An Unconstitutional Internet Power Grab

Bruce Henderson: How The Prospect Of A a "Digital Pearl Harbor" Is Fueling Bad Policy

(CBS)  Bruce Henderson writes for And Still I Persist and is a former Marine who focuses custom data mining and visualization technologies on the economy and other disasters.

---

Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat senator from West Virginia, worries about the day a "Digital Pearl Harbor" happens. In response to what he sees as an inevitable attack on our communications infrastructure, he and his staff have been laboring to create law that will enhance our cyber security, under the name of S773 Senate bill 773). The Obama administration apparently fears the "digital Pearl Harbor" and their ability to respond-and if the Rockefeller bill is any indication, they think that pulling the plug and a federal certification program will do just the trick. This shows a basic lack of understanding of what the Internet is, how it works, and what it represents to present day America.

In an August 28th article on CBS, Declan McCullagh analyzes the second version of this bill. The original introduced in April was so bad that it was quickly deemed legislative garbage and sent back for complete re-work. This revised version was meant to address the concerns of lawmakers, trade groups and citizens by narrowing its focus and refining its goals. Instead it has unleashed a flood of criticism (mostly on the internet, mind you) on how this would give the government a "kill switch" for the Internet whenever they deem there to be a national crisis or emergency.

As has been demonstrated during times of national and regional crisis - whether we're talking about September 11th, Hurricane Katrina, the San Diego wild fires or the health care proposals, the Internet is an important means of communication and self-organization among the population to respond to any crisis or any debate. Any move to limit this is a perceived as a direct threat to the constitutional rights of assembly and speech upon which the government cannot infringe.

S773 makes no attempt to outline and describe what form of emergency would trigger the use of these broad new powers to limit communication, nor any means by which it could be reviewed by anyone outside the executive branch. The bill also proscribes that the executive branch will perform periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Translation: the U.S. government bureaucracy will be spending your tax dollars to figure out private networks, find choke points and places where they can control the flow of communication. Furthermore, companies (such as your ISP) are going to be required, by law, to supply the federal bureaucrats with whatever network, account, usage and history information they deem appropriate. All in the name of cyber safety, you see.

If that were not enough of an outrage, the bill also establishes federal indoctrination and certification for cyber security professionals. It would require companies that the executive branch deemed "critical" to adopt restrictions on who it could hire to work with network security to a limited pool of those who had undergone government training and certification. You might assume from this that the private sector was completely lacking in any certification or training in cyber security. In fact there is a robust and growing business (aka a "free market") for this type of training that the government would now control and regulate.

The body of this bill continues to reflect a basic lack of understanding of the technology behind the Internet. It is not just a series of "tubes" that are connected end to end. There is no good place for the government or any other body to put a spigot that will allow them to "turn it off." Many companies and organizations are connected through multiple network channels, using independent physical network paths and independent network service providers.

This precisely is to avoid any problems with a single network cable to the outside, or a single provider's network. The providers themselves, from your cable company to big players like Sprint or AT&T, interconnect to themselves and each other at hundreds or thousands of places. Above that they connect with networking companies outside of the US (and US jurisdiction). The protocols and software that run the Internet are purpose-designed to route around slow or blocked spots, to keep the traffic flowing as much as possible even if segments degrade or fail.

While I am sure the people crafting this legislation will wonder why there is an uproar, one only has to pay attention to the reality of the day to understand; As printed newspapers and old guard media quickly fade away, it has been replaced by the raucous free scrum of ideas, discussion and content that is found on the Internet. In one Pew research study they cite as many as 69% of Americans are now getting news from Internet sites. While another study states that the Internet has overtaken newspapers and is climbing fast to challenge television as the public's source of news and information. As has been proven in times of crisis, the Internet can react faster and in many cases better than traditional media outlets.

