2011-02-03T11:34:19Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/67615 2011-02-03T11:34:19Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-03:/comment/226892 fakk2 So, this bill does nothing as wrote, which makes me wonder WTF are they thinking trying to pass legislation which makes vague references to "protecting and increasing the resiliency of United States’ critical infrastructure and assets, including the...financial sector, and telecommunications networks against cyber attacks and other threats and vulnerabilities". This rings mighty close to the cyber security act they tried to pass last congress, which mandated the President could declare a "cyber emergency" at will, which would then force all "critical infrastructure" to comply with a "collaborative emergency response and restoration plan" that would last however long the President wanted it to. I just don't like the idea of turning private companies like Apple/Microsoft or Verizon into quasi public utilities. 2011-02-09T15:56:45Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-02-09:/comment/227276 SherlockHolmes67 Not satisfied with seizing control of the Internet through the Federal Communications Commission, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has now re-introduced the Cyber Security Act of 2011 (S.21), which would grant the Department of Homeland Security sweeping and far-reaching powers to regulate, ration, and restrict the Internet during times of emergency. What constitutes an "emergency"? 2011-04-14T14:41:43Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-04-14:/comment/231565 wgroth2 The bill itself is pretty innocuous on the face of it. But the devil is in the details. There are several good things that could come of it and a host of bad things. Good things include more infra. investment for public networks, better coordinating with the private sector. Bad things include onerous new regulations related to cyber-security. (We do not need any more paperwork!) Also, citizens privacy is being listed LAST, which tells you something. My fear is that this is used to assault our rights much like the Patriot Act did. At this point I neither support or oppose it until more details are provided. 2011-04-14T14:44:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-04-14:/comment/231566 wgroth2 Not sure I follow this. Where did you get this information? Its not in the Bill as posted. I read through it and the word "emergency" does not even appear in the text. But perhaps I am missing something. Is there more to this bill somewhere else? 2011-05-04T10:32:54Z tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-04:/comment/232191 wgroth2 As I reread the bill text as it is now, it is, on the whole, a serious and responsible bill. More detail is needed before we can make a determination on whether or not to support this bill. Section 3.2 is this most toublesome. What is meant by "incentivizing"? Will there be mandates to comply with? meaning, Will the Givt incent us by threatening to fine us or throw us in jail? Much more info needed.