A controversial cybersecurity bill passed a key Senate committee on Thursday after backers made concessions aimed at blunting widespread criticism the measure would give the US president broad authority to shut down key parts of the internet. The bill, known as the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PDF), has been …
LIeberman not the only one devoid of clue
"The internet is so crucial to banking, utilities and other infrastructure that attacks on it are key to national defense" so it's perfectly fine if the government shuts it down, which would have, uh, probably more adverse effects. But since it's Your Tax Dollars At Work, it's for your own good, so shut up.
This was exactly my thought, given its so critical, why in an 'attack' would you want to turn it off?
What am I missing? What would be the point?
In the end they want to tax it
No that they have added the value of being able to turn it off, and we are used to the government presence on the internet, they will begin taxing it to cover the administration of the internet, and every other administration!
CyberSpace is an InterNetional Asset and No National Toy ....
.... or Cheap Trick to Abuse for Perverse Personal Pleasure.
"Backers also emphasized that the bill would require any measure to “be the least disruptive means feasible” and couldn't be used to set aside federal wiretap and surveillance restrictions."
Oh FFS, those early restrictions were dismissed with yonks ago and can no longer be either thought of or guarantee one protection against speculative and invasive investigation aka panic phishing, and you imagine that admirable ethics rather than private greed plays any part in capitalist politics run by Wall Street ZerodDay Hoodlums and Snake Oil Lobbyists ..... Fluffers to the Main Event exercising the Great Gamer?
Oh please .... you cannot be serious and if you are, might I suggest that you seek out the services of a shrink reputedly well able to help the hopelessly deluded.
A life-changing event
I made sense of a post from amanfromMars.
At least I think I did.
before you panic
1- this only effect the internet in the USofA, the internet in other parts of the world won't be effected in any way (well, look at point 5)
2- this only effect sites registered with a registra operating from the USofA, if you registra is else where, then they are not bound by this bill
3- this only effect sites hosted within the USofA, if you are hosted else where, then your service provider is not bound by this bill
4- ICANN is the problem, as long as it answers to the USofA then we have a small problem. ICANN should be under the UN.
5- the root dns servers in the USofA are a problem as well, need more root servers in the EU and Asia.
the only thing this bill can do is effect the internet in the USofA, if you are not using their service then it won't be a problem to you.
do you still think it is not time to move your site out of the USofA?
... we have to be able to shut down the internet!
Well, imagine how bad it would be if *someone else* did it...
So now all the bad guys have to do is make the President THINK there's an attack coming and he can do more damage with a kill switch than they can with an actual attack. No problems there! And it won't be for more than 120 days. No problems there!
No problems there - NOT!
Of course, it might solve the President's US PR problems with the gulf oil spill if the internet went dark for 120 days....
What is really unfortunate
What is really unfortunate is that the government will hire a bunch of wanna bees because those with real skills are working for a lot more money than the government pays.
I know from experience that many, many government employees are 'ROAD's (Retired on Active Duty) that can not be depended on for anything except taking time off.
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED
- Review Bigger on the inside: WD’s Tardis-like Black² Dual Drive laptop disk
- Inside Steve Ballmer’s fondleslab rear-guard action