can miraculously make people behave like they won't on their own. zzz)
as for your women with legal protections: again i'm certain you can find me the odd weirdo who is happy to share a man romantically, but for the vast majority of women, polygamy is simply the surrendering of the possibility of romance, and sacrificing the pursuit of happiness for the sake of financial security
additionally, you have not examined my simple mathematical inevitable truth: polygamy results in a population of poor men with no hope of finding a mate, through no fault of their own, and this degrades society as any group of angry loveless rootless forlorn nothing to lose no future men would
you're an ivory tower type: you've made a fanciful exotic argument in a void of any realistic understanding of human nature. you're a college kid with a lot of book reading, but no real life experience with real human beings
you should stand against polygamy, for the sake of society and the individual. to conclude otherwise is ivory tower foolishness. you're deluding yourself. not that my post will stop you. now is where you begin furiously building a wall of denial against my words, to preserve your psychological dependence on your blind idealism
Re:i'm sick of the fallacy of the slippery slope (Score:5, Interesting)
What are you, some sort of Democratic partisan? The repeal of Glass-Steagall was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
What are you, a Republican partisan? A republican controlled congress introduced the legislation and passed it with a veto-proof majority. Of course Clinton signed the bill. To do otherwise was to ensure he suffered a humiliating veto, and paint him as the odd-one out in a time when most powerful lobbies, media organisations, and parties were hell-bent on deregulating everything.
That said, I blame the democrats just us much. Not for the current crisis, which was by and large a natural consequence of conservative "deregulate everything and let the market decide" thinking, but for not having the backbone to oppose this shit on principle even when it was in vogue, and for not pointing the finger more loudly at those responsible: Republicans and so-called "blue dog" democrats that have spent the last 20 years dismantling the regulatory structures put into place after the last depression, which were largely responsible for the economic stability we enjoyed throughout most of the 20th century, and for doing so in the wake of the Savings and Loan scandals which had already amply demonstrated exactly why the banking industry shouldn't be deregulated in this way.
There's plenty of bad governance on all sides, but this economic collapse was a direct result of the policies that stemmed from right-wing "get the government out of business" knee-jerk deregulation, of which the republican repeal of Glass-Steagall (with the "bipartisan" help of conservative blue-dog democrats-only-in-name and a centrist democratic president who, frankly, behaved more like a republican than most republicans after his health-care reform failed) was but one part of the problem.
And please don't start claiming this was driven by liberal requirements for fair-lending practices...there was never a mandate to lend to people who couldn't pay back their loans. That particular Republican talking point has been debunked more times than anyone can count. CDSes and exotics required debt to be underwritten, and it was pure profit motive for more debt, to sell more exotics, to line the pockets of greedy inside-traders with more money, that required more lending, far and away beyond anything required or encouraged by the US government. This was deregulated markets in action, "greed is good" in an environment of historically low interset rates kept low for political purposes by the Bush administration, leading to a very natural and predictable result.