President Obama Isn't Really Trying to Take Over the Internet

Yes indeed, everything is perfectly above board and compleely mis-understood --- yes-siree-bob!

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5308-obamas-cyber-control
Senate bill 773, the Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity Act of 2009, is currently being redrafted. An earlier version of the bill introduced in April caused a significant uproar when it appeared to give the executive branch the power to regulate, or even take control of, private networks, including the Internet.

Details about the rewrite of the bill leaked onto the Internet recently, and it appears that the offending language has been made more vague than the original, but that has not stopped cyber-rights groups and others from worrying about it’s impact. In fact, upon close inspection, the expected changes make it even more of a cause for concern than the more precise wording of the earlier version, despite the fact that some are downplaying the new language.

The controversial wording in the original bill would have given President Obama the authority and power to “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.” This would essentially give the President the power to shut down the internet when and to what extent he deemed necessary in the event of a natural disaster, wartime, or anything else that could be deemed a “cybersecurity emergency.”

Under the updated, more open-ended version of the bill, the President may, if he finds it necessary “for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network.” [Emphasis added].

This vague wording appears to give the president total control over any infrastructure related to cyberspace, in the event of an emergency, which the president is also empowered to declare. After all, being empowered to “direct the national response” necessarily implies that those operating “critical infrastructure” will have to follow any White House directives. Where it improves on the original, from the perspective of a Washington insider, bureaucrat, or politician, is that it does so by creating plausible deniability.

Originally, the only place the leaked version was available was as a download from tech journalist Declan McCullagh’s website and not from official sources. (The full text of the new draft is now available here.) Nevertheless, for official word about the rewrite we contacted Senator Snowe’s office in Maine, but staffers there refused to comment when asked about the revision and bluntly told us to “contact your local Senator.” We then contacted Senator Rockefeller’s office but all of his staff were “out for training.” Why the silence on what has been a high profile and controversial bit of legislation? As a last resort, we contacted Senator Russ Feingold's office, following the advice to contact a local Senator (in our case in Wisconsin). An aide from Senator Feingold’s office was kind enough to put in a request for the revised draft of the bill but commented that it was unlikely anything would be done.

http://current.com/items/90844735_will-a-emergency-rob-our-freedoms-of-speech.ht...=42�

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

The President--

(1) within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, shall develop and implement a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy, which shall include--

(A) a long-term vision of the Nation’s cybersecurity future; and

(B) a plan that encompasses all aspects of national security, including the participation of the private sector, including critical infrastructure operators and managers

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

So due to the fact that I can read I am unable to see where this act gives the President control over private internet networks. It would be a real stretch for the President or congress to claim that my link (ATT DSL) is critical infrastructure.

Here in lies the problem with the rapid dissemination of information in the modern day. People can read things they are not qualified to comprehend and then make snap judgments about them.

I had a similar discussion with a man earlier today that claims to have read the entire proposed health care bill twice. I said well that's great but reading something and comprehending it are 2 entirely different things.

I wouldn't put anything past Obama. We already know he's a bold faced liar. I don't trust him for a second.

Dude you seem to be attacking me for saying Obama wants to shut down private internet infrastructure but if you look at my comments, I never said that.

Some people have said that the bill would give the president that authority, but I challenge you to find where I said that. You won't.

I'm saying I don't trust congress and many don't either.

Even the Wired blogger admits Rockefeller had to go back and change some of the language in the original bill because it freaked people out so I really don't know what you're getting at.

After 9/11 the president was given sweeping powers by Congress. With most of those same criminals still acting with contempt for America, just because we have a new puppet on the stage doesn't mean Congress is going to stop writing these laws that give the president over-arching authority.

Sheesh, Obamalove knows no bounds here.

Pathetic really that the very first comment here still does not seem to get it.

Even the original bill only gave him power to shut down traffic to government networks which is by no means "shutting down the internet"

If you don't know what you are talking about don't talk you just look stupid.

Here is a perfect example of why shutting down government internet would not equate to shutting down the internet, I am a network engineer but don't take my word for it.

If you run a trace route from my system (or yours) to www.da.ru in Russia you will see that there are no government routers or servers involved in the process of routing that traffic.

I took out the first couple of hops for my own peace of mind but:

asn1299-telia.eqchil.sbcglobal.net - SBC (Now ATT) chicago router - the asn1299-telia represents the port that hop hit - Obviously the Telia port.
nyk-bb2-link.telia.net - Look like a telia router in New York.
ldn-bb1-link.telia.net - Look like another Telia router in London
ldn-b2-link.telia.net - London again.
ldn-tch-i2-link.telia.net - London again.
peterstar-01831-ldn-tch-i2.c.telia.net - St. Petersburg Russia?
All those hops were on TeliaSonera an International Carrier.
M120-1-325-SPB-RU.ge-2-0-2-0.nw.synterra.ru - NW may mean Nothwest Russia.
M120-1-321-SPB-RU.xe-1-0-0-0.nw.synterra.ru -
MX960-1-321-SPB-RU.xe-0-0-0-0.nw.synterra.ru - Synterra is another private carrier based in Russia.
wwwdaru.net.incru.net - Finally www.da.ru in russia.

None of those routers are government controlled.

So the point is that the very backbone of the internet is not run or maintained by the government and the original bill did not grant the President the power to shut down private networks (such as ATT) it only gave him the ability to shut down traffic in and out of government and internet connected infrastructures like power plants, the department of defense etc...

Networks like the internet are extremely complex so if you are going to read a bill that outlines the security of the government parts of that infrastructure and then comment about it in a hyperbolic and paranoid fashion the least you could do is educate yourself as to what is what.

A puppet the congress the congress are puppets
to corporations and so are the Tea baggers.

The bill still gives Obama (who really controls nothing, he's just a puppet) to control it in the event of a cyber attack.

Obama can't do anything unless the Congress, who is openly against free speech and the contitution, grant him the power.