mangrumsNet

On 6/10/2010, S.3480 - the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 - was introduced.  It also had 1st and 2nd readings before being shuffled right to committee.  There are a lot of things I don't like about this bill.

The first question that popped into my head was who uses the term "cyberspace" anymore?  Lieberman?  Really?

Ok, now that I have that off my chest, let's get into the text of the bill.  It's easiest to go in order and work through it.  Definition: Critical Infrastructure.  In PCNAA, this is defined as it is in the Patriot Act.

"systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters."

Who gets to determine what those assets actually are?  While I do believe that one defined authority of the federal government is the security of the nation, it's a bit broad to not specifically define what is or is not going to fall within the scope of this law.  Actually, this comment is more directed toward the Patriot Act, but the PCNAA inherits it.  If this were limited to just the infrastructure pertaining to government, not involving the private sector, it would not have been as big a deal.

On to the bureaucracy.  This bill would create a new Office of Cyberspace Policy.  Yay!  Based on the qualifications for the Director spot, anyone that knows as much as a high school hacker could be appointed. 

QUALIFICATIONS- The President shall appoint the Director from among individuals who have demonstrated ability and knowledge in information technology, cybersecurity, and the operations, security, and resiliency of communications networks.

But wait, there's more!  The National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications gets created.  It has its own director.  This time, thankfully, they have to pass muster with the Senate too.  Oh, and they need to have a little management experience to go along with the high school hacking.

(B) [who have--] significant executive leadership and management experience in the public or private sector.

Even if the powers issued are never invoked, new large branches are created and guess who pays for that? So what can these new positions and powers enable the government to do?  I'm glad you asked.  According to Declan McCulagh at cnet,

The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

Wicked cool.  By the way, the emergency powers granted to the President under this law could be renewed at the end of every 30 days, meaning that they would have the authority to hold private companies in compliance to the yet-to-be-determined guidelines indefinitely.

Under PCNAA, the federal government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

Although private companies could not be asked to conduct surveillance, they may be required to participate in "information sharing" by giving status updates on the implementation of federally approved security measures.  They would also be subject to monitoring of their security status by the NCCC.

Since this bill also introduces immunity from civil lawsuits for industry groups, and would provide them reimbursement for outages, the larger internet based companies don't seem to have a problem with it.

Paul Watson at Prison Planet notes:

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

"They can't do that here!" you say?  As the U.S. seems to be leaning closer to a European model of government, is it any wonder that we may follow in their methodology of controlling the internet?