Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

[Serenitys_Dream]

Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US
By Declan McCullagh, CNET.com on June 15th, 2010 (5 days ago)

A new US Senate Bill would grant the President far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of, or even shut down, portions of the internet.

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

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 meets with the Democrats.

Due to there being few limits on the US President's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page Bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

TechAmerica, probably the largest US technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power". And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman Bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems."

The idea of an internet "kill switch" that the President could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that ZDNet Australia's sister site 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 websites.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's Bill, which is formally titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realises the importance of protecting our cyber resources".

Under PCNAA, the Federal Government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the internet, the telephone system or any other component of the US "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 wiretapping without a warrant. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorised.

Lieberman said on Thursday that enactment of his Bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

A new cybersecurity bureaucracy
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 websites, 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 non-compliance.

The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."

To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalising 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.

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 US Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.

Another sweetener: a new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardise their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products.

Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticising the Lieberman Bill, calling it a "very important piece of legislation".

McAfee is paying attention to "a number of provisions of the Bill that could use work," Gann said, and "we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions."

Via CNET

And this is also connected to the DOTS in this TMZ article.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The are going to control the flow of information and what we can share with one each other, one way or another.

Key News Audiences Now Blend Online and Traditional Sources
Audience Segments in a Changing News Environment
August 17, 2008

For more than a decade, the audiences for most traditional news sources have steadily declined, as the number of people getting news online has surged. However, today it is not a choice between traditional sources and the internet for the core elements of today's news audiences.

A sizable minority of Americans find themselves at the intersection of these two long-standing trends in news consumption. Integrators, who get the news from both traditional sources and the internet, are a more engaged, sophisticated and demographically sought-after audience segment than those who mostly rely on traditional news sources. Integrators share some characteristics with a smaller, younger, more internet savvy audience segment.

Like web-oriented news consumers, Integrators are affluent and highly educated. However, they are older, on average, than those who consider the internet their main source of news. Overall, Integrators spend more time with the news on a typical day than do those who rely more on either traditional or internet sources; far more enjoy keeping up with the news a lot than in any other news segment.

Integrators also are heavier consumers of national news -- especially news about politics and Washington -- and are avid sports news consumers. Television is their main news source, but more than a third cite the internet as their primary source of news during the day. This reflects the fact that a relatively large proportion of Integrators log on to the internet from work (45%).

The 2008 biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted by telephone -- including both landline phones and cell phones -- from April 30 to June 1 among 3,612 adults nationwide. It finds four distinct segments in today's news audience: Integrators, who comprise 23% of the public; the less populous Net-Newsers (13%); Traditionalists -- the oldest (median age: 52) and largest news segment (46% of the public); and the Disengaged (14%) who stand out for their low levels of interest in the news and news consumption.

Net-Newsers are the youngest of the news user segments (median age: 35). They are affluent and even better educated than the News Integrators: More than eight-in-ten have at least attended college. Net-Newsers not only rely primarily on the internet for news, they are leading the way in using new web features and other technologies. Nearly twice as many regularly watch news clips on the internet as regularly watch nightly network news broadcasts (30% vs. 18%).
Click to read more.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And this why those in power want to control the Internet. They tell us it is to control pornography, bullying and many other evils but there is always more to think about when these types of policies are being implemented.

[nefari]

I'm starting to think the Obama administration is only after power and control of everything!!! And I thought Bush was bad :shock:
Yeesh from this oil spill suspicious happening, Michael being gone, now this internet control garbage ALL during Obama's term. Things went from bad to worse ever since he's been in office and I don't want to think this way I really don't but things are just mounting up day by day.

[AvaMarie]

Well look like I'm alone in this one. But the keyword ''proposed''. I can't believe how many people are so quick to criticize President Obama. When George Bush stayed in office 8 years did nothing and is responsible for the economic disaster.

[Serenitys_Dream]

Well look like I'm alone in this one. But the keyword ''proposed''. How do we even know this is true? I can't believe how many people are so quick to criticize President Obama. When George Bush stayed in office 8 years did nothing and is responsible for the economic disaster.

Dictonary
pro·pose  (pr-pz)
v. pro·posed, pro·pos·ing, pro·pos·es
v.tr.
1. To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; to suggest: propose a change in the law.
2. To recommend (a person) for a position, office, or membership; nominate.
3. To offer (a toast to be drunk).
4. To make known as one's intention; purpose or intend:

Thesaurus
Verb   1.   propose  - make a proposal, declare a plan for something; "the senator proposed to abolish the sales tax"
suggest, advise
advocate, recommend, urge - push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day"
advance, throw out - bring forward for consideration or acceptance; "advance an argument"
proposition - suggest sex to; "She was propositioned by a stranger at the party"
feed back - respond to a query or outcome
put forward, state, submit, posit - put before; "I submit to you that the accused is guilty"
make a motion, move - propose formally; in a debate or parliamentary meeting
declare - state emphatically and authoritatively; "He declared that he needed more money to carry out the task he was charged with"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[AvaMarie]

What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?

[suspicious mind]

unintended consequences

yeah right

[change the world]

What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?

Please don't get offended, as I am not in favor of either party, but there is no difference between Obama and Bush in my eyes.  Obama is continuing with Bush's legacy and not to mention past presidents with their NWO agenda.

[Serenitys_Dream]

What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?

Senate Considers Making the President King of Cyberspace
Written by Michael Tennant Monday, 14 June 2010 17:00

The Internet is a wonderful invention that has allowed for the dissemination of a wide variety of ideas. Not surprisingly, politicians, never ones to brook dissent cheerfully, are not terribly fond of it. In 1998, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton said, “We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.”

Recently President Obama lamented the fact that the smorgasbord of news sources now available to Americans can “reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country” because people can choose only to listen to those with whom they agree; he was particularly concerned with rhetoric that speaks of “our government” as “some menacing, threatening foreign entity.”

The only question for the politicians, then, is how to implement a “gatekeeping function” without running afoul of Americans’ natural preference for freedom of speech and of the press.

The Federal Trade Commission is proposing government licensing of news organizations, accompanied by taxes on other websites that link to these government-approved sources and taxes on electronic news-reading devices to prop up dying government-approved newspapers.

The U.S. Senate, for the third time in the last year, is attempting to go even further, putting forth legislation that would, according to CNET News, “grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.” The 197-page bill, called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), was announced on June10 by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). (The previous two attempts were draft proposals to do substantially the same thing as PCNAA.)

Under PCNAA, the President may unilaterally “issue a declaration of national cyber emergency to covered critical infrastructure.” Once the declaration has been issued, says CNET, “companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects ‘shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed’ by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.” Furthermore, this also applies to “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,’” according to CNET. These entities will come under the command of a new bureaucracy, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), housed within Homeland Security.

Once issued, the cyber emergency declaration ostensibly expires at the end of 30 days. However, given that the President, with the consent of the Director of Cyberspace Policy (head of the proposed White House Office of Cyberspace Policy who is appointed by the President), can extend the emergency for another 30 days at will, the “emergency” can, for all practical purposes, continue indefinitely.

It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which an embattled President seizes upon a minor incident — one, perhaps, that he says he can’t even reveal because to do so would compromise U.S. national security — to declare such an emergency and then uses that emergency to crush dissenting websites under the theory that such websites “send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response,” as Obama said in the speech referenced earlier.

Even if a cyber emergency is never declared, PCNAA still provides for a vast increase in the federal government’s control over cyberspace. CNET reports:

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.

Among those selected private companies will surely be large, established firms who can bear the costs of compliance, knowing that those same costs will keep competitors from springing up.

These and other companies’ compliance will also be procured by the immunity from civil lawsuits that PCNAA offers. Once the President has declared a cyber emergency, any company that complies with NCCC’s directives cannot be sued for economic harm. Moreover, says CNET, “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.”

For those cybersecurity producers that still look askance at federal oversight, there’s also language in the bill requiring federal agencies to beef up their cybersecurity, which will surely mean increased federal purchases of security products. Lieberman is leaving nothing to chance.

If PCNAA becomes law, Clinton will finally have her “gatekeeping function,” and Obama and future Presidents will have it within their power to silence critics on the Web in the name of national security. Meanwhile, the independence of websites and Internet service providers and the privacy of their customers will be severely compromised, emergency or no emergency. It makes one long for the days when politicians merely claimed to have invented the Internet, not to own it.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Excerpt From An Obama Speech - From the White House Website
Today’s 24/7 echo-chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before.  And it’s also, however, given us unprecedented choice.  Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner, or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy.  For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways.  That will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Don`t you see that they want to control your opinion your thoughts. If you do not agree, you are a terrorist, a racist, evil. If you criticize a policy you are labelled in the same way. Obama is an eloquent speaker and mixes candy coatings and platitudes in speeches but the truth is right there for you to see and hear. Step back he is just a man but he is  a controlled man. The puppet masters behind the curtain are pulling his strings as they have done with all presidents. This isn`t just happening in America, it is happening all over the world.

[curls]

Hurry up Michael - please, hurry up. This is scary stuff.

[nefari]

I voted for Obama! I'm not mad at him but I am concerned over all this stuff happening while he's in office. It looks bad but I'm not on a definate *down with Obama* road. I'm just wondering why on earth all of this is happening just like I wondered with every other President and what all happened during their terms as well. So I'm certainly not putting Obama in some class by himself. I think most Presidents have good and bad qualities as do all people in general.

[jill]

What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?

Bush was in office two years ago.  We are discussing what is happening since Obama has been in office.  Everytime something happens he blames it on the Bush administration.  The fact is he takes no responsibility for the things that have happened since he has been in office.  He does not have leadership skills or military experience.  He has implemented his socialistic agenda since he took office, with total disreguard of the constitution and the laws of the land.

[Sangre]

Internet is a source of knowledge and a source of fresh information, people communicate with each other through internet - it's not right to take this away from people.

[AvaMarie]

Bush was in office two years ago.  We are discussing what is happening since Obama has been in office.  Everytime something happens he blames it on the Bush administration.  The fact is he takes no responsibility for the things that have happened since he has been in office.  He does not have leadership skills or military experience.  He has implemented his socialistic agenda since he took office, with total disreguard of the constitution and the laws of the land.[/quote]
                     I think he takes responsible and he has tired to work with his counterparts but they have given him the cold shoulder. So he shouldn't have to kiss anybody's ass. People are to quick to jump down his throat. No matter what he does or doesn't it will never be good enough for some. President Obama is smart, college education and at least other countries are willing to deal with the U.S again.

[moyrum]

ok people forgive me for sounding so thick but i did'nt fully understand this article, does it mean that the internet may fully be disconnecting from us or does it mean the goverment will control what information we can have access to and limit information for the public to see online or in the future we may not even have any internet?

[Serenitys_Dream]

ok people forgive me for sounding so thick but i did'nt fully understand this article, does it mean that the internet may fully be disconnecting from us or does it mean the goverment will control what information we can have access to and limit information for the public to see online or in the future we may not even have any internet?

The U.S. Senate, for the third time in the last year, is attempting to go even further, putting forth legislation that would, according to CNET News, “grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.”

Under PCNAA, the President may unilaterally “issue a declaration of national cyber emergency to covered critical infrastructure.” Once the declaration has been issued, says CNET, “companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects ‘shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed’ by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.” Furthermore, this also applies to “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,’” according to CNET. These entities will come under the command of a new bureaucracy, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), housed within Homeland Security.

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.

Among those selected private companies will surely be large, established firms who can bear the costs of compliance, knowing that those same costs will keep competitors from springing up.

If PCNAA becomes law, Clinton will finally have her “gatekeeping function,” and Obama and future Presidents will have it within their power to silence critics on the Web in the name of national security. Meanwhile, the independence of websites and Internet service providers and the privacy of their customers will be severely compromised, emergency or no emergency. It makes one long for the days when politicians merely claimed to have invented the Internet, not to own it.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They will be able to shut down websites, portions of the Internet or the entire Internet. Internet companies will have to provide federally approved security measures, the cost associated with this, could put smaller and/or independent companies/websites out of business, limiting your choices and what you can access on the Internet. Larger Internet companies which are federally approved could decide to prevent you from being able to visit certain websites; this is censorship of what you are ALLOWED to view. Companies will have to provide the government with personal information about consumers, such as which sites you are visiting, list of memberships and any other information the government deems necessary; this is invading your privacy.