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

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

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…

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.

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.

Well, he hasnt broken any law so there is no way to do that. (although his Czars come close but still dont brake any laws. I think we should watch it carefully and ensure that it doesnt happen.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

THis is playbook totalitarianism

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.

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.

I’m trying to understand where you are coming from on this comment. I’ve read over the summary and the only thing that I find even mildly objectional is making it unlawful to provide System security services with out specific accreditation. The rest of bill primarily focuses on the US Government and Contracting companys.

I find NOTHING in this that would regulate anything to do with private citizens.

Why wouldnt you want the government to be in control of their own Cyber Security standards? As it stands, there is really no specific security standards accross the board for all the US Govt agencies. AND there is a real need for the President to be advised on all things relating to cyber security. The real threat to this contries infrastructure is our cyber security. You destroy the network, you destroy the coutry’s ability to wage an effective an efficent war. This bill is NEEDED.

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.

Adolf?

Liberalism is not necessarily bad. Socialism, yes.

Everyone is entitled to their own ways of thinking.

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

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s amazing how ignorance runs rampant right?

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

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.

is this the start of attaching the first amendment