"Kill Switch" not the issue. "Liability of companies" is the issue.

The "Kill Switch" is not the only issue with this bill. "Liability of companies" is another issue; as in, they won't be liable for damages depending on circumstances {See CBO report linked below} and they'll be required to share information {See 'shared information' section below}.

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA) is not yet dead.

It has been "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably." I found a description of what that phrase means:



In the interim, it was sent to the Congressional Budget Office. Link to .pdf of CBO report.



A House version was introduced in June and there is a http://techinsider.nextgov.com/2010/11/house_dhs_cyber_bill_unveiled.php">November 17, 2010 report of legislation introduced by House Democrats to "expand the Homeland Security Department's cybersecurity powers".

Quotes from June article reporting on the Senate legislation:



Another article from June notes:



NOTE: from text of bill:




Additional definitions found in the text:




Did you know that during various "Inquisitions" in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church worked in concert with the secular government when putting accused witches to "The Question." Yes. It seems torture was a "sin" but sending accused witches to friendly-to-the-Church authorities so that they could "Put the Question," wasn't a sin.

The government might have to watch out for our civil liberties, but as we already seen, when businesses and corporations trounce all over them, hey, "It's just business" and the government has plausible deniability.

This will be one to watch.

:evilfrown:

Fortunately, dark humor works. :(

to read.

:kick:

It's ridiculous how the perception of the bill has become so separated from the reality. The bill is here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3480

First: there is no "kill switch". It's a complete fabrication. Of course the idea is a ridiculous one, but it's nowhere in the bill, whatever Joe Lieberman might think.

What the bill basically does is allow the President to declare a "national cyber emergency" (S. 249), which requires affected infrastructure-related networks implement a set of security procedures. This a step in the right direction, and it's not a kill switch.

The problem is, under present law it is unclear who is responsible for monitoring or maintaining the security of our infrastructure--NSA? FBI? DHS? The military?--and this bill takes some good first steps. It also repeatedly refers to privacy laws, and sets up the position of Privacy Officer who is a watchdog to make sure the Director stays on the right side of that line. Also a good thing.
Even though a coordinated cyberattack would be difficult to defend, the consequences would be serious, and I think it's the responsibility of the federal government to at least *try* to plan for such an attack. That's what this bill does.

Section 249 of the bill contains the material regarding powers during a "cyber emergency." Here's what the bill actually contains, according to the official summary:

Section 249: If the President determines there is a credible threat to exploit cyber vulnerabilities of the covered critical infrastructure, the President may declare a national cyber emergency, with notification to Congress and owners and operators of affected covered critical infrastructure. The notification must include the nature of the threat, the reason existing security measures are deficient, and the proposed emergency measures needed to address the threat. If the President exercises this authority, the Director of the NCCC will issue emergency measures necessary to preserve the reliable operation of covered critical infrastructure. Any emergency measures issued under this section will expire after 30 days unless the Director of the NCCC or the President affirms in writing that the threat still exists or the measures are still needed. Emergency measures imposed by the Director must be the least disruptive means feasible, and such emergency measures cannot be used to set aside the requirements of the Wiretap Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. This section does not authorize any new surveillance authorities or permit the government to "take over" private networks. While complying with the mandatory emergency measures, owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure will have the flexibility to propose alternative security measures that address the national cyber emergency and, once approved by the Director, implement those security measures in lieu of the original mandatory emergency measures. Owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure who comply with the requirements can in certain circumstances receive liability protections that range from limitations on some damages to immunity from suit.
The Director will also work with owner and operators of covered critical infrastructure outside the United States to inform them of cyber threats and vulnerabilities and appropriate security measures.

The language in the summary is consistent with the language in the bill itself (section 249 starts on page 76). It doesn't sound like a "kill switch." The bill would require the President to submit a report describing, among other things, "The actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation and mitigate the consequences of the potential disruption of covered critical infrastructure" (pg. 84 lines 1-4). That sounds like the opposite of a kill switch: this legislation describes a process by which the president is expected to take action to ensure access to "critical infrastructure" -including the Internet.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2010/06/no-kill-switch-in-lieberman-co.php

which will allow and/or require private businesses to work in concert with the gov't to share information and to shut down portions of our communications infrastructure.

This legislation describes a process by which the president is expected to take action to ensure access to "critical infrastructure" -including the Internet

Second, it's not just "protection" in case of "national security" as there is also an economic component addressed in the text of the bill.

Third, Nikki, you and I are just not going to agree on this though I thank you for the opportunity to flesh out what is in the actual text of the bill rather than just what is written in the summary and a couple of articles.

eta: your first iteration said "just the internet" then you edited it. Noted.

I copied that from my other NUMEROUS posts: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9757312&mesg_id=9758712

It's also a distraction.

This is a serious piece of legislation that could have chilling repercussions. With the republicans glombing onto the power they claim they've been given by the electorate, this does not bode well for US citizens.

But please, carry on with your irrational fear.