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 181-210 of 224 total comments.

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.

BLD 08/28/2009 12:29pm
in reply to mel Apr 09, 2009 5:16am

Talk to people. Tell them to vote differently in 2010 & 2012. I am going to start asking people who voted for him what they thought he meant by “hope & chg” & then point out how what they expected is not what they got. I really don’t think that this is the change they thought.

I don’t think they expected a president who would appoint czars who seem to have more power than the secy of a govt. dept & are essentially setting policy for their puppets (the secys & Dems in Congress) to implement, but who don’t have to be confirmed by Congress. I don’t think O’s left-wing liberals & avowed socialists could be confirmed (e.g., Mark Lloyd). I don’t think most people expected a Pres. who was going to centralize power in the White House & run everything. Now the new terrorist interrogaters are reporting directly to W.H.?! I don’t think people expected a Pres. who would ERASE separation of the 3 branches so that he is the executive, legislative, and judicial branch

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.

BLD 08/28/2009 12:10pm
in reply to rmcc4444 Apr 03, 2009 10:02pm

I wish someone would file a suit to challenge the appointment of these czars and some of these other actions. A good start would have been for the CEO of GM to challenge his dismissal. At some point they have to get so overly confident with their actions that they violate the Constitution and someone will file. My hope is that someday he does something that could rise to the level of an impeachable offense at a time when Repubs/moderates are in power and can get him out.

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.

InksLWC 08/28/2009 9:07am
in reply to mel Apr 09, 2009 5:16am

Legislation can be introduced in either the Senate or the House. Legislation never bypasses the upper or lower house. If this bill passes the Senate, it would have to be voted on by the House too.

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.

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!

nmeagent 06/24/2009 9:21pm
in reply to mlandry Jun 16, 2009 3:17am

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.

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..

Filtered Comment [ show ]

nmeagent 06/06/2009 1:41pm
Link Reply
+ -2

Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the power to mandate or fund anything related to cybersecurity? It doesn’t fall under the interstate commerce clause it doesn’t have anything to do with making interstate commerce ‘regular’ in the original sense of the word, so why bother having the discussion? What about national security? National security ends where private property begins.

Get this garbage out of here. For that matter, let’s ditch about 90% of existing Federal programs while we’re at it.

jml6m 06/06/2009 7:49am

Just to clarify, I currently voted “Nay” on this bill until they revise some of the obvious problems.

jml6m 06/06/2009 7:47am
in reply to daringone Apr 17, 2009 6:03am

There are plenty of systems that NEED to be connected to the internet in order to be effective. For example, I once worked with a company who managed healthcare data which flowed all over the globe. It was of the utmost importance that it be connected to various servers around the world, and security was also a huge issue.

Your “Rule #1 of IT security” doesn’t apply in many cases.

jml6m 06/06/2009 7:45am

After reading a large part of the bill, it’s obvious that most people in this thread have not. I’m not necessarily for the passing of this bill, but the extra funding going towards cybersecurity training/jobs is a big plus in my opinion. However, it’s obvious that the government aims to be too involved with the internet, and I’m with everyone else, I don’t want a regulated internet.

But remember, the internet is a global phenomenon and is ever changing. In no way could the government keep up with it (or terrorists for that matter), and I wouldn’t be too worried about government control if the bill does get passed.

kevinmcc 05/07/2009 11:32am

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

Just read that section. This bill is so stupid.

No wonder congress is not getting things done, they think the virtual world is real life too.

mastershake 04/29/2009 11:48am

We have to stop these bills!

We don’t have much time to act!

Spread the word about these bills and prevent them from becoming law!

