Author Topic: Cybersecurity Law  (Read 2527 times)

The Entity

  • Guest
Cybersecurity Law
« on: April 09, 2009, 21:30 »
seems a bit extreme

Cybersecurity law would give feds unprecedented net control 

By Dan Goodin in San FranciscoGet more from this author
Posted in Security, 1st April 2009 21:45 GMT

  US senators have drafted legislation that would give the federal government unprecedented authority over the nation's critical infrastructure, including the power to shut down or limit traffic on private networks during emergencies.
The bill would also establish a broad set of cybersecurity standards that would be imposed on the government and the private sector, including companies that provide software, IT work or other services to networks that are deemed to be c

   The bill, which is being co-sponsored by Senate Commerce Committee chairman John Rockefeller IV and Senator Olympia Snowe, was expected to be referred to a senate committee on Wednesday. Shortly after a working draft of the legislation began circulating, some industry groups lined up to criticize it for giving the government too much control over the internet and the private companies that make it possible.   "This gives the president too much power and there's too little oversight, if there's any at all," said Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "It gives him the power to act in the interest of national security, a vague term that has been broadly defined."
Nojeim was pointing to language in the bill that permits the president to "order the limitation or shutdown of internet traffic to and from any compromised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network" after first declaring a national cybersecurity emergency. A separate provision allows the executive in chief to "order the disconnection of any federal government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."
"It applies to any critical infrastructure," Nojeim added. "Surely, the internet is one."
The bill would also require NIST, or the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to draft "measurable and auditable cybersecurity standards for all federal government, government contractor, or grantee critical infrastructure information systems and networks." The standards would govern software configuration and security and would apply to vendors, contractors and federal employees who administer nationally vital networks.
Under the legislation, it would also be illegal for employees or contractors providing "cybersecurity services to any federal agency or an information system or network designated by the president, or the president’s designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program."
A second bill, also co-sponsored by Rockefeller and Snowe, would establish a national cybersecurity advisor who would report directly to the president. The advisor would serve as the executive branch's lead official on all cyber matters and would coordinate with intelligence officials and civilian agencies. The bill largely codifies recommendations issued in December by more than 60 security experts in government and the private sector.
The Obama administration has outlined a master plan that largely follows those recommendations pending a 60-day review.
The bills are intended to protect a broad range of the nation's infrastructure - including networks for the country's banking industry, utilities, transportation and telecommunications - from cyber attacks.
Few security professionals doubt that critical infrastructure is vulnerable to terrorist sabotage or criminal cyber attacks that could shut down large swaths of the economy. But they also look at the government's track record in defending its own networks and worry the measures could end up making matters worse.
"There's a lot of good stuff in here, but a lot of it is easier said then done," said Tom Parker, director of commercial security services at Alexandria, Virginia-based Securicon. "My concern about the bill in general is around what has not been specified, will be interpreted and implemented. There is a lot of wiggle room in there." ®
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 21:32 by The Entity »

Offline Lorelei

  • Hill 10 Situation
  • Posts: 895
  • I can haz ferret.
Re: Cybersecurity Law
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2009, 19:04 »
The April 1st dateline makes me ponder.

Similar laws have been shouted down before.
"Once the foundation of a revolution has been laid down, it is almost always
in the next generation that the revolution is accomplished." -- Jean d'Alembert

The Human Wiki.
"I spend hours surfing the web for information, so you don't have to!"

Offline Aquaman

  • Met Xenu
  • Posts: 44
Re: Cybersecurity Law
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2009, 11:40 »
I dunno... at a glance, it looks like it's referring specifically to the government, or infrastructure run by the government.

I'll have to read the bill in full, later, to see if it's just "ZOMGWTFBBQ TEH WORLD IS ENDING!" hyper-overreaction or there's some actual substance to be concerned about.

Offline mefree

  • High Value Target
  • Posts: 4,369
Re: Cybersecurity Law
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2009, 21:53 »
Hey Slimjim. What is your take on this?
The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis.
-Dalai Lama


  • Guest
Re: Cybersecurity Law
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2009, 19:12 »
yeah slim!!