Federal Authority Over the Internet? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009

Federal Authority Over the Internet? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009

Jennifer Granick
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:32 UTC

 

There's a new bill working its way through Congress that is cause for some alarm: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF summary here), introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (D-ME). The bill as it exists now risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended.

Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.

One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.

Furthermore, the bill contains a particularly dangerous provision that could cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop:

The Secretary of Commerce - shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access...

In other words, the bill would give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to "all relevant data" without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review. The broad scope of this provision could eviscerate statutory protections for private information, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, or financial privacy regulations. Even worse, it isn't clear whether this provision would require systems to be designed to enable access, essentially a back door for the Secretary of Commerce that would also establish a primrose path for any bad guy to merrily skip down as well. If the drafters meant to create a clearinghouse for system vulnerability information along the lines of a US/CERT mailing list, that could be useful, but that's not what the bill's current language does.

A privacy threat still in the cocoon is the provision mandating a study of the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program with just a nod to "appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections." There's reason to fear that this type of study is just a precursor to proposals to limit online anonymity. But anonymity isn't inherently a security problem. What's "secure" depends on the goals of the system. Do you need authentication, accountability, confidentiality, data integrity? Each goal suggests a different security architecture, some totally compatible with anonymity, privacy and civil liberties. In other words, no one "identity management and authentication program" is appropriate for all internet uses.

Whether the bill is amended or rejected, the question remains what kind of actions would help cybersecurity, and what role the federal government has to play. As security expert Bruce Schneier has pointed out, the true causes of government cyber-insecurity are rather mundane:

GAO reports indicate that government problems include insufficient access controls, a lack of encryption where necessary, poor network management, failure to install patches, inadequate audit procedures, and incomplete or ineffective information security programs.

The Cybersecurity Act is an example of the kind of dramatic proposal that doesn't address the real problems of security, and can actually make matters worse by weakening existing privacy safeguards - as opposed to simpler, practical measures that create real security by encouraging better computer hygiene. We'll be watching this bill carefully to ensure that it doesn't pass in its present form.

WE the People, last call Fourth of July-for Independence * 9/12-we surround them

You know that all of the 'we the people' who are democrats and who are other parties, both are fighting the same enemy? 

 

The Democrats fear the big money people of the Republican Party and that is the GOP grassroots enemy, for to be big government is to be a RINO( Republican in name only ). RINOs are now being given pink slips. 

 

The Republicans fear the far left of the Democrat party knowing it will produce big government without fail, according to recorded socialist history.  How do we know that the RINOs and the Far Left are on the same page?  When the first bailout went forward, the Republicans agreed with the Democrats to give ACORN 20 billions dollars.  The Shadow thrown by this power behind both parties is very ominous.  ACORN is without a doubt big government oriented.  Now with the quiet sailing through by both parties, Obama now has 5 billion for a 200,000 man Civilian Army, the arm of Government.

 

They are our enemy one and the same.  Deny one world currency.  We are not capable of such Love.  It will bring about a time of epic Biblical Provence.

 

Waiting till the election may prove to be unfruitful, as fast as this final curtain call of well over one hundred years of planning.

 

No media will share this truth.  The over the internet 'CyberSecurity Act of 2009' is about to sneak through Congress and it will control the one thing we have to defend our Freedom and liberty, thus an infringement on our Constitutional rights.  We must not allow the internet be controlled by government.  That will be the final nail on Liberty's door.  To this end, there will not be a return. 

 

Governors, your up!  Start reviewing all Federal Legislation for Constitutionality, on behalf of any and all individuals.  Here is the last tool needed to conquer the world, controlling the internet globally, starting here in the USA:

 

The collective actions of the IMF, BIS, Federal Reserve and the accounting and regulatory system provide yet another confirmation that the world financial crisis is a large scale application of the 'Shock Doctrine', designed to force the planet into accepting a new, more refined global system of control while fleecing us all in the process.

Olga Chetverikova has written that:

The events are following the same path as the Great Depression in 1929-1933: a financial crisis, an economic recession, social conflicts, establishing totalitarian dictatorships, inciting a war to concentrate power, and capital in the hands of a narrow circle. This time, however, the case in point is the final stage in the 'global control' strategy, where a decisive blow should be dealt to the national state sovereignty institution, followed by a transition to a system of private power of transnational elites.

