Martial law on the web
By Eastan McNeal on April 9, 2009 at 10:20 AM in Current Affairs
Does anyone find it unusually coincidental that the same day a new, over-reaching cybersecurity bill is introduced a huge “BE VERY AFRAID” story hits the Wall Street Journal.
Typically news like this is kept secret by the government. But, for some undisclosed reason, an un-named a senior intelligence official told the newspaper all about the threat.
I think the attack story is a planted from the White House. Obama wants total control of the internet and, since the introductory drafts of his new cybersecurity bill have been reviewed, many technology publications have been critical of the idea that:
A new cybersecurity bill being proposed would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data, effectively declaring martial law on the web.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which was introduced by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), would empower the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish “measurable and auditable” security standards for all networks and systems run by federal agencies, government contractors and businesses that support critical infrastructure services. Under this act the president would … have the authority to declare a “cybersecurity emergency.”
Policing private networks
It’s unclear how industry will respond to the bill, though, since it effectively allows the federal government to shut down private computer networks.“The cybersecurity threat is real, but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy,” said Leslie Harris, CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an industry group.
Industry groups say the bill doesn’t provide enough detail on what is considered “critical infrastructure.”Critics also say imposing uniform standards on computer networks could be counterproductive: Hackers who find a way around the government’s defenses would have unfettered access to critical networks.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST would be in charge of setting standards for the government and the private sector. But many experts have been critical of the agency, saying its current cybersecurity guidance isn’t based on data about actual attacks.
“NIST doesn’t have current attack and threat knowledge,” Alan Paller, director of the SANS Institute, a Maryland-based computer security research firm said. “If you allow them to do the threat standards, you’re going to be defending against the wrong thing.”
Read the source: Federal Times
Bertrand Russell once wrote that the power of influence and public persuasion can equal or best the power gained through economic or military strength. News organizations, especially those “damagingly” critical of WH policy, could be deemed a critical network (part of our information infrastructure) and the govt could shut down or filter news and opinions, as is done in China cyber cafes. This site would not be safe.
The WH thought that we all would be occupied with the AIG type news and nobody would even see the new cyber bill hit the floor. When the bill met with resistance, in my opinion, the WH decided to ‘leak’ the fearful news that our private networks (power companies) are under cyber attack and we should therefore trust in the one to take care of us by letting him dribble the internet.
This administration’s approach to governing is much like the orchestration of media events during the campaign. I once accused GWB of having someone read to him Plato’s “Republic” and suggested that he thought it was a handbook on controlling the masses. I now fear that someone gave Obama a Readers Digest copy of Russell’s “Power” and told him to focus on the chapter on “spin doctoring” (as described by Samuel Brittan)
The contemporary role of “spin doctors” would not have surprised Russell who writes eloquently about power behind the scenes: courtiers, intriguers, spies and wire pullers. The system in which they reign supreme, he observes, is unlikely to promote the general welfare. — Samuel Brittan
“Barack” says his handlers “Just take care of your role in the power of mass persuasion and we will take care of everything else, such as war, money and the power of information.”
Some of you may argue that Russell once noted that: The only satisfactory way ahead was “the abolition of national sovereignty and national armed forces and the substitution of a single international government.” Yes, he said that. But, it is also then fair to add this Russell quote:
From Samuel Brittans’s introduction to “Power.”
For me the clarion call is the statement in the penultimate chapter: “For my part, I consider that whatever is good or bad is embodied in individuals, not primarily in communities.” This is a refreshing antidote to the communitarianism of so many on the centre-left. The statement needs also to be pondered by those on the right who are overfond of Burke’s “little platoons” or who preach the gospel of civic conservatism.
As Russell elaborates a few pages later: “The really valuable things in human life are individual, not such things that happen on a battlefield or in the clash of politics or in the regimented march of masses of men towards an externally imposed goal. The organised life of a community is necessary, but it is necessary as a mechanism, not something to be valued on its own account.”
(my bolding above)
I value my individual rights and I do not like it when my government uses smoke and mirrors to try to steal even the most minuscule morsels I still have on my patriotic plate.
by Ronald Scott
* More novels by 
* 
(
)
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
