Bill gives "White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from Net."

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by kavika411, Aug 28, 2009.

  1. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #1
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

    Cue "didn't Bush already do this with..." in t-minus 5, 4, 3, 2...
     
  2. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #2
    Just saw the same article, just came here to post it.

    Without reading the bill, I can't tell if this is hot air or not. But, if the article is accurate, it is disturbing. I suppose the government may need the authority to comandeer bandwidth and processing power to handle emergencies, but the prospect of taking control of private networks is overly burdensome and under the last 9 years we have seen a steady increase in intrusion by the government under the flag of "it's necessary to protect the country."

    Honestly, this sounds like the kind of bill Cheney would have pushed for.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Yeah, this isn't good. I doubt they will be able to pass this.
     
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #4
    I think from what I read just a little bit this bill is crap. The government should not have the right to take over others network. What is to stop the government from stopping to bother to expand their own network and just start taking over private networks to do minor things like its own payroll. Or deal with tax filling. Sorry but no.

    Also the new certification is crap and worthless. It is just another way for them to tax us. No company is going to higher a security expert that would not be able to do that stuff any how.

    I already feel the government is taking to much control over our lives they do not need any more
     
  5. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #5
    Basically, during a cyber-attack, the Feds temporarily shut down or take over private networks? I don't see a problem with this if that's the case.
     
  6. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #6
    While I'm not sure about either the legality or practicality of this bill, it seems like an attempt to codify the government's reaction to a "cyber-attack" by a large number of computers in a bot-net. Shutting down a few of the larger infrastructure nodes would, in effect, mitigate such an attack.

    I'm not sure what they mean by "private networks" (I haven't read the bill, so I'm shooting from the hip here), but that would seem rather impossible without serious interference from the government.

    As for the "licensing" of critical companies, I'd have to see what companies they mean. Is Google one? Akamai? Are we talking about networks that connect Police Departments? Or Amazon?
     
  7. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
  8. stevegmu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Location:
    A stone's throw from the White House.
    #8
    If they are worried about security, just ban computers running Windows.
     

Share This Page