A Hollywood Republican

This blog is for an open discussion on politics. My views will be to the right as will be most of the posters. But, we are willing to post alternative viewpoints as lons as they are well thought out. I started this in response to the Obama election and will continue it as long as it feeds a need.

Jun 4, 2010

Lieberman/Collins Proposed Bill Giving DHS Emergency Internet Powers by Craig Covello

This week has been full of headlines. The Gulf oil spill has monopolized most of the media's conversation, and justifiably so. There was also the revelation that the senior White House staff adviser Valerie Jarrett and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had been subpoenaed in the corruption trial of ex-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. And just as the Sestak scandal is heating up, it now appears that White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Jim Messina, made a similar attempt to bribe Andrew Romanoff into dropping his bid for the Democratic Senate race in Colorado. There was also the Israeli attack on Gaza flotilla. Oh, and the Gores have decided to dissolve their 40 year marriage. It's been a busy week.

But the intent of the Obama White House Diaries website (http://www.obamawhitehousediaries.com//) is to try to discover what the left hand of the federal government is doing while we are distracted by the right-hand. You may recall that the Obama White House Diaries published a story on May 6 entitled "Meet Susan Crawford, the White House's Internet Czar". It discussed Crawford's views on Internet regulation, her desire to save the newspapers from declining readership and the federal government's goal to provide subsidized high-speed Internet service to all low income households. She also believes in the concept of "net neutrality", which purports that private sector Internet service providers should not be allowed to create tiered pricing structures based upon content and offerings. Instead, they should be federally regulated as "utilities" with strict price controls. This is analogous to telling Dish Network that it cannot charge a premium for HBO or Showtime. These ideas do not seem to embrace the concept of free enterprise, but then again, neither does the Obama administration.

So it may come as no surprise that senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins have drafted a bill which would give the Department of Homeland Security emergency powers over private data networks, including local area networks and servers within companies, based upon a perceived or predicted cyber attack. Specifically, the bill states:

• “The President may issue a declaration of an imminent cyber threat to covered critical infrastructure.”
• DHS's National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications will “develop and coordinate emergency measures or actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of covered critical infrastructure.”
• “The owner or operator of covered critical infrastructure shall comply with any emergency measure or action developed by the Director”
• The DHS cybersecurity director has to ensure that the emergency measures “represent the least disruptive means feasible” and that “the privacy and civil liberties of United States persons are protected,”
This bill appears to be another version of similar legislation previously proposed by Senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe. In the interest of “national security”, their bill which would have given the federal government the ultimate power to disconnect the Internet. The proposal created such public outrage that it died a quick death. This new bill, however, may get legs.

It naturally begs the question: Is there a problem with the Lieberman/Collins proposal? After all, having a plan to minimize the damage of a cyber attack seems like a noble idea. But perhaps it may not be appropriate when considering the following facts:

• In April, a Pew poll reported that only 22% of Americans surveyed now trust the government in Washington. Almost 33% of those surveyed also believe that the government is a major threat to their personal freedoms and they want a reduction of federal powers.
• This administration has demonstrated an appetite for seizing control of private companies in the face of economic adversity. Sectors include health care, automotive, banking, insurance and student loans. And of course, the federal government now owns over half of the home mortgages in America.
• Despite the positive spin in Obama's press conference last week regarding the Gulf oil spill, the federal government has done an extremely poor job of providing leadership, coordinating efforts and communicating information. Ironically, Washington has been paralyzed in balancing this environmental threat with current EPA legislation and policy. We are now into day 45.
• The Department of Homeland Security has had a difficult time in getting one step ahead of terrorist activity. The Fort Hood massacre, the incompetent underwear bomber and the equally incompetent Times Square bomber immediately come to mind.
Analysis: The proposed cyber bill would give the president power to seize control over private networks based upon his understanding of a perceived security flaw coupled with any rumors of an attack. There are no guidelines associated with either of these determinations. In short, it's simply the president's personal decision whether or not to take over a private companies Internet operations. These emergency measures are supposed to remain in place for no more than 30 days, but they can be extended indefinitely. This unilateral authority is not accountable to Congress or to the Judiciary.

So here's the question: Are you comfortable with that?

© 2010 by Craig Covello. Used with Permission. All Rights Reserved.

Labels: , ,

9 Comments:

Anonymous JFE said...

Short answer... hell no am I comfortable with that. However, this very much reeks of all that government control that arose after 9/11... so despite a new president, have we really progressed? I guess that poll you cite about American's distrust of the feds is the answer to my question. Thanks for sharing. And I never liked that Lieberman jerkoff anyway, so F him!

