[quote]nternet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. "I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill." Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday. A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection. When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said. The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do. Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete. The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says. Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." 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.) "The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it." Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network. The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective." Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement: The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.[/quote] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Not that this is relevant at all, but there sure are a lot of conspiracy's about the Rockefellers :dry:

[b]TheMessenger wrote:[/b] [quote]Not that this is relevant at all, but there sure are a lot of conspiracy's about the Rockefellers :dry:[/quote] hmm ? conspiracy rumors? or are you saying they are involved IN a lot of conspiracies? I personally believe the latter. Someone in the family can be tied to all sorts of crooked events, from the American companies doing business with hitler, who escaped the scrutiny of the House Committee on Unamerican Activities, to the original shady political ties of American and Arab oil interests, and later the revolving door between the CIA and Arab/American oil interests, to blackmailing Israel, in order to help escaped nazis flee to South America, to helping to push the UN on the US, not the least of which, by donating land for a building (when in fact, the first US delegate, Algar Hess, was convicted as a communist spy, and the first 14 secretary generals were all communists) I inherently distrust anything said by a Rockefeller. I'm shocked that Americans are ignorant enough to continue electing them.

Glenn Beck showed the door of a building owned by the Rockefeller's. Or a place that one of them lives or somethings. It was a double door- on one side there was a farmer holding up a sickle, and on the other side was a worker holding up a hammer. Hmm, where have we seen those two things before? Oh yea. [img size=300]http://www.mypraize.com/images/fbfiles/images/cf_ussr.gif[/img]

The image isn't showing up on mine, but some things don't on Safari. But if it didn't show up for anyone, it was the flag of the Soviet Union ;)

*Applauds*

Well, there's no changing your mind Dante. So I will no longer try :) The reason it will be devastating to small businesses, as I've stated many, many times, is that business with 25+ employees will be forced to provide health insurance to their employees. Again, in the middle of a bad economy. This is insane and rather stupid. No wait, REALLY stupid. Say hello to higher unemployment when these small businesses start more job cuts. Source: CSPAN You still haven't explained how you expect this bill to be paid. [quote]The CBO has estimated that [b]only[/b] about [b]11 million to 12 million people[/b] would sign up for the public plan, nor is HR3200 a plan to remove private insurance.[/quote] Oh boy! Only 40 million to go then! Boy, what a dent we've made in the number of people without insurance. And it only cost us a trillion dollars we don't even have! Yay us! [quote]The CBO has also estimated that public premiums will be 10% lower than private premium. Although the Lewin group has estimated premiums as low as 20%.[/quote] So why do they expect everyone to stick with their private plans? By the way, the plan has been to demonize insurance companies. They're totally unfair, evil people stealing your money. Darn them! But if you like your evil, unfair insurance plan, you can keep it :woohoo: The only reason premiums may be 10% lower is because the rest is paid for by those terrible rich people, who somehow magically acquired money. Surely none of them worked for it! What's the plan when they run out of rich people to tax? Oh yea, the middle class. Silly me! And now I again live you with this quote: [i]"We're out of money now."[/i]--President Obama Hmmm. Yep, we're good to go. Bring on the spending.

All right, once I get my school homework done :laugh: , I'm gonna be doing some hard-core research on this bill, and then we'll continue :)

Perhaps post them again. I admit to be terrible at posting sources at times. Source: myself :P