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.

Filtered Comment [ show ]

justamick 11/11/2009 3:09am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to hocestbellum Sep 03, 2009 1:47pm

Adolf?

Liberalism is not necessarily bad. Socialism, yes.

Everyone is entitled to their own ways of thinking.

dihayden29 07/22/2010 12:00pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to Koristar Feb 19, 2010 11:27am

I completely agree!! IT’S Completely Ridiculous to think that our Federal Government is INCAPABLE to have sufficiently good I.T. Admin or Tech Support Personnel that have all the securities like any other normal person with internet on their computers should have like Firewalls, Anti-virus, Spyware-Adware … They should have a very High-Tech Ultimate level Security Coded thing like the ones Online banks have when doing transactions on their website. I mean EVERY company with a website (even in retail) have their own Tech Support Technician people who could figure out even the most complicated HTML language…

What I can’t get through my head is … Why don’t the government servers have the same kind of Protection?? I seriously doubt that this bill will do anything to keep the hackers from attacking government servers… ITS THE BIGGEST POWERTRIP!! Stop being so damn proud and ellictist and FIND AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION!

justamick 11/11/2009 3:03am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to Simon999 Aug 28, 2009 7:35pm

The majority of these people, who granted are ignorant on the issue, are not complaining about invasion of privacy… they are complaining about infringement on their Constitutionally garunteed rights.

Just need to ensure that you understood that.

justamick 11/03/2009 4:23am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to gotogirl Aug 29, 2009 1:59pm

First of all, cite a source on that ascertation.

Second of all, that is completely false. Case and Point: the health care legislation that Baccus created SPECIFICALLY relates to spending!

hocestbellum 09/03/2009 1:47pm
Link Reply
+ -1

The liberal/socialist movement in this country led by Obama to destroy the Bill of Rights and the Constitution CAN AND MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS! His agenda is not that different from Adolph Hitler’s.

joejoejoejoe47 09/01/2009 8:45pm
Link Reply
+ -1

THis is playbook totalitarianism

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

lisalart 11/03/2009 2:40pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to BLD Aug 28, 2009 12:29pm

Oh yes, we liberals are trying to take over the world. Look where the Republicans’ hands off approach got us. Sorry that you live in such a fear-based world.

justamick 11/11/2009 3:01am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to HenryMorgan Jul 05, 2009 6:55am

They do if it is within the Government itself… i.e. within US Govt agency networks…

And no, it would be appropriate for the committe to report to the President AND Congress not one or the other.

tonysijr 10/02/2009 10:07am
Link Reply
+ -1

I think this bill has some good aspects to it but it also is flawed with some of the language. Sen. Rockefeller should find a way to reword the bill so that it gets to the main point he’s trying to tackle. Protecting the American people is his goal but by regulating the Internet in this manner is all wrong. I oppose this bill!

justamick 12/04/2009 2:40am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to justamick Dec 04, 2009 2:39am

Oh, and to answer your question, I am NOT for big Gov’t. I am opposed to it. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that the government doesn’t have the right to police it’s own agencies in regards to Information System Security.

Please, make another idiotic, ignorant comment like the one above.

BenjaWiz 12/16/2009 5:47am
Link Reply
+ -1

People don’t buy into this Republican fear tactic this card is always played to get their way just like the PATRIOT ACT 1,2,3 which is in it’s current form in violation of our Civil Liberties, Privacy and this bill is no different more government control.

Anonymous 02/22/2010 6:24am
Link Reply
+ -1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtryOXAp8Fw&feature=related

justamick 11/09/2009 5:19am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to lunisneko Sep 03, 2009 1:44pm

Spoken like a person who really doesnt know what they are talking about. The above statement is refering specifically to the compromise of US Govenrment Information systems. US Govt intranets and WANs can disconnect from the internet to protect against cyber attack.

justamick 12/16/2009 12:06pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to BenjaWiz Dec 16, 2009 5:51am

One additional thing, this bill is not suggesting someone besides a qualified Information System Security professional should handle aspects of the GOVERNMENTS IS Security policies. Do you even understand how Government Agencies work? OR are you just another uninformed citizen that bases all of their limited information on hearsay, and baseless information? I find a lot of comments like yours come from people who haven’t the slightest idea how a government agency works.

dihayden29 07/22/2010 2:19pm
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to lisalart Nov 03, 2009 2:42pm

Yea thats true. At least in Jefferson’s time, they cared about the Constitution unlike they do today and they had morals unlike they have now…

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.

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.

justamick 12/15/2009 6:54am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to BenjaWiz Nov 17, 2009 8:56am

Another comment from an individual who does not understand the content and scope of this bill.

justamick 11/10/2009 4:01am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to mlandry Jun 16, 2009 3:17am

I agree with you, but calling them idiots is crossing the line. Ignorant, yes. Misinformed, yes.

justamick 12/16/2009 11:53am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to BenjaWiz Dec 16, 2009 5:51am

Very nice how you completely avoided what I just said… Are you telling me that the Federal Government SHOULD NOT police it’s own agencies? Is THAT what you are saying?

Did you know, that Information System Security IS handled by qualified professionals with certifications like CCSP? Of course you didn’t, because you’re speaking like you know what you’re talking about when you actually have no clue.

Continue to enlighten the rest of us in the lack of knowledge you have in this subject.

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.

justamick 12/16/2009 12:00pm
Link Reply
+ -1

FYI, this encompasses more than Network Security. Information System Security is an all encompassing concept that covers networks, servers an workstations as well as the domain in which information is shared between all of these systems.

Curly 12/18/2009 9:40am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to mel Apr 09, 2009 5:16am

Mel is right, we are powerless to do anything non violent to make our representatives listen to us. They will always only look out for themselves.

What we can do:
Vote out all sitting politicians. Elect new ones at every level. That will be the most powerful message we can send. Unfortunately we can only send it every 2 or 4 years.

justamick 11/11/2009 2:59am
Link Reply
+ -1
in reply to SilkWhispers Jun 24, 2009 10:51am

wow, really? Even though it is right infront of your face? weird.

allenrob 12/02/2009 8:09am
Link Reply
+ -2
It’s always the same. Rule number one for getting the people to go along;scare them. “Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” Hermann Goering

Like Hermann said.“It’s easy.”

LucasFoxx 04/02/2010 3:40pm
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to Koristar Apr 01, 2010 5:56pm

Where, in this bill, is your abridgement of the 1st amendment?

Filtered Comment [ show ]

justamick 12/14/2009 3:24am
Link Reply
+ -2
in reply to cordesa Aug 29, 2009 3:58pm

Who, exactly, should control the Government’s Cyber security standards for it’s own agencies?


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