We do that by asking the government to understand that if it wants to rely on the private sector for "critical infrastructure", then it must also play by the rules of the private sector. Simply legislating to let it sit back with a big red button to push in case it finds something it doesn't like is oppressive, and last I checked, that is diametrically opposed to what the country is supposed to stand for.FEOS wrote:
There are currently no laws that provide for protection of critical infrastructure networks. Networks that are centers of gravity for our nation--both governmental and private.
It's a sticky wicket, to say the least. How do we provide for the protection of those critical infrastructure while maintaining private freedoms?
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Bill could give President control of internet.
I disagree, because last time I checked, most of that infrastructure was started with public funds.mikkel wrote:
We do that by asking the government to understand that if it wants to rely on the private sector for "critical infrastructure", then it must also play by the rules of the private sector. Simply legislating to let it sit back with a big red button to push in case it finds something it doesn't like is oppressive, and last I checked, that is diametrically opposed to what the country is supposed to stand for.FEOS wrote:
There are currently no laws that provide for protection of critical infrastructure networks. Networks that are centers of gravity for our nation--both governmental and private.
It's a sticky wicket, to say the least. How do we provide for the protection of those critical infrastructure while maintaining private freedoms?
If consistency in policy is what you desire, then the telecoms should hand over what the public sector originally gave to them.
It's a problem both parties acknowledge and want to address.
mikkel have you read the bill?
With a comment like "Simply legislating to let it sit back with a big red button to push in case it finds something it doesn't like", I assume you have.
mikkel have you read the bill?
With a comment like "Simply legislating to let it sit back with a big red button to push in case it finds something it doesn't like", I assume you have.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
To be honest, I haven't the time to sit down and read the entire bill, so I'm taking a leap of faith and trusting the sources provided. The "big red button" is a hyperbolic allegory of the heavy hand with which governments have typically been able to dictate the operation of other private sectors deemed critical to national security.Kmarion wrote:
It's a problem both parties acknowledge and want to address.
mikkel have you read the bill?
With a comment like "Simply legislating to let it sit back with a big red button to push in case it finds something it doesn't like", I assume you have.
I have made several posts on this very forum arguing that this should happen. This would not present consistency in policy in this case, however, as those funds were distributed in order to provide services for the public, not to provide control to the government.Turquoise wrote:
I disagree, because last time I checked, most of that infrastructure was started with public funds.mikkel wrote:
We do that by asking the government to understand that if it wants to rely on the private sector for "critical infrastructure", then it must also play by the rules of the private sector. Simply legislating to let it sit back with a big red button to push in case it finds something it doesn't like is oppressive, and last I checked, that is diametrically opposed to what the country is supposed to stand for.FEOS wrote:
There are currently no laws that provide for protection of critical infrastructure networks. Networks that are centers of gravity for our nation--both governmental and private.
It's a sticky wicket, to say the least. How do we provide for the protection of those critical infrastructure while maintaining private freedoms?
If consistency in policy is what you desire, then the telecoms should hand over what the public sector originally gave to them.
Last edited by mikkel (2009-08-30 01:33:49)
Last time I checked this proposed law out it didn't look that bad. From what I read the law was going to premit the govt to mandate cyber security precautions at on private networks of companies who are doing business with the govt and doing business in areas critical to the nation. The law is about protecting key industries from attack and in case of an attack the govt would have the power to mandate that the private network be shut down because if its shut down then it can't be attacked. Its just a recognition that hackers would attack the weakest link in the chain. The govt could have the best security in the world, but if some company has weak security then there is a risk.
When I see the words private network I think it means the internal network of a company or a network between different branches of the same company. like water works, the hover dam, nuclear plants, etc etc.
I don't think it means shutting down the porn site you like to visit or shutting down your favorite bit torrent.
When I see the words private network I think it means the internal network of a company or a network between different branches of the same company. like water works, the hover dam, nuclear plants, etc etc.
I don't think it means shutting down the porn site you like to visit or shutting down your favorite bit torrent.
OK for the sake of a debate, wouldn't this start by infringing on our First Amendment right? Wouldn't this "hypothetically" restrict our communication and right to freedom of speech??
Yes it does. There is absolutely no reason for the govt. to have their hands on core infrastructure via the private sector. Public money, grants, what ever you want to label it, it does not belong to the US. Govt. Private companies and shareholders do.
Sounds un-constitutional to me!
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Ill be off to read the bill now.
Yes it does. There is absolutely no reason for the govt. to have their hands on core infrastructure via the private sector. Public money, grants, what ever you want to label it, it does not belong to the US. Govt. Private companies and shareholders do.
Sounds un-constitutional to me!
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Ill be off to read the bill now.
How does control of critical infrastructure for the purpose of keeping it functioning in a degraded environment in any way infringe on 1st Amendment rights?(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
OK for the sake of a debate, wouldn't this start by infringing on our First Amendment right? Wouldn't this "hypothetically" restrict our communication and right to freedom of speech??
Yes it does. There is absolutely no reason for the govt. to have their hands on core infrastructure via the private sector. Public money, grants, what ever you want to label it, it does not belong to the US. Govt. Private companies and shareholders do.
Sounds un-constitutional to me!
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Ill be off to read the bill now.
If anything, it would support them by keeping the infrastructure functional where it would be unusable otherwise.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Shutting down part/all of the internet in the US would definitely impede 1st Amendment rights.
Is it that hard to keep critical infrastructure on separate networks?
It's a P.I.T.A. but it makes a lot of sense, from a security standpoint.
Is it that hard to keep critical infrastructure on separate networks?
It's a P.I.T.A. but it makes a lot of sense, from a security standpoint.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-09-02 07:26:19)
Yes this. If we lost power to TV, Radio, and the Press everyone would cry oppression.FEOS wrote:
How does control of critical infrastructure for the purpose of keeping it functioning in a degraded environment in any way infringe on 1st Amendment rights?
If anything, it would support them by keeping the infrastructure functional where it would be unusable otherwise.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Bill could give President control of internet.