S.773 - Cybersecurity Act of 2009

A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes. view all titles (4)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Cybersecurity Act of 2010 as reported to senate.
  • Official: A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes. as introduced.
  • Popular: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 as introduced.
  • Short: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 as introduced.

Comments Feed

Displaying 91-120 of 224 total comments.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    nmeagent 06/24/2009 9:21pm

    If you really cannot see the glaring ‘freedom vulnerabilities’ in the text of this bill (e.g., the potential for arbitrary definition of various private systems as ‘critical infrastructure’ potentially giving the executive power over them), remind me not to hire you to audit code.

  • Spam Comment

  • SilkWhispers 06/24/2009 10:51am

    Hm. I’m not seeing the words “government” or “federal” mentioned anywhere, but I’m sure as seeing a lot of “public”, “private”, and “commerce”, words oft associated with Freedoms..

    Simultaneously need to be keeping an eye out on that rumored deal where DC has expressed extreme interest in controlling the laying of the future (highspeed) Internet..

  • Spam Comment

  • HenryMorgan 07/05/2009 6:55am

    The federal government has no right to interfere with communications and the dissemination of information. Aside from that, did anyone notice that the committee would report to the president? Were this a legal thing in the first place, the appropriate place for them to report to would be Congress!

  • Spam Comment

  • LarryFine 08/28/2009 7:39am

    We will not stand for this nonsense. The continued power grab and attempts to control every aspect of our lives has gone too far. We The People need to stand up to this government and demand they respect and adhere to the laws set forth in our Constitution.

  • carigis 08/28/2009 10:12am

    Hmmm.. MAybe Im missing something.. where does the bill say he can take over the internet and private companies internet access..

    Hmmm.. MAybe Im missing something.. where does the bill say he can take over the internet and private companies internet access..I see federal government computer system and critical infrastructure (which I would assume is like electric company, water company nuke plant. sounds reasonable to me). Maybe Im wrong and the internet itself is considered critical infrastructure.. I have no idea. so someone please fill me in. maybe they just need to clarify the bill a bit better?

    Hmmm.. MAybe Im missing something.. where does the bill say he can take over the internet and private companies internet access..I see federal government computer system and critical infrastructure (which I would assume is like electric company, water company nuke plant. sounds reasonable to me). Maybe Im wrong and the internet itself is considered critical infrastructure.. I have no idea. so someone please fill me in. maybe they just need to clarify the bill a bit better?and please… no alex jones fans.. my head hurts enough.. I dont need to hear about top secret amtrak station gas chambers and I don’t need to buy gold, tons of canned food, bunkers or penis enhancement pills, or anything to do with the NWO..or about alex making more money off not so intelligent people who will believe anything.. so please don’t waste your time.. thanks.

  • rmpayne2 08/28/2009 12:11pm

    Congress is now afraid of the people of the United States having a free and open forum to express themselves and are trying to thinly veil it as a security issue- the only security they seek to protect is thier own position and wish to squelch any opinion that may differ from thiers- this is unlawful and against the will of the people. The jack booted Nazis tried to stop free speach as well.

  • ConcernedHumanBeing 08/28/2009 4:42pm

    This bill is about more than just the First Amendment. Read the Definitions in Section 23 especially:

    (2) CYBER- The term `cyber’ means—

    • (A) any process, program, or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or an intranet, automatic data processing or transmission, or telecommunication via the Internet or an intranet; and
    • (B) any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks. (Our necessities are ALL delivered via the internet/automatic data processing or transmission…telephones, electricity, water, heating/cooking fuel, etc)

    Section 18 gives the power to the President (or his designee, in other words, he could outsource the ability) to declare an emergency and shut it ALL off or limit access as he sees fit. In combination with the definitions of Section 23, this is all out dictatorship.

  • Simon999 08/28/2009 7:32pm

    I wish there was a way I could hide all the posts from people who haven’t read the bill. The ignorance being posted is mind boggling. It actually hurts my eyes to accidentally read what many of you are posting.

    1. The original legislation was proposed back in April and hasn’t gone anywhere. At this point I think it’s just lacking supporters.
    From the actual Bill:

    (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;

    (5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;

    (6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security"….

    People, read the bill.

  • Simon999 08/28/2009 7:34pm

    (follows previous post)

    This meaning that basically any government related network such as national power grids, water plants. (Things that don’t need to be accessible from the internet to begin with) will be under the control of the president during a time of an emergency.

    This doesn’t affect the (Internet) as a whole. The internet is not a central computer that sits in a government warehouse with an On/Off button. The internet is a protocol, not an object. Basically it is the collection of various servers and networking devices from all over the world.

    You simple can’t just “Turn it off” which is what many people are fearing.

    So in short, if we the united states was under some kind of Cyber attack, the President could not turn off (Slashdot.org, digg.com, weather.com) but they could control the networks of those that are government related.