The main mechanism for change and domination is the economy. But if the plan is indeed the control of everything and everyone, it needs to be complemented by changes in other areas, such as technology and communications. In that respect, it is alarming that the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is making its way through the U.S. Congress.

Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response. [...] One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. (sic) Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.

This is remarkable for both the extent of possible control, but also for the fact that modern telecommunications, such as the Internet, are global to a great extent.

 

***

 

We as a people need to stop this now.  If we wait for the vote in two years, it may be too late.  Ghandi walked to freedom by making salt.  We can drive there to celebrate Freedom and Liberty and our Love of the Constitution!!!  Fair Tax that and you have near perfection. 

 

State Tea Party  July 4th at your State Capital or at the U.S. Capital;

 

The National Tea Party, all as one on 9/12/09 We surround them Tea Party.  It is set for Washington DC, maybe we would be better to go to a point centrally located, like the Golden Arches.

 

God Bless this Planet

 

R. George Dunn

 

 

 

Connecting the Dots: A Pandemic Distracts as the World Government Picks a Fight

This article is a very long read, but the knowledge that is under the radar is immense.  I have pulled a small part to give you a taste of what is in this connecting of the dots pertaining to our world's fiscal issues and security. 

 

It is not too late for our Government to stop this and pull in the reigns of power back to securing us as individual States(Nations) and re-empower the federal Government to it's proper role of National Security of our Constitution.

 

Read the article and share it before you can't.

 

R. George Dunn

 

***

 

Connecting the Dots: A Pandemic Distracts as the World Government Picks a Fight

SOTT Editors
SOTT.net
Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:44 UTC

 

Batten down the hatches, grab your flimsy face mask!

Just as Sott.net editors were putting the finishing touches to the April's edition of 'Connecting the Dots' (a fairly standard month as months go here on the BBM), within the last five days the world has been brought to the brink (of what we are not quite sure) by something called "Swine Flu". At least, that's the impression you get when reading recent headlines. But as Sott.net readers know, there is always more to these episodes of mass hysteria than meets the eye! ...

 

 

...However, when a country borrows in a currency that it cannot print, it is unable to inflate it's way out of debt and therefore remains in perpetual debt bondage to its lenders.

The experience of Asia during the Asian Crisis in 1997, Eastern Europe from 2007 until now and Iceland today are all examples of the almost complete loss of sovereignty achieved through the external manipulation of foreign currency debts. When a nation's economy is crashed, the national currency becomes worth less (or even worthless) while foreign currency debt effectively balloons. In order to pay the interest on this debt national governments are forced to implement policies dictated by the lenders.

© Unknown

Together with e-money technology, a global currency can easily be used as a tool to discipline the masses and eliminate dissent without the need for open force. Not that they may not decide to use violence on top of that, of course! But if you ever find yourself in conflict with the World Government or its institutions, you may get the feeling that you are playing a rigged game that cannot be possibly won against an all-powerful casino which is lending you chips only as long as you play by its unfair rules.

The opportunity to introduce some sort of global currency may take place soon, if the Global Anticipation Bulletin is correct in believing that China has been "constantly striving to find the means of disposing of, as early as possible, the mountain of toxic assets which US Treasuries and Dollars have become", resulting in the breakdown of the international monetary system that would then call for dramatic counter-measures.

As for the role of the World Central Bank, there is another possibility. Ellen Brown observes that when the world's central bankers met in Washington last September, they discussed what body might be in a position to serve as such, and a former governor of the Bank of England suggested the Bank of International Settlements (BIS). As Simon Davies & Donald Hunt said in October 2007:-

The first level at which the public sees power being exercised upon the world stage is through the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

While the above organisations have an official public face much of their activity remains shrouded in secrecy or obfuscated. Even the public face of one of these, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) gives a good idea of the extent of its reach and influence.

The BIS, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, is the world's oldest international financial organisation. It fosters international monetary and financial cooperation and serves as a bank for central banks. The 'Members' of the BIS are the central banks or monetary authorities of 55 nations (see list here) including the Fed, European Central Bank, Bank of England, Bank of France and Bank of Japan. The BIS holds regular (at least every two months) meetings of the heads and senior officials of all the members central banks. In their own words,

...these gatherings provide an opportunity for participants to discuss the world economy and financial markets, [...] The main result of these meetings is an improved understanding by participants of the developments, challenges and policies affecting various countries or markets. An atmosphere of openness, frankness and informality amongst participants is critical.

Other meetings of senior central bank officials focus on the conduct of monetary policy, the surveillance of international financial markets and central bank governance issues.

