... this whole issue reminded me of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRmxXp62O8g
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQUWUfmR_I On the more serious note: the vagueness of some terms and definitions is what concerns me, for example. I am not sure if the problem could be fixed, though, under a mechanism fundamentally very litigious - thus so very likely to produce laws with potential for [lots of] interpretations (by paid specialists, of course). ***Stefan Mititelu http://twitter.com/netfortius http://www.linkedin.com/in/netfortius On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Scott Morris <s...@emanon.com> wrote: > I'm trying really hard to find my "paranoia hat", and just to relieve > some boredom I read the entire bill to try to figure out where this was > all coming from.... > > "(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or > shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal > Government or United States critical infrastructure information system > or network;" > > Now, I'm sorry, but that doesn't say anything about shutting down the > entire Internet. Yes, I understand the idea that since they COULD > possibly deem the entire Internet (that Al Gore created?) a critical > infrastructure, it would seem simple enough to put a provision in to > prevent that. But IMHO the point is to involve people outside the > government (read the parts on establishing the committee and voting on > rules/regs) as opposed to dictating to them. > > And it's no different than it is today for groups that have to connect > to/from particular agencies within the government. There's already > plenty of rules in place about that. > > So if someone hacks the electric grid, does it not make sense to unplug > that portion of the infrastructrure from the Internet until the problem > is fixed? (e.g. shut down traffic to/from) I think someone wrote an > article after WAY over-thinking this whole thing and everyone else jumps > on the bandwagon. > > So I'm open to hearing about things if I missed them. Reading Senate > Bills isn't all that exciting, so it's possible I zoned out a bit, but > can someone explain to me where this thought process is coming from? > > Thanks! > > Scott > > > > > > Peter Beckman wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Hiers, David wrote: > > > >> Governments already license stock brokers, pilots, commercial drivers, > >> accountants, engineers, all sorts of people whose mistakes can be > >> measured in the loss of hundreds of lives and millions of dollars. > > > > "'The power company allowed their network security to be comprimised > > by a > > single Windows computer connected to the Internet in the main control > > facility, so we unplugged the entire Internet to mitigate the attack,' > > said Senator Rockefeller, the author of the bill that enabled the > > President to take swift action after an unknown hacker used the > > Internet > > to break into Brominion Power's main control facility and turn off the > > power to the entire East Coast. 'It will remain unplugged and > > nobody in > > the US will be allowed to connect to the Internet until the power is > > back > > on and this hacker is brought to justice.' > > > > Authorities are having a difficult time locating the hacker due to the > > unavailability of the Internet and electricity, and cannot communicate > > with lawmakers via traditional means due to the outage. A formal > > request > > to turn the power and Internet back on was sent on a pony earlier this > > afternoon to lawmakers in DC." > > > > Can't wait. > > > > Beckman > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Peter Beckman > > Internet Guy > > beck...@angryox.com > > http://www.angryox.com/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > >
