Joe Lieberman Proposes Internet Shutdown Bill

[Katie]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Um...just a point of order here:
Lieberman is a Senator from Connecticut, and not part of the current Presidential Administration.

There's a lot you can blame Obama for, but Lieberman's actions as a representative of the people of Connecticut isn't one of them.

And while I totally support your decision to vote, please realize that by residing in Georgia you really have no say in whether or not Lieberman remains in office.

Just happened to find this link from the New York Times regarding this proposal:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...internet-bill/

Initially I thought this might be some sort of Emergency Broadcast System for the web, but if this article is to be taken as a correct summary, it looks like it'd shut off the US to other countries in a time of war.

Of course now that Congress has set the precedent of abdicating their rights to declare war to the President, I'm less than comfortable with this kind of thing.

this.



I say whatever. It's like pulling the planes down after 9/11. Necessary....but oh wait.....what's that noise I hear.....oh yeah. an Airplane taking off. you people worry too much

[ThirdMarioBro]

Well, the information age was nice while it lasted. Welcome to the "walled garden generation".

Joe Lieberman is a goddamn psychopath. McCarthyism much? He tried to ruin my hobbies as a child, now he wants to give the president to ruin my career as an adult. Shutting down private networks at will? That's basically what China has right now. They are walled off to the world. What better way to control the message than to give the US government the ability to shut off access to servers they don't like.

[Warhorse]

Originally Posted by ThirdMarioBro

Well, the information age was nice while it lasted. Welcome to the "walled garden generation".

Joe Lieberman is a goddamn psychopath. McCarthyism much? He tried to ruin my hobbies as a child, now he wants to give the president to ruin my career as an adult. Shutting down private networks at will? That's basically what China has right now. They are walled off to the world. What better way to control the message than to give the US government the ability to shut off access to servers they don't like.

I think it's already started. That's why whenever I go to Youtube to check out videos from other countries, I get "Not available in your country" BS.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Warhorse

I think it's already started. That's why whenever I go to Youtube to check out videos from other countries, I get "Not available in your country" BS.

that stuff happens way too often. had to unsubscribe to Penn Jilette's youtube account since all the videos became unavailable

luckily Pennpoint works

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Stupidity. Does he really want society and the world to travel backward by 20 years? Sounds like Sweden in the late 1970's, the 1980's and early 1990's, when politicians wanted to ban the parabolic antenna and the videocassette recorder from Sweden, because it made it easier for children to watch violent films. All radio and television in Sweden was operated by the Swedish government. It was also some successful 1950's and 60's attempts to ban private radio stations broadcasting from boats on international waters to Sweden. Why? Because of the fear of advertisements. Until circa 1990, advertisement in Sweden was only seen on public places like billboards, buses and sporting events, cinemas before the film opening and newspapers.

[Machias Banshee]

Well, the bill got approved by senate. It's one step closer to being official...

Internet Kill Switch Approved by Senate Committee

WASHINGTON (CBS4) ―

The White House is one step closer to having the authority to flip the Internet "kill switch" in case of emergency.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved a cybersecurity bill called PCNAA, or Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act on Friday. The bill would give the president the power to call it lights out for the Internet if there is "a cyber attack capable of causing massive damage or loss of life."

The legislation would force companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

The idea behind it is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency," and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or Web sites.

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.

Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorized.

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.

This part I found interesting...

To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalizing offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable.

So... if your business crashes and loses everything... too bad for you. Just what people need..

If there's an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the president has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the U.S. Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.

Initially, the bill would have given the president unlimited authority on how long he could control the Internet, but an amendment passed Friday says he would have to get the approval of Congress to shut down the Internet for more than 120 days.

[Warhorse]

Uh-oh. If I were you, I'd stop online bill pay, like ASAP! And make sure you have cold hard cash.

All I know, is that this move puts another notch into the conspiracy theorists belts.