#Login Register


  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Home 


Did the military just take over the Internet with a stroke of a pen?
11-16-2012, 12:56 AM #1
Ghost of 51:50 Member
Posts:285 Threads:58 Joined:Nov 2012
President Obama Unilaterally Gives Cybersecurity Powers to the Military

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the president signed a hush-hush directive granting the military additional power to respond to cyberattacks. The directive was signed as Congress debated — and, ultimately, rejected — controversial legislation dealing with the same issue. While the Post would have it that the president is simply bypassing nasty bipartisan gridlock in Congress to get important stuff done, that glosses over the unpleasant reality that many knowledgeable people argue against the policies that dear leader just implemented unilaterally. With the stroke of a pen, we now have two problems: Potentially bad policy inflicted on the nation through an abuse of executive power.

Reports the Washington Post:

President Obama has signed a secret directive that effectively enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyber­attacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks.

Presidential Policy Directive 20 establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace, according to several U.S. officials who have seen the classified document and are not authorized to speak on the record. The president signed it in mid-October.

The new directive is the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an “offensive” and a “defensive” action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism, where an attack can be launched in milliseconds by unknown assailants utilizing a circuitous route. For the first time, the directive explicitly makes a distinction between network defense and cyber-operations to guide officials charged with making often-rapid decisions when confronted with threats.

The details of Presidential Policy Directive 20 are a bit vague, partially because the Pentagon is supposed to fill in the details itself, and (probably) partially because the "leak" about the directive may well be controlled and deliberate, given that the Senate killed Senator Joe Lieberman's Cybersecurity Act yesterday, as well. Suffice it to say that "cybersecurity" is a broad and vague term that can cover everything from the government making sure its own computers are tucked in snugly behind their firewalls, to mandated policies for the private sector and even intrusive snooping.

In fact, the Washington Post reported in September:

The White House has drafted a preliminary executive order aimed at strengthening the nation’s computer systems against attack, an effort to begin to accomplish through fiat what could not be achieved through Congress.

The draft order, whose contours are being debated, would create voluntary standards to guide companies in guarding themselves against cyberattacks, according to administration officials. It would also establish a special council made up of key government agencies to identify threats that could compromise critical sectors.

It's not clear whether any parts of that draft executive order were incorporated in the directive reportedly signed by the president. In September, the Post did report that the components of the draft order, and the legislation on which it was based, were opposed by businesses and GOP lawmakers "who decried even voluntary standards as a regulatory burden on business." Yesterday's article made no mention of opposition at all. But civil liberties groups also opposed Lieberman's bill upon which the draft executive order appears to be based, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation celebrated its demise with a press release:

With your help last summer we helped defeat Senator Lieberman's Cybersecurity Act. But for some reason, Senate Majority Leader Reid decided to call for another vote on the bill in the lame duck session today. After an hour's debate, the full Senate voted 51 to 47 against cloture for the Cybersecurity Act, meaning it can't move forward for a vote.

We've spent months going over the various faults in the bill—and of the faults in the other proposed Cybersecurity bills. We were particularly concerned because the Cybersecurity Act included overly vague definitions for key terms like "cybersecurity threat," "cybersecurity threat indicator," and even "countermeasures."

CNet notes that what little we know about the signed directive also points to controversial elements:

The nuts and bolts of the directive will most likely be met with criticism from many sides of the cybersecurity debate. While some will want to strengthen the directive and give free rein to the military to act quickly against cyberthreats, others will warn that the U.S. could step on international legal issues, Internet freedom, and other countries' sovereignty.

The details of the directive and the criticism of the same are less important here than noting that debate and delay over government power is both natural and healthy. People really do have legitimately different opinions on proposed legislation. Those opinions, when aired and debated, allow for better-informed decisions and a fuller understanding of the ultimate impact of policy changes. Mr. Obama is old enough to remember Schoolhouse Rock. Add in a few rough patches and some cynicism, and "I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill" is how it's supposed to work.

So sorry if the process of debating stuff and maybe losing a vote on favored policies is too drawn-out and annoying for you, Mr. President. But you really aren't supposed to be able "to accomplish through fiat what could not be achieved through Congress," as the Post put it so well, in an open and (still somewhat) free society.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/15/presid...ives-cyber

Website: http://www.666themark.com

Blog #1 - The Dream State
http://the-dream-state.blogspot.com/

Blog #2 - RFID and You!
http://rfid-and-you.blogspot.com/
11-16-2012, 12:59 AM #2
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,586 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
Hot on the heels of a change of the guard of several long serving top military brass I may add. hmm.gif Good find 51! hi5.gif

wonder.gif
11-16-2012, 01:05 AM #3
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,375 Threads:1,483 Joined:Feb 2011
Quote:...where an attack can be launched in milliseconds by unknown assailants utilizing a circuitous route

Oh but they will know within minutes that Iran did it. 15.gif
11-16-2012, 03:45 AM #4
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
I thought the liberals were supposed to be pro-freedom.

Obama would appear to be limiting freedoms more than Bush.

If Bush was BushHitler - what does that make Obama?
11-16-2012, 03:50 AM #5
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,375 Threads:1,483 Joined:Feb 2011
(11-16-2012, 03:45 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  If Bush was BushHitler - what does that make Obama?


satanbitch.gif
JollyRoger Show this Post
11-16-2012, 04:04 AM #6
JollyRoger Incognito Anonymous
 
(11-16-2012, 03:45 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  I thought the liberals were supposed to be pro-freedom.

Obama would appear to be limiting freedoms more than Bush.

If Bush was BushHitler - what does that make Obama?


ObamaStalin?
11-16-2012, 04:46 AM #7
Ghost of 51:50 Member
Posts:285 Threads:58 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-16-2012, 03:45 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  I thought the liberals were supposed to be pro-freedom.

Obama would appear to be limiting freedoms more than Bush.

If Bush was BushHitler - what does that make Obama?


If you look at the website in my signature, I try to spin an alternate theory to why he's the biblical antichrist. I do this against standard belief that the antichrist will be european.

Interestingly enough, obama is kin to the royals though.


Website: http://www.666themark.com

Blog #1 - The Dream State
http://the-dream-state.blogspot.com/

Blog #2 - RFID and You!
http://rfid-and-you.blogspot.com/
11-16-2012, 04:58 AM #8
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,586 Threads:1,443 Joined:Feb 2011
Spot on and denial is in abundance.

wonder.gif
11-16-2012, 05:03 AM #9
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,775 Threads:1,181 Joined:Feb 2011
CA is right. Look at the attacks on the twinkie factory workers. I searched but I couldn't find a dollar amount for what they earn, it could be $15/hr it could be $30/hr. It still isn't the $15 trillion spent on bailing out insolvent banks who still paid their incompetent CEOs $20million/mnth of service for dumping their toxic CDOs on the taxpayer. Corzine? Where is he? Facing a lawsuit or chillin in the Grand Cayman Isls? A living wage is an afront to all but extorting billions from inevstment portfolios of working class people is okay?

lol.gif



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com