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

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.

http://www.ukcolumn.org/2010/02/02/child-rapists-protected-by-the-state/

now their going to stage internet attacks to justify their tryanny…………………COME ON ROCKY THE PEOPLE ARE ON TO U GUYS….ALL STAGED……….NO ON THE NEW HEALTHCARE NAZI BILL TOO…..

I am a IT Security Analyst and I spend most of my time protecting you idiots from yourselves. The bill, as proposed, does not shut down the Internet. The bill allows the Government to shut down access to federal IT resources to protect the information on those resources from attack by armies of attackers ranging from hostile nationstates (Chine, N. Korea, Russia etc.) are trying to access that information and damage your interests. Instead of whining about how bad this bill is, why don’t you get off your couches and find out just how dangerous the Internet has become to this country and your way of life. Last month, a hostile nationstate mounted an attack of a large segment of the national electrical grid. Three months ago an attack was mounted on two major federal agencies to access critical files and install back doors and rootkits on their systems. You people live in some kind of Lala land if you think this kind of legislation is not needed.

Uhh… the bill sponsor is a DEMOCRAT.

And I happen to know the threats that are out there. THAT is why I support this bill.

thank you for clarifying how the law is written.

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.”

You asked where in the consitution this law is justified. Well, I think I found it:

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states, while listing the powers of congress:

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

I would say that they think this law is “necessary and proper.”

First, it is interstate commerce. Second, the money being budgetted will mean central secure nodes to identify hacker/terrorists. They will be able to declare an emergency to monitor or intercept or stop anything passing through their US government property.

lol, so very lol.

Let me explain something to YOU… There will ALWAYS be something going on out there that you will not know ANYTHING about because of two things… Clearance and Need to know. These are the two governing principles that bar the general public from knowing all that goes on behind the political interactions of government leaders.

This is not Nazi Germany, this is not the USSR and this is not Communist China. There are REAL threats to this country. There are REAL threats to it’s Information System Security infrastructure. It is essential that it is protected from extra-governmental bodies and internal threats alike.

Most of the complaints here are much ado about nothing. They should strike the authority to declare a state of CyberSecurity Emergency. First of all, it is superfluous; the Executive branch already has the authority to declare a National Emergency and act according to the situation. Secondly, how can the President declare something that isn’t defined in this document? Strike it.

The purpose of this bill is to expedite a process that should have begun years ago. I thought the NSA was supposed to working the communications side of the street. As it is, this just establishes a procedure identifying critical information systems (both public and private), and creating a security strategy, and reporting back to congress. It also looks at developing Best Practices guidelines (ala SOX), and lays out education and public awareness programs.

This is a big deal, but it’s not the kind of big deal some people here are making it.

It states that the president is to keep the balance of states. The internet is a direct threat to the balance of the states and even the balance of the whole planet. Thus it has become the presidents job to do something about regulating the flow of information. I am not even sure the government realizes what is happening and what is going to happen because of the internet. This bill is concerned with securing not balancing.

People have jumped to quickly into the information age, and they are not ready for it. Time to get burned.

Okay, let’s just be honest and clear what is happening here. Net neutrality is about equal routing priority. I’ll use an analogy. Say it’s like the roadway system. You and I have a single driveway to our house. We can realistically get one car in and out at any given time. The port of Los Angeles has a state highway going into. They need to have trucks going in and out all the time. But then on the freeway your little car and the trucks all have the same priority regardless of traffic.

What this bill is trying to avoid is a fast lane for trucks.

If you designated a fast lane for trucks it would take forever for you to get to work, visit your family, etc, because you and they can’t afford to buy their own freeway lanes.