On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Chris Penn<[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is not like a police office taking a private citizens car while > in pursuit of a criminal. The way I understand it, that's exactly what it is. > If the government can't catch the bad > guys/gals, they do not need to take away my internet, they need to get > better at their job. I have no reason to believe that the point is to separate Grandmas's spyware laden computer internet connection. The point is to be able to take control of critical internet infrastructure, in times of emergency, for military or public safety reasons. Most of the Internet is in private sector hands. How else can they do that? '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. ' The beef at this point is that the language is felt by civil liberties groups to be too expansive. That's why I sat that it's better that this be done in as legislation, explicitly, rather than Homeland Security getting an opinion from random DOJ or White House lawyer without any change for public input. They're doing this "The Right Way." But the general idea that it is in the purview of the State to intervene with network connected systems during times of emergency isn't all that scary to me. I can see it being necessary, more and more so as our economy and general security becomes more dependent on proper functioning of the Internet. -- John. _______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list [email protected] http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