  • Simon999 08/28/2009 7:35pm

    BTW, while it’s quite a lot of things, being disconnected from the Internet is NOT a breach of my privacy. I hadn’t heard that Echelon was dismantled, so I’m pretty sure that anything I send out unencrypted is being parsed (and anything encrypted stored for future reference) even without this particular emergency order. My stuff on my computer is still on my computer.

    And I know I’m going to get flamed for this, but frankly it’s about time that this kind of thing was talked about and put into law.

  • Spam Comment

  • Simon999 08/28/2009 7:36pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    The bits of the Internet that are on sovereign US territory are most certainly vital national infrastructure by now, and the law needs to be updated. It’s long past time that the US government, and the US population woke up to the threat vectors presented by the Internet, and deal with the hard questions surrounding what to do when the “cyber war” eventually happens, whether it’s concerted non-state entities mounting an attack against Internet connected infrastructure or government/military Internet areas, or state entities.

  • Simon999 08/28/2009 7:36pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    f we have finally decided, or are close to deciding, what level of “attack” through networks constitutes a declaration of war (and if we haven’t, we damn well should be doing THAT too), then the POTUS as Commander In Chief needs to be able to do the kind of crap you do in an attack on your country. And putting into law is a LOT better than letting whomever is the President at the time make up his powers in that situation from the ether like the Bush Administration did. This particular bill may or may not be the correct answer.

    Something like this, however, is going to and should be put in place.
    I’m all for using the political process to make it the best possible bill, but acting like the government shouldn’t ever be able to do this kind of thing is fantasy.

  • tbgallien 08/29/2009 2:17pm

    Fascism
    They are afraid of people waking up.

  • billkarwin 08/29/2009 3:01pm

    I’m not feeling all Chicken Little like some people about this bill, but I think it’s too vague on some crucial areas, like who gets to decide what “emergency” means? Where are the checks and balances?

    How about a compromise to create a cybersecurity warning system. The govt can serve the people by notifying IT managers of a possible cybersecurity threat, and then the IT managers can evaluate it for themselves and take responsible action. The govt would provide notification only.

    I do take the potential threat of cyberterrorism seriously, but the US, unlike many countries, has a special tradition of relying on the private sector for quick action. Let’s have a cybersecurity defense plan that leverages that strength.

  • dvlfrmdnvr 08/30/2009 6:49am

    "" Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;" is NOT the whole internet."

    Just to clairify critical systems would be reffering to the core routers on the internet owned by AT&T, Nortel, Qwest etc.

    Technically you could shut down these routers and kill the internet, one thig no one has mentioned is that the military already has this ability in case of an attack on the U.S. after all the internet was originally built by the military. Although the executive branch could access the core routers and block private IP addresses!!

    Write your senators and congressmen/congresswoman to tell them if they vote for this you will vote them out!!

  • prpetty 08/30/2009 7:06am
    Link Reply
    + -1

    As this bill is written it says ‘the president will develop a plan within 180 days of passage’. Why can’t a plan of what would be impacted, be developed before we granted the president the rights to do what was in the plan? I do not oppose protecting the federal government’s infrastructure and they should be doing that already, but to grant broad sweeping power to the president or a possible ‘czar’ without defining “exactly” what that power is, is at best arrogant.

  • mazdastuff 08/30/2009 10:34am

    This bill is loosely held together with a greater intent to lock down free speech. If you are worried about the power grids, banking and such then lock down your Intranet…not our INTERNET. Career Politicians have sold us out for too long. they don’t want Term Limits…Voter Imposed Term Limits are Coming.

  • jazz836062 08/30/2009 11:24am

    This is another attempt at the same thing that was tried a couple years ago with the “Net Neutrality” bill. That one failed, or at least lost some steam, so they made a new one.

    Over reaching is an understatement. Potential loss of freedoms due to federal regulation is the exact wrong thing.

    I have already written both my senators and congressman expressing my opinion. They probably won’t listen to what I have to say but at least it is a start.

  • FallenMorgan 08/30/2009 11:49am

    Anybody else smell fascism?

  • BIGBROTHER 08/31/2009 11:48am

    This Bill is insane. America is great because we developed the internet into a Free Communications Channel for the Citizens of this country. Where does it state the government can take control of the internet at it’s free will? www.1984now.org dissected this bill, and explains it’s technical issues.

  • deborahg6 08/31/2009 3:23pm

    Wow. Vote this guy out of office people. I will throw every bit of financial support to his opponent. The Rockefellers are serious Progressives, get him out!!!

  • Spam Comment

  • deborahg6 08/31/2009 3:36pm

    Also, get rid of Olympia Snowe of Maine. What is up with this woman? What is up with Maine? Check out her voting record people….stimulus, Cap and Trade…what the heck?

  • jgides 09/01/2009 8:31am

    I wouldn’t trust these clowns to drive my cat let alone trust them with CyberSecurity!!

  • midknight 09/01/2009 8:31am

    the internet is truly the last place we have freedom of speech… once we start censoring and regulating there is no stop… internet is the greatest tool devised by the human mind to bring everyone together… let the users handle it…


Vote on This Bill

6% Users Support Bill

182 in favor / 2691 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments