Friday, August 28, 2009

A Senate bill would give the President the authority to shut the internet down in an emergency situation.


"Senate Bill would give the President emergency control of the internet". "A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties." Here is the Cnet article, "The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)" This is a major new power of the President. It is coming about because of the nature of the world we live in. There are constant threats from terrorist and nations, such as China and Russia, who are constantly hacking into our government computer system and our nation's computer infrastructure.

"A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported." I agree that something must be done to deal with these new and present threats to our national security. But should the government be given sole authority to deal with this issue? "The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures." I usually don't like government monopolies over essential functions.

'Simply put, who has the expertise?' "he[Cnet] told FOXNews.com in April." 'It's the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard.' " The question is if the government or the private industry or both should be the one to deal with these threats.

Terrorism has forever changed America in terms of the size and scope of government authority and power due to the necessity to combat this new threat, and with other nations attempting to get an advantage over America militarily by attacking our Internet and government computer systems and our nation's infrastructure, I don't have a better word, something does need to be done. I don't necessarily think this new power is a bad thing, but it does show how the current security threats to our nation and the overall nature of the world we live in has increased the government's power and authority, much like it has during other periods of war; but with the new technology present today these war time powers are far more reaching in terms of encroaching on our liberties and freedoms. I am a little concerned that any government and especially the current government would have these powers, especially considering who is running our government. A system necessary to control a society is being set up. This new power coupled with the knowledge of the current government's goal of creating an authoritarian system is worth noting. I am not questioning the reasoning of this particular aspect of this system, something does need to be done to protect us from this threat; but it is irrelevant to the fact that this could be used as a major tool to implement control over our society and that there is an over arching system necessary for control being set up withing our society and government.

6 comments:

  1. As if 'the internet' itself is any kind of threat to anything (directly). Yes, cybersecurity is required for critical intranets, various military WANs, probably Dow Jones WANs, utilities' control system WANs, etc, and all major corporations are big into implementing cybersecurity. But as far as the general internet is concerned, this is nothing but giving the government the power to stifle free speech and sharing of information. It's something we expect out of nations like Iran & North Korea, Cuba, & Venezuela. Nations our President admires.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would think that shutting down the internet would somehow help prevent an attack that is in progress. I don't know the technical side of this issue, I don't know if the I do think that the private sector should have some say in creating this security, not solely the government as I understood from what I read that this bill would do. The mapping of private networks is an interesting aspect of this bill.

    I do think that this would increase the government's power and control. I do not think that this bill would be able to pass if people knew about it. If it does pass, it would be a major shift in terms of our freedoms and liberties and the role of government in our society. The question is if this would be vital to protecting our Nation, or if it would solely be used as a means of control by the government. My main point is to show the direction our Country is headed. "Human societies come under the influence of great tides of thought and appetite that run unseen deeply below the surface of society. After a while these powerful streams of opinion and
    desire move the whole social mass along with them without the individuals in the mass being aware of the direction in which they are going. Up to a certain point it is possible to resist these controlling tides and to reverse them, but a time comes when they are so strong that society loses its power of decision over
    the direction in which it is going."

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOL. Nations our president admires. I love the jokes

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is everyone ok with me using acronyms like LOL or BTW on our prestiguous blog? Or should I keep that stuff to things like texts and myspace?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sadly, I think it is true that President Obama admires these countries. These systems of governments are where Obama is leading us, purposely or not purposely--does not matter, if he has his way this is where he is ultimately leading the Nation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the comments should be as loosey-goosey as the commenter wants to be. I'm going to Moderate comments from non-contributors, but that's it, (and we've only had one). I think in articles themselves, the writer should try to do a fairly professional job. Just my opinion though.

    ReplyDelete