Obama 'Internet kill switch' plan approved by US Senate panel

BEAT LA · Jul 26, 2010

President could get power to turn off Internet

By Grant Gross
Published: 11:02 GMT, 25 June 10

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

Obama security review gets mixed reception | FTC busts massive online fraud ring | Apple questioned by US Congress over user privacy | Internet could be 100 times faster with MIT design

The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.

The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.

The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month.

"Our responsibility for cyber defence goes well beyond the public sector because so much of cyberspace is owned and operated by the private sector," he said. "The Department of Homeland Security has actually shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks like utilities and communications could bring our economy down for a period of time if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber terrorists."

Other sponsors of the bill are Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat.

One critic said Thursday that the bill will hurt the nation's security, not help it. Security products operate in a competitive market that works best without heavy government intervention, said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank.

"Policymakers should reject such proposals to centralize cyber security risk management," Crews said in an e-mail. "The Internet that will evolve if government can resort to a 'kill switch' will be vastly different from, and inferior to, the safer one that will emerge otherwise."

Cybersecurity technologies and services thrive on competition, he added. "The unmistakable tenor of the cybersecurity discussion today is that of government steering while the market rows," he said. "To be sure, law enforcement has a crucial role in punishing intrusions on private networks and infrastructure. But government must coexist with, rather than crowd out, private sector security technologies."

On Wednesday, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors. The bill gives the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered, the letter said.

Without a definition of critical infrastructure there are concerns that "it includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free speech and to access information," said the letter, signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups.

"Changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests," the letter added.
Click to expand...

http://news.techworld.com/security/...ll-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate/?olo=rss

YaosDirtyStache · Jul 26, 2010

Coming from someone not named Basso or ToyCen I will def give this a read, thanks.

Major · Jul 26, 2010

Obama already has the power to shut off the internet. This bill actually does the opposite - it limits the power by better defining it. The whole "kill switch" idea is a huge boogeyman.

dachuda86 · Jul 26, 2010

this could destroy the economy and cause riots... great idea!

DonkeyMagic · Jul 26, 2010

RoxSqaud · Jul 26, 2010

He's a fan of Prince.

Landlord Landry · Jul 26, 2010

-DD

Southern Select · Jul 26, 2010

REGULATE

A new cybersecurity bureaucracy
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html

That emergency authority would allow the federal government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats.

Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including "no less" than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.)

The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the "security status" of private sector Web sites, broadband providers, and other Internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide "situational awareness of the security status" of the portions of the Internet that are inside the United States -- and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.

Selected private companies would be required to participate in "information sharing" with the Feds. They must "certify in writing to the director" of the NCCC whether they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director." The NCCC director can "issue an order" in cases of noncompliance.

MORE REGULATIN'

Net Neutrality for Dummies: Will the FCC control the Internet?

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/juw5Ew_fKgs&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/juw5Ew_fKgs&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident: 'Something’s Going to Have to be Done Legally'

"If you're in a place like Iran or North Korea or something like that, anonymous blogging is the only way you could ever get your point of view out without being searched down and thrown in jail or worse," said [CNN anchor John] Roberts. "But when it comes to a society like ours, an open society, do there have to be some checks and balances, not national, but maybe website to website on who comments on things?"

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZueuQuQu" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZueuQuQu" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

Why the Government and the FCC Shouldn't "Touch" The Internet.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GiqrDoh9aXA&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GiqrDoh9aXA&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_7QkjfTV5w&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_7QkjfTV5w&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

krnxsnoopy · Jul 26, 2010

Parts of the internet during a cyberattack.

My guess is this will never affect 99% of you.

rocketsjudoka · Jul 26, 2010

Shouldn't this thread be in D&D?

From what has been posted this doesn't sound like this is a kill switch. Also the internet being distributed by nature couldn't be killed by a US President unless he launched a nuclear war to wipe all of the World's technology infrastructure. This bill would allow the government to take over some portions of the US IT infrastructure in the even of an emergency, something that can already be done under existing law, but the bill just defines more clearly what can be.

rocketsjudoka · Jul 26, 2010

krnxsnoopy said:

Parts of the internet during a cyberattack.

My guess is this will never affect 99% of you.
Click to expand...

I will add if they take over Clutchfans I will be out in the streets manning the barricades.

vinsensual · Jul 26, 2010

They can't plug all the tubes?

across110thstreet · Jul 26, 2010

<embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:166186" width="480" height="400" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" flashVars="autoPlay=false&dist=www.southparkstudios.com&orig=" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></embed>

Depressio · Jul 26, 2010

I oppose any and all regulation of the Internet.

But that's not what this is, despite people giving it the loving title of "Internet kill switch plan".

BEAT LA · Jul 26, 2010

I didn't realize their was anything to debate about this topic.

It's just news.

Forums

Obama 'Internet kill switch' plan approved by US Senate panel

BEAT LA Member

YaosDirtyStache Member

Major Member

dachuda86 Member

DonkeyMagic Member
Supporting Member

RoxSqaud Member

Landlord Landry Member

Southern Select Member

krnxsnoopy Member

rocketsjudoka Member

rocketsjudoka Member

vinsensual Member

across110thstreet Member

Depressio Member

BEAT LA Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Obama 'Internet kill switch' plan approved by US Senate panel

BEAT LA Member

YaosDirtyStache Member

Major Member

dachuda86 Member

DonkeyMagic Member Supporting Member

RoxSqaud Member

Landlord Landry Member

Southern Select Member

krnxsnoopy Member

rocketsjudoka Member

rocketsjudoka Member

vinsensual Member

across110thstreet Member

Depressio Member

BEAT LA Member

Share This Page

DonkeyMagic Member
Supporting Member