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 1-30 of 224 total comments.

  • Ocyris 04/03/2009 12:55pm
    Link Reply
    + 33

    I’ve been looking for this one. Where in the constitution is the congress given the power to regulate the flow of information? Simple it isn’t and that’s the point. This is another enormous grab for power by the federal government in the “Public’s Interested” when it is completely against the same. As many know security on the internet requires administrator to be very agile and independent. Adding a federal bureaucracy on top of it all would be the same as trying to break dance with a dead elephant strap to your back. Or perhaps to be bipartisan dead elephant and donkey.

  • Comm_reply
    cordesa 08/29/2009 3:58pm

    I agree. This bill reaches too far.

    I like the aspects that promote “Cybersecurity Standards”, however giving the government CONTROL… NO.

  • Comm_reply
    justamick 12/14/2009 3:24am
    Link Reply
    + -2

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

  • Comm_reply
    Koristar 02/19/2010 11:27am

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

    answer: Their own government I.T. Administration department! If the government agencies truly are getting hacked by the Chinese or whoever else, then they need to get on the ball and hire more competent programmers to secure “their own” networks.

    How exactly by passing this bill is the government going stop these “foreign hackers”? Because the government servers get hacked, we should give up our freedoms on the internet? NO!

  • Comm_reply
    hellifiknow 03/31/2010 6:20am

    Like your comment but would interject one thing….. “their own” should be
    “our own”… we the people of America its our government not some mysterious “their”…lol

  • Comm_reply
    dihayden29 07/22/2010 12:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    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!

  • Comm_reply
    jxfaughn 04/06/2011 9:52am

    On another note regarding the IT admin and security, it is common knowledge that the government “hires” hackers commonly to assist in its security.

  • Comm_reply
    ericiscool 02/11/2010 11:59pm

    I agree, this bill is too much. It’s pure communism these guys are promoting!. fight against it!.

  • Comm_reply
    mastermeerkat 06/21/2010 8:54pm

    (un)funny story about that….

    .. joe LIEberman used the arguement that china can do it

    so he wants us to be like commies.

  • Comm_reply
    ourfreedomnow 09/02/2009 5:36pm

    We are the United States of America. Not Iran. These are the sorts of tactics used in totalitarian and dictatorial nations. The first rule of a coup is to seize and control all communications. When the “government” in Iran didn’t want their population communicating they shut down the internet. Is this what our current administration and lap dogs want for us, the People? They can’t handle the truth and all they seem to want is power. We need to do everything in our collective power to make sure that anyone who supports this nonsense is removed from office for ever.

  • Comm_reply
    racergirlmere 09/08/2009 5:08am

    Becoming more and more like Russia…..

  • Comm_reply
    gedanz 10/01/2009 9:40am

    I agree with Ocyris completely. Of course we have now ALL BRANCHES of our government who each are supposed to check the others. And, of course we all know that ALL Branches of our government are supposed to have READ and FOLLOWED the US Constitution, but it is apparant more and more that they do not do either.

    I believe that we all need to focus on a few important issues, rather than the scatter-gun approach we have used in our TEA PARTY group. If I had to pick the one issue which would drive down the size and cost of government while at the same time taking back our liberty and freedom, it would be forcing our Congress, Judicial and Executive branches to follow the darn Constitution.

    What do you all think?

  • Comm_reply
    Americantiredofit 10/09/2009 3:40pm

    Do we have any Constitutional Law experts that have any input where these bills are concerned? What the hell is going on? What’s going to happen when they decide to shut down the internet for security reasons? This government is not “of the people, for the people, or by the people”. Very scary….

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    countupir 11/13/2009 1:56pm

    You didn’t read this bill at all. Net neutrality is a completely different issue.

  • Comm_reply
    AesSedai 02/23/2010 5:44am

    The Constitution limits the power and control the government may exert. This bill does not fall within their job description.

    Is there a good reason to not uphold the Constitution? The answer to that should be a show stopper. What else is there to discuss? If it’s not one of their Constitutional privileges then it doesn’t happen. We give them ALL their “privileges” to protect our “rights” – and that’s about it. We are King, each of us!

    Yes, please, let’s just be honest and clear – this is not even a benign bill. The passage of it would serve only to open the door for their sinister, “the end justifies the means,’ New World Order motives!

    Support this bill? See these:

    Agenda 21 – their brand of “environmentalism”

    “depopulation and Henry Kissinger” to see his depopulation plan.