LBPruitt 04/27/2009 5:00pm

Please call the sponsors of this bill as well as your Senators. Numbers count to them. It seems like we are not doing anything, but in fact we are. If each of us would encourage at least 10-20 others to call and encourage them to do the same it will add up. Keep a data base of all your friends and family that are like minded. Create a data base of your own and get other people to act. We can’t give up. We have to fight this!

tmccullo 04/27/2009 4:16am

This is an extremely dangerous bill. This gives our government to control the flow of information at will since it does not describe what and “emergency” really is. This is the first step to socialism by controlling the information people get. The current administration is concerned that despite their attempts to control the main stream media, opposition groups are easily able to communicate through the internet. The best example of this is the TEA Parties. shut the internet down and they hope to end any dissent.

MercilessPit 04/25/2009 8:59pm

The internet, as the last bastion of unexpurgated information, is now in congress’s cross-hairs. We all know they want to have ultimate control over the information we receive so that they can censor information and keep the people in the dark about their dark agenda, that being ultimately unlimited control.

Aussie 04/24/2009 5:23am
Link Reply
+ -2

is this the start of attaching the first amendment

rightwingextremist 04/23/2009 4:21pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to rmcc4444 Apr 03, 2009 10:02pm

Here’s an idea. For those who just cannot drag their asses off the couch, while they are still roosting there, they should read Atlas Shrugged. Then maybe they will be able to connect the dots and be motivated to get off the couch.!!! It’s a long book folks, better get started or it will be too late.

mrdoctor100 04/20/2009 7:59pm

This is ridiculous. If this bill pass, Obama (directly himself) can implement Martial Law or National Emergency under any circumstances control over the internet.

Bye bye websites like Alex Jones, PAINSCOURT, and this one especially,Open Congress.org. PAIN is right: “You deserve every freedom you lose.”

asota 04/18/2009 5:58pm

This is very timely bill. There is some clarity required on some parts, however, process should clean out the kinks.

daringone 04/17/2009 6:03am

Ugh… am I the only person here that understands how boneheaded it is to even have as the bill puts it “critical infrastructure information systems” on the Internet anyhow? Rule #1 of IT security… if you don’t want it hacked, don’t connect it to the internet! At a previous employer, we had a separate internal network for critical systems to ensure security.

dindos_blessed62 04/13/2009 9:44pm
Link Reply
+ -1

This is just one of the beginnings of “Dictatorship” with our new found “top people” and what the heck does “We the People” mean to them? Absolutely nothing, if they want control of what goes out, maybe they should keep their computers to themselves, because obviously things are going wacko over there. The way I see it, it’s control over us and all for money, money and money. The monetary system is a complete failure and we need to revolt towards “the venus project” by our modern day davinci, Jacque Fresco and follow the “zeigeist movement” now! Come on people the government has not evolved, but we have.. do your research follow them titles I just told you about. www.thevenusproject.com

thecat 04/12/2009 2:51am

As far as the Rockefellers go, they have not had to go through the same life as the general public, like so many other of the Senators and Congressmen. Their arrogance to think that they really know what’s best for this Country is ridiculous. If you want to help something, donate your money to medical research, or the prevent the cruelty to animals, but don’t whine about how badly you think your family has been labeled over the years.

thecat 04/12/2009 2:37am

This is another way Obama’s group can control the information reveived by the American people. He’s already trying to control radio, television and the newspapers. He does’t want the people to know what’s really going on, and obviously neither to some of the Senators and Congressmen, that may be the only way they can preserve their positions. Everyone knows Knowledge is power, and they are trying to control the Knowledge. As far as internet security, if you want it secure, don’t put in on the internet. You have no privacy on the internet, telephones or cell phones.It’s for communications, not secret information…………..

Mrs_B 04/10/2009 11:39am

“SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.
The President—

(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"….

i.e., the PRESIDENT CAN SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET.

Mrs_B 04/10/2009 11:35am

Sec. 14(a) Public Private Clearinghouse: “DESIGNATION- The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal Government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.”

(b)The Secretary of Commerce(1)shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access."

CATCH THAT? The Dept. of Commerce is in charge of cybersecurity and is given access to ANY & ALL networks & nobody can say no to them!! What the heck nonsense is this, oh Senators???


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