Because of this new and growing reliance on the Internet as a wide, free, virtual "press", any government control, intrusion or regulation runs afoul of American's most basic sense of rights. By its very nature, the Internet is not easily controlled by any government - it is the ultimate embodiment of free speech and free press. While it did not exist in 1776, I am sure the founders would have loved it.

[dss111]

The comment was made below: " Foreign nationals are not citizens, and are therefore not covered by the Bill of Rights."
People/judges can SAY that...but it says more about the speaker and his/her attitude to the Rights of MAN.
The Bill of Rights was an afterthought to the Constitution, and the first 10 amendments were taken from the FRENCH consitution...through the efforts of Jefferson, who had been the ambassador to France at the time of its revolution. The French were stating the rights of ALL MEN!
Tell me all you want that non-usa citizens do not, for example, have a right of free speech, and i will be able to know your attitude towards tyranny and your subservience to it...or desire to be the one tyrannizing....
The rights to think as we wish is an INALIENABLE right of all human beings, regardless of what any govt or court in the world says otherwise....as in saying otherwise, they are only adopting Mao Tse Tung's belief that "rights come out of the barrel of a gun"....

[cloie1900]

It seems like everyday I wake up, another power thing from Washington.
As one poster said, we want more communication in case of emergency, not less.
And who get's the 'off' button' and for what reason?
Seems to me it's about more control, not less.

[mitdgreenb]

It's been a long time since I saw such a bad idea. The Patriot Act was over-reaching, but it had some small chance of success in its goals: reading emails and tapping international calls might (with competent intelligence gathering and synthesis) stop terrorist activities. Might. Maybe. I personally don't believe it's worth the level it over-reaches -- I believe the Judicial Branch must always be a check and balance on Executive power -- but others could argue that the benefits outweigh the costs of lost civil liberties.

But the Rockefeller Bill is a loss of civil liberties without a hope of accomplishing its stated goal. If there were a national emergency, you want MORE communications channels open, not fewer. And to do this sort of take-over based on an ill-defined "national emergency" that is not subject to review and is not time-limited? I simply can't envision anything that's closer to Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" descent into totalitarianism and perpetual war as an excuse to maintain power (equals perpetual "national emergency").

Let's get back to the issue. There is a real and serious concern that the controls on the electric power grid (and/or other utilities) could be hacked. This gets worse as we move to a "smart grid" where there is remote control of the power meter. These things need to be secured, but doing so is easily accommodated via regulation and existing law. Fix the problem with the tiny hammer already in your toolbox, instead of by cutting down a tree to use as a club!

[DaSicilian]

Okay...I get the implications here with control et al...but has anyone thought of safety, yet? A growing number of people in this country are using the internet for phone service. BO claims there is an emergency...granny hears this on msnbc...she gets chest pains...reaches for her voice over IP phone to call 911, she gets bupkus...dies from heart attack.
Yet another case where obummer throws granny under the proverbial bus.

[OregonJames]

I admit my ignorance on this topic and only have questions. For example;

The nation's power grid and many (a HUGE number) of other entities are vulnerable to cyber-attack, and though the odds may be small, there is the possibility that a well planned strike upon our power grid for example, would have catastrophic results upon our nation.

Is it even possible for us to be safe from such an attack?

How much control should government have, regardless of the danger, and how much during an event?

I am not smart enough to know...

[8razman]

This president is incompetent. His motives are unclear at best and this nation is more divided than I've ever seen. It's time to call for his resignation. As an American whose roots go back for generations I ask for Mr. Obama to step down.

[scobrasen54]

With this Bill we are one step closer, albeit, at the very brink of outright Totalitarianism. The Uber-Police State of novels and films is very close to becoming a reality.

If this Bill, or ANY version of it is allowed to be enacted into law, we can kiss our civil liberties and constitutional rights goodbye forever.

This isn't about an "Internet Pearl Harbor" per se, what it ultimately is about is power. Raw, venal, human greed for control. Look at the costs, the disruption and the total lack of success the "Patriot Act" has been. Has it actually STOPPED anything? Yes, the free movement of honest American citizens to travel around out great nation. It hampers and harasses everyday Americans, without getting at the root causes of hijackings and bombings. Virtually unfettered access INTO our country from abroad, and borders so porous, they make tissue paper seem strong.

This legislation is PHASE TWO of an attempt by a power hungry group of geriatric control freaks to strangle true democracy and freedom out of America.

Oppose this legislation. Enact it at the risk of our Freedom and Liberty.

[nojoy01]

by Void_Master September 1, 2009 8:18 PM EDT
Well I'm pleased to see that no one here seems to think this bill is such a good idea. Makes you wonder why anyone (e.g. J. Rockefeller) *would* think it a good idea. Of course it's about the government taking control of yet another area of your life.

Here's the really cute, catch-22 thing about such a plan.

The stated purpose of this bill is to protect us all from some sort of Internet take-over/attack a la "Die Hard 4" wherein presumably someone might try to shut down the national power grid, for example. And the way that this protection is supposed to be implemented is by giving the White House a kill switch so it can turn off the Internet (stop laughing, that's what they plan).

Anyway... I doubt very seriously that the Internet can be just "shut off" like that. But for a moment, let's say that it could be. Can we even begin to imagine the sort of global economic catastrophe that would result?

You think it got bad last Autumn? Shut off the Internet for just six hours and watch how quickly the industrialized nations of the world (re)join the third world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I think that most of the "third world" countries would survive the loss of the internet better. Most "third world" countries do not have the banking, economic, and industrial electronic infrastructure connected through and dependent upon the internet that the "industrialized economic powerhouses" have. It would be a case of them still having communication, lights (if they had them in the first place), and running water. (even if it's only running out to the well & back.:) This country is so interconnected at this time that if such an attack as Senator Rockefeller envisions were to take place (yes, it is possible) and his response was to turn off the internet (which I think may not be possible, at least in the way he envisions) we, in this country, probably wouldn't be able to treat our sewage. Isn't that a wonderful thought. Turn off the internet and watch the commode back up. (both figuratively AND literally) :))

[lblblb7]

The commode is already backing up - and it's in Washington.

[tincup356]

Push is going to come to shove soon,,,,,these new changes in the way Washington works, since 911,,,,they say they are doing everything to protect us,,Cough , cough, BS,,,,,,,,,Our government has turned on the people ,using fear tactics to destroy our own people,,,,,,, special government crisis response,,,to situations created by the government,,,,,,,The way things are going, the government will eventually face a revolution,,,,,they are too greedy and arrogant to avoid the situation,,,,,when you are elected to represent the people, and purposely destroy a whole class of them,,,,,,,,,,you can very well expect them to rise against those tyrants.

[Void_Master]

Well I'm pleased to see that no one here seems to think this bill is such a good idea. Makes you wonder why anyone (e.g. J. Rockefeller) *would* think it a good idea. Of course it's about the government taking control of yet another area of your life.

Here's the really cute, catch-22 thing about such a plan.

The stated purpose of this bill is to protect us all from some sort of Internet take-over/attack a la "Die Hard 4" wherein presumably someone might try to shut down the national power grid, for example. And the way that this protection is supposed to be implemented is by giving the White House a kill switch so it can turn off the Internet (stop laughing, that's what they plan).

Anyway... I doubt very seriously that the Internet can be just "shut off" like that. But for a moment, let's say that it could be. Can we even begin to imagine the sort of global economic catastrophe that would result?

You think it got bad last Autumn? Shut off the Internet for just six hours and watch how quickly the industrialized nations of the world (re)join the third world.

[kphx]

Are we trying to emulate China or Iran in this case.

[novamba]

Ha! and we were so worried about the republicans in power! questionews I agree with you on this one...

[legacyabq]

I agree 100% with this writer.

Keep the gov't OUT of the Internet!

[Questionews]

What!? No lefties around to tell us how wonderful this idea is??

Can you imagine if Bush has put this forward?? DC would be in ashes!

[Solarrays247]

How about being an American first?

How about working for a solution....instead of cackling behind your keyboard, as usual?

[cujat]

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson

"Our fellow citizenshave been led hoodwinked from their principles by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed, and they now see for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson

[us_1776]

This bill is about IGNORANCE pure and simple. The Internet which evolved from ARPAnet was designed to be completely DECENTRALIZED for the express purpose of surviving a nuclear attack. It was funded through our tax dollars and in essence belongs to the public. If the government is worried about some perceived digital attack scenario then it should move all critical government systems OFF of the Internet and onto a dedicated government/military network.
The largest threat is from coordinated DDOS (distributed denial of service) attacks from hordes of compromised PC's on the Internet. The best way to prevent such attacks would be to require all PC's to have a built-in hardware firewall that is activated by default. The reason that hackers can conduct such powerful network attacks is because they are able to take over so many unprotected PC's on the network. If all PC's were properly protected you would not have any of these "botnets".

[Solarrays247]

us_1776 September 1, 2009 2:23 PM EDT
This bill is about IGNORANCE pure and simple. The Internet which evolved from ARPAnet was designed to be completely DECENTRALIZED for the express purpose of surviving a nuclear attack. It was funded through our tax dollars and in essence belongs to the public. If the government is worried about some perceived digital attack scenario then it should move all critical government systems OFF of the Internet and onto a dedicated government/military network.
The largest threat is from coordinated DDOS (distributed denial of service) attacks from hordes of compromised PC's on the Internet. The best way to prevent such attacks would be to require all PC's to have a built-in hardware firewall that is activated by default. The reason that hackers can conduct such powerful network attacks is because they are able to take over so many unprotected PC's on the network. If all PC's were properly protected you would not have any of these "botnets".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excellent post! You're using too much common sense....what were you thinking? ;=)

[nojoy01]

The primary focus of the Federal or any State or local government is control. Most of the control used by the various government institutions in the USA are benign, or for the promotion of public safety & the citizens in their everyday lives. Laws (controls) are enacted to regulate traffic, provide safe drinking water, establish standards for Medical Doctors etc. However, the various governmental agencies have, over the years, demonstrated a misunderstanding, or blurring, of the principles of "control" as a positive function resulting in an improved life for their citizens and "control" for the sake of "being in control". The most relevant example for most people is the local law enforcement officer. The cop on the beat. They are taught in their acadamies to establish and maintain control in/over any situation. This is to permit them to understand the situation and implement a course of action to resolve the situation. It is also a matter of safety for the police officer and any citizens involved in the situation. Unfortunately, as many have experienced and perhaps all of us at one time or another have read, seen, or heard of, this attempt to establish an absolute control in any situation has led to tragic consequences as police officers focus on establishing control before understanding the situation. This falls into the same category. Whoever is writing the bill(s) does not understand the construction of the internet and seems to think that by passing a law, however irrelevant to reality it may be, instead of understanding the situation will correct the situation.

[thesevenveils]

This bill is about censorship. It's about controlling the most powerful news media in the world. It's about isolating every American by turning off news, twitter, blogs, email, and other information America has grown accustom to on one persons whim.

J Edgar Hoover couldn't have written a more paranoid bill himself.

[briannorwood]

But you probably think it's OK that Bush passed the "Patriot Act" which allows the government to read your emails and monitor your phone calls without a warrant, right?

[VerticalMan]

There is no comparison between this bill and the Patriot Act, which would allow eavesdropping on communications ONLY between foreign nationals and each other or foreign nationals and Americans who were suspected of terrorist activity. A warrant would be requested and eventually granted, but without the crucial time delay that would prevent vital intelligence gathering; No choke holds on information pipelines, no commandeering of information resources. Foreign nationals are not citizens, and are therefore not covered by the Bill of Rights.