    “Zbigniew Brzezinski” (obama’s foreign policy advisor)

    “Jekyll Island”

    Read the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto (familiar?)

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    lisalart 11/03/2009 2:43pm

    Thank god!! Glad to see there’s someone else on here who is actually reading the bill!

  • Comm_reply

    Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    eliebig 04/13/2010 6:59am

    A simple question from the “ignorant opposition” – Who is going to pay for this – see Sec 4.11.1 and 2, Sec 5.6.a. What is wrong with the current NIST 800-53 standards? How about COBIT and ISO 27001? Do we need a bill to start an effort to tell us what we already have spent years on developing just to grow government? What about the "certification aspect – Sec 7.8.a – Why should the government dictate “what certification” I should hold to “practice security”. I am a security professional and my certifications apply directly to the areas of security relevant to my practice. There is way more to “security” than any single certification can cover. This type of overarching regulatory quagmire is the same as the simple roots to Sarbanes Oxley – which, for the ignorant, costs millions nay billions to support and little benefit has been appreciated as many companies still need to “restate” their earnings each year. Be careful of snake oil salesmen that try to sell you the source.

  • Comm_reply
    LucasFoxx 04/13/2010 7:52pm

    Those are certianly not ignorant considerations.

    The standards you mention are just that: standards for best practices. What this bill does is pushes the Executive and Legislative branches to gather information from sources like you’ve cited, and to inventory what should be considered national security, and seeks processes by which critical infrastructure can be best protected.

    I’m not sure what costs you are referring to (Sec 4.11.1 and 2, Sec 5.6.a.)

    As a security professional, your certifications are constantly evolving. All this means is that there will be national standards which only effects the providers of your certifications and what you will need to know to be certified.

    On one hand, I agree: Sarbanes-Oxley is a quarterly pain in the ass. On the other hand, S-O has probably saved investors and employees (and probably taxpayers at large) millions (if not billions) in loses because of the slacker/hackers in the IT departments of publicly traded companies.

  • Comm_reply
    mastermeerkat 06/21/2010 8:57pm

    it allows the govt to block out parts of the internet or just shut it off.

    like iran, saudi arabia, china, and other repressive dictatorships like that

  • Comm_reply
    gemma_trimm 12/21/2009 9:07am

    Didn’t you know? Information is commerce and the internet is everywhere so…

  • Comm_reply
    jackofmanytrades 01/02/2010 8:50pm

    I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

    -James Madison (Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06))

    This is one of those silent encroachments and it must be stopped.

  • Comm_reply
    JohnLloydScharf 01/02/2010 9:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    gosox5555 01/03/2010 4:59am
    Link Reply
    + -3

    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.”

  • Comm_reply
    Opomon 03/12/2010 4:11pm

    Yes, this is dubbed by many as the “Necessary and Proper” clause. It has been used throughout the history of our country to create new rules impeding on certain people’s freedom’s either for the good or bad of our country depending on your opinion. It pretty much means that our government can do whatever they want if we let them, even if in some ways it goes against rights granted to us by our founding fathers.

  • Comm_reply
    Jerod 03/09/2010 8:05am
    Link Reply
    + -4

    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.

  • Comm_reply
    giovannizero 08/09/2010 8:35am

    Some provisions of this bill could be considered under the 1st amendment. I can’t speak for everything in this but net neutrality is very important. The problem right now is that ISPs can and do discriminate on the types of information their users can access. There are very few ISPs so you essentially have a corporate takeover of free speech online.

    http://gigaom.com/2008/07/11/comcast-caught-denies-blocking-traffic/

    It’s important that ISPs not be allowed to discriminate traffic. Again, I haven’t read the details of this particular bill but enforcing net neutrality should not be misconstrued as a government takeover of the Internet. Net neutrality guarantees that all of us can speak freely online without ISPs tipping the scales.

  • rmcc4444 04/03/2009 10:02pm
    Link Reply
    + 20

    Enough is enough. What is it going to take for you people to get off your couch and do something? Join a group and get active for gods sake. Where do you people draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough?

    This is AMERICA. Things are so out of whack they we aren’t even looking at the real issues. Do you think Thomas Jefferson had to get a marriage license? A concealed carry permit? A permit to organize on public streets?

    Time is running out. If you think I’m an alarmist I suggest you keep doing your research until you get 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