The BIS promotes monetary and financial stability as a key objective. To achieve that objective, the BIS has a series of committees including ones on Banking Supervision (i.e. regulation), Global Financial Systems, Financial Markets and Financial Stability.

Now is not the time to go into the details of how these various committees operate, the technical details of the global financial system that they have established and oversee and, how they relate to each other. Just the committee names give one a sufficient idea as to the scope and breadth of banking and financial market activity they cover.

What must be stressed is that these committees are not just talk shops; they produce the rules that govern the world's banking system, rules that carry the weight of law in may cases.

If you are in any doubt as to the power of the BIS, consider the fact that it is without doubt one of the single most powerful organisations on earth and yet, until now, you may well not have known of its existence. In all the excitement of this 'crisis' you'd have thought somebody might have mentioned it.

The BIS has been controversial since its inception as the bank to manage reparations payments by Germany following World War I. It is considered to be one of the prime movers in setting up the American and British financing of Hitler and the building of the German war machine that enabled the Second World War to be staged. Even during that war, the US representative was regularly meeting with his Nazi counterparts at BIS meetings, a practice that only stopped when it leaked to certain members of the US Congress. Dr. Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University and once Bill Clinton's mentor, was an insider of the network of international bankers - with which he agreed in its aims - wrote:

"[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations."

According to Quigley the key to their success was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government.

We do recommend that you read Brown's article on the BIS, as it explains how the World Government may be just another name for the elite of international bankers. She argues that it was the Second Basel Accord, established by the BIS, which actually sent the U.S. economy tumbling down, and with it the rest of the world's. In this she is incorrect as US bank's are not due to implement Basel II until 2010-2012. What Basel II created was in fact a regulatory arbitrage between European Banks that have implemented it in stages since 2005 and US banks which still operate under the previous Basel I regime. It is this 'gaming' of the difference in these regulatory regimes which provided so many of the loopholes that were filled by the likes of AIG and Goldman Sachs and the explosion in the global derivatives markets. Similarly, Brown is incorrect in attributing the "mark-to-market" accounting rule to the BIS and the Basel Accords when in fact it lies at the heart of US legislation since the early 1990's. While incorrect on these key points, she is close to the "real deal". There is the web of organisations that have at their core the same small elite. These organisations set up rules, regulations and policies that are presented to the public as having benign and often virtuous purposes while in fact when viewed as an interlocking whole their purpose is deeply nefarious. The collective actions of the IMF, BIS, Federal Reserve and the accounting and regulatory system provide yet another confirmation that the world financial crisis is a large scale application of the 'Shock Doctrine', designed to force the planet into accepting a new, more refined global system of control while fleecing us all in the process.

Olga Chetverikova has written that:

The events are following the same path as the Great Depression in 1929-1933: a financial crisis, an economic recession, social conflicts, establishing totalitarian dictatorships, inciting a war to concentrate power, and capital in the hands of a narrow circle. This time, however, the case in point is the final stage in the 'global control' strategy, where a decisive blow should be dealt to the national state sovereignty institution, followed by a transition to a system of private power of transnational elites.

The main mechanism for change and domination is the economy. But if the plan is indeed the control of everything and everyone, it needs to be complemented by changes in other areas, such as technology and communications. In that respect, it is alarming that the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is making its way through the U.S. Congress.

Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response. [...] One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. (sic) Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.

This is remarkable for both the extent of possible control, but also for the fact that modern telecommunications, such as the Internet, are global to a great extent.

Furthermore, it is interesting that while the global economic changes give more power to private bankers while making it appear that governments are in charge, this particular bill seems to be aiming at taking power off the private and into the 'public' (i.e. the government). This would be all so terribly confusing for us if we actually believed in 'isms' and labels and forgot the essential truth about politics and economics: the fact that regardless of the type of system or the name you give to it, it is the human quality of those in positions of authority that counts.

What we are really seeing, then, is not a contradictory struggle between the public vs the private, but rather the blurring of the line that apparently divides the two - and this is taking place on a global scale! In the end, it is again a matter of a global elite concentrating power while hiding behind a confusing conglomerate of political and economic organizations, both private and public. Because of this smoke-screen, it will be long until the people fully understand that we were led into the corral of a World Government - that is, assuming that we have not been there for long already....

 

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/183333-Connecting-the-Dots-A-Pandemic-Threatens-as-the-World-Government-in-Sight-is-Picking-up-a-Fight