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.

cyberbillwatcher 06/09/2011 9:21am

ROCKEFELLER and his uncle David Rockefeller are the top illuminati in the U.S. and the internet is ruining their plans of the GLOBAL NWO takeover, and enslavement of people. They are DIRECTLY responsible for all these wars and the bankster thefts from Treasury to Wall Street. The Rockefeller Foundation financially backs 95% depopulation via toxic vaccines and chemtrails. He will CONTINUE to propose bills of this type unless he leaves congress. Vote fraud will keep him in. I’m OUTRAGED by his even proposing this bill. The U.S. is NOT secure BECAUSE OF congress’ open border policies. The internet has nothing to do with it, except to awaken people to his family’s EVIL. Rockefeller should turn his FULL ATTENTION to the ILLEGALS CROSSING THE BORDERS with no hindrance from Homeland INSecurity. THINK ABOUT IT: Has Senator Rockefeller EVER proposed anything GOOD for the American people?

jxfaughn 04/06/2011 9:52am
in reply to Koristar Feb 19, 2010 11:27am

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

JustinCA 04/02/2011 7:34am

Unbelievable… DO NOT support this bill. This is a blatant attempt to gain control via information, and believe that’s where all the power is. The more information you give up, the more power you don’t have. Next you know, they’ll want to read your mail before you… That’s what they do to people in prison!

shortsaleassist.org
U.S.A.P.

ReVox 09/07/2010 5:46am

Internet is the most democratic thing today in the world and Of course that’s why it doesn’t work for most governments in many cases, because internet gives so much information governments do not want you to know. And that is the main point why this bill is created !!!
ROCKEFELLER KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF INTERNET!

Greenlander 08/24/2010 12:49pm

Is the gov’t that concerned about DDoS attacks from Chinese script kiddies?

giovannizero 08/09/2010 8:35am
in reply to Ocyris Apr 03, 2009 12:55pm

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.

RickHeretikos 07/26/2010 7:26pm

Looks like Rockerfeller doesn’t want people finding out about his family ;)

Beware of false flag cyber attacks

dihayden29 07/22/2010 2:28pm

Well towards that end, I say screw the Government in thinking of “developing a new world order”. Its not North Korea its USA! Either protect, acknowledge and follow the Constitution written by our Forefathers where its says "We the People…. or be voted out plain and simple.

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…

dihayden29 07/22/2010 12:20pm
in reply to tjgmba Aug 30, 2009 6:53am

Ok, I dont know much about the intention of this bill w/out flipping out like before lol… The whole “power to turn off the internet at will” has me freaked out! However, If its like just to be able to get specialists to set up Cyberprotection against hackers; to find out who they are… sort of like when they beefed up Airline Security and now its like impossible to be able to fly and have luggage w/out it costing you an arm and a leg and searching you to the point where your almost naked …Then sure why not? But shouldn’t they have done this before on their own??

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!

qweesy 07/06/2010 3:01pm

Listen hear you globalist Jay Rockefeller, you NWO scab, I know about your great grand daddy John D (sr.)who was a snake oil sells-man and who helped bring in the Federal Reserve CARTEL to destroy this country.

Nobody wants your stinking censor the internet bill except the mind-controlled sheep, the only terrorist is you filthy scum-bucket not the fake AL-CIA-DUH you people keep fear mongering about to the American people, you will NEVER have your New World Order plan that you and your family desire.

Freedom Will Prevail, you maggot

coffee2go 06/30/2010 7:33am
in reply to DRSparktrician Jun 23, 2010 6:17pm

Sadly enough though, they are not just thinking about it…they are doing it.

coffee2go 06/30/2010 7:31am

This is completely ridiculous. It is funny that the majority of dissent, at least toward this current administration, can primarily be found on the internet, as well as talk radio. They are targeting talk radio with the “fairness doctrine” and now this is their attempt to stifle the free flow of information and opinion on the internet. I rely almost exclusively on the internet to make my living as a freelance editor. Not to mention that I receive all my bills “paperlessly” and pay those bills online. Shutting down the internet would completely cripple commerce and this country. Isn’t that what such a “cyber terror attack” would hope to achieve. So instead of such an attack being a causing a minor disruption, the government will do the heavy lifting and bring everything to a standstill for the terrorists! Where are all of the liberals and ACLU types when it comes to this one? For all the people who don’t think we are on the road to socialism…look again.

DRSparktrician 06/23/2010 6:17pm

Is Stallin hiding in our Senate? Has Carl Marx been resurected? What has happened to this nation?

The very thought of a member of our government thinking about something like this sickens me.

mastermeerkat 06/21/2010 8:57pm
in reply to justamick Nov 03, 2009 4:19am

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

mastermeerkat 06/21/2010 8:54pm
in reply to ericiscool Feb 11, 2010 11:59pm

(un)funny story about that….

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

so he wants us to be like commies.

LucasFoxx 04/13/2010 7:52pm
in reply to eliebig Apr 13, 2010 6:59am

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.

eliebig 04/13/2010 6:59am
in reply to justamick Nov 09, 2009 5:21am

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.

cskrmetti 04/10/2010 10:07am

I am researching this bill for a college paper that I am writing. At first I was a little less interested in this bill as it was something that just fit the criteria that I was working in. However, I as I read the bill, I became more interested. While I agree that we do need to invest in Cybersecurity Defense, I cannot agree with this bill as is. First it places too much of the responsibility on the Secretary of Commerce. While it is obviously that preventing disruption to commercial networks (financial specifically) is very important, there are several more police-type agencies already in existence that would be more qualified and better equipped. More importantly, as this bill is written, it allows far to much interpretation as to what constitutes a critical “private” network and specifically allows government run clearing house to collect data from these ambiguously defined networks without regard to current law and statue. It also allows too much freedom for the Executive Branch…

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?

Koristar 04/01/2010 5:56pm
in reply to LucasFoxx Mar 29, 2010 4:51pm

Amazing how sheeple dream up unintelligible crap to support fascist bills like this one.

Yep, LucasFoxx, This is a big deal, stepping on our rights is no doubt a big deal to American patriots. This “security bill” flat out disregards/abridges our first amendment! Why can’t you see that. Do you even care about our bill of rights? Are you even an American? You don’t sound like one. Yes, I do have to question you. Even if you did sat down and read this bill, you just seem not to care about the crap it brings. We don’t need a youth core to tattle tale on people that the government deems to be bad. We don’t need the government to decide what websites can or can not be on the web. We don’t need thumbscans or eyes scans or some kind of liscense to be able to access the web! I just don’t get people like you.

hellifiknow 03/31/2010 6:20am
in reply to Koristar Feb 19, 2010 11:27am

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

nmeagent 03/29/2010 6:12pm

This bill would possibly be constitutional if it only applied to servers and infrastructure owned by the federal government. They do not have the authority to designate private property as ‘critical infrastructure’ and then regulate the hell out of it. Designation of property as ‘critical infrastructure’ for the sake of some mythical concept of ‘national security’ does not trump private property rights! Otherwise, we truely have a fascist system in which the government can and will dictate how and when we use our property. It’s cybersecurity infrastructure today…what will it be next month, next year, or a decade from now? Where will you draw the line?

LucasFoxx 03/29/2010 4:51pm
Link Reply
+ -3

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.

ryandsmith 03/29/2010 10:57am

I thought this bill was dead in the water but Rockefeller has found a way to get it out of committee and onto the Senate floor. Shame Shame on any senator who supports this bill! This bill allows the president to to yet one more thing outside of the rule of checks and balances. The president could shut down the internet and no one would be able to stop him. He/She would be the only person who could restore access to the net.

TJWashington 03/24/2010 5:49am
in reply to TJWashington Mar 24, 2010 5:48am

We need to drop our blind support of political parties and start realizing what is actually going on here. Liberal and socialist ideas do not work for the good of the people and that has been proven time and time again by history. There is no argument there. One can say it is treason to revolt against the government but in reality it is a treasonist act to be apathetic in support of The Constitution. This document was written for the people to protect the people and it seems many of these very same people who enjoy living in this “free” county are more then willing to let their beloved government officials stomp all over it. This bill is one step in neutralizing the last real outlet for true information. Please stop living in your dream world and understand what is going on.

TJWashington 03/24/2010 5:48am
in reply to lisalart Nov 03, 2009 2:42pm

Obviously advances in technology have brought us to an existence that no one could have ever imagined. That being said, the only reason our world is different socially and politically is because we have relinquished so many of our rights for the sake of convenience and security. The Constitution will always stand strong, regardless of what we are driving or what medical advances we have made. To justify the lack of consideration for the Constitution because we aren’t living the same type of lifestyle as Thomas Jefferson is ludicrous.

Abramsgavin 03/23/2010 9:56pm
in reply to cadaverousmob Apr 07, 2009 6:17pm

That big bully bastard just start calling David Rockefeller 3BR

TheBillGuy 03/12/2010 11:09pm
in reply to mel Apr 09, 2009 5:16am

faxing them, e-mailing them, TEA party protests, mailing and e-mailing all of my friends, family and e-mail contacts……………what else do we do??
All these are good ideas. Posters work to. We can also use our voting power at the polls. If our elected representatives aren’t working for us, fire them!


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