June 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent. This is just another move by the progressives as they slowly, methodically and efficiently move us from liberty to a potpourri of Fascism, Marxism, Communism and Socialism. Research President Woodrow Wilson. We have been there before and we never learn. Read and react or accept tyranny.

June 4, 2010 at 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent. This is just another move by the progressives as they slowly, methodically and efficiently move us from liberty to a potpourri of Fascism, Marxism, Communism and Socialism. Research President Woodrow Wilson. We have been there before and we never learn. Read and react or accept tyranny.

June 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Craig, again you've got this wrong. Sorry, but Im only going to respond to your first paragrah, after that you lost me with your normal bomardment of right wing crap.

Net nuetrality is NOT like prohibiting dish network from charging more for showtime or hbo. It's about forbidding the internet providers from throttling bandwidth arbitrarily.

For instance, if you and I buy a Roadrunner account and I choose to buy more movies from iTunes, then Comcast could decide to make my connection slower because I chose to buy content from someone other than them, or because my shoes are green, or for whatever other reason they seem fit. That, my friend is crap.

The fact is that the rest of the civilized world sees the Internet as a utility, as a given commodity, and not as a profit center. And it has become a utility here too.

If you want to throttle bandwidth, how about tiered pricing? Be transparent about it!!!!!!!!!

That is what net neutrality is all about. When you get that part, then we can discuss the rest. Until then, enjoy downloading at max speed while you can.....

June 4, 2010 at 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Ira said...

Okay George I agree with you that the "Internet" has in all sense become a utility. It's as common in homes and businesses as electricity, gas and water. If I'm understanding what you've written correctly you feel that Internet Providers should be regulated regarding their pricing structure. Going on the assumption I have understood you correctly I feel you are correct. I think we are fast approaching the time we took the internet from a commodity and turned into the utility it really is. Having said that I hope you realize doing that at this moment in time would be a monumental task. As I'm sure you know the problem would be bandwidth. With out increasing bandwidth 10k fold the present system would slow to a crawl. I don't think anyone would find that acceptable. Remember when electricity first came out it too was a commodity. Available to those lucky few who could afford it. As the system got better the cost, as usual, came down. The internet is in that phase now and will take several more years before the providers find a way to either increase the bandwidth with little cost or use more of the bandwidth we have now. I feel till that time the internet will remain a commodity not a utility.

June 5, 2010 at 7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And so this topic interests only a few. Beware of apathy.

The outrage, the furor, even the anxiety or at least as passionate a protest as that against the Tea Party movement where was it? And there should have been “immediately” a blog condemning Helen Thomas for her comments about the Jews should return to Germany and Poland. Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation from Republicans, Conservatist, Democrats, the White House and all Americans? These are not trivial issues. Those who believe so will ask as we march into the crematoriums, how we get here again and so soon? These are the issues of our times. What appears on this blog are excellent essays about the effects of creeping progressivism. My friends we are repeating the history of the 1930’s when Nazi youth camps sprang up all over America and the electorate was truly cowering, even cringing in fear, until Pearl Harbor. There is a euphemism, because we are afraid of direct talk, of too many bombs, that might be updated as follows. Revisit the glory days of CBS when Edward R Murrow told it as it was and paid a price. McCarthyism and progressivism are made of the same cloth. We are not willing? If Hamas, Iran, the Palestine’s and all terrorists groups lay down their arms there would be peace. If Israel and America did that there would be “no more” an America or Israel. Wake up, please.

June 7, 2010 at 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Ira said...

Actually the backlash over the Thomas "Slip of the tongue" is all over the internet. Hundreds if not thousands of blogs have exploded with mostly comments dealing with her condemnation. A testiment to that is the fact that the Hearst Organisation forced her to retire. Of course you have the occasional nut, there always there aren't they, who agrees with her. But they are still in the minority. And I strongly disagree that McCarthyism and progressivism is cut from the same cloth.

June 7, 2010 at 2:18 PM  
Blogger Craig Covello said...

And I understand that there are a couple of Israeli nuclear subs parked near Iran's shoreline. Fasten your seat belts and pray for the best. This could get real ugly real fast.

June 7, 2010 at 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Ira said...

That's correct Craig. Between our subs, the Russian subs and now the Israeli subs it must be quite a traffic jam down there. Forget the UN they need a traffic cop.

June 8, 2010 at 8:22 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home