Cybersecurity law would give feds unprecedented net control US senators have drafted legislation that would give the federal government unprecedented authority over the nation's critical infrastructure, including the power to shut down or limit traffic on private networks during emergencies. The bill would also establish a broad set of cybersecurity standards that would be imposed on …
First of all I'd like to ask someone to please for the love of all that's good and holy make these people stop already with the use of the fucking word "cyber" in conjunction with every other word. It's prodigious use in the draft bill made it almost totally unreadable not to mention making the article just as difficult to read.
Second, I like Obama and trust him more than I have any politician in a very long time. I would hope that he appoints people who I can trust as well. However at the end of the day he is STILL a politician and as such my trust stops at a very defined point. That point is even shorter when it comes to underlings who are nominating or attempting to appoint other underlings to positions where they would hold this level of sway with the President when it comes to these kinds of security and infrastructure matters.
The language in the bill is FAR to vague and the powers outlined FAR to broad giving people whom I don't at all trust FAR to much control. In addition the licensing and certification requirements they keep harping on makes it sound like part of the bill was drafted by some company that provides training services so they can get in on some fat government money. The whole thing is a monumentally bad idea on every level and I would encourage anyone who can to find out if they have any local constituency supporting (or potentially supporting) this load of shit, and if so write or call them to express what a woefully misguided plan this bill is.
Because i'm really, really hoping this is an April 1 spoof.
That would explain why the PDF draft is hosted on Register servers and not elsewhere.
Against that, it looks a lot like a draft bill, and if there was a punchline in the PDF, I didnt' see it.
Unfortunately, we're now to a point where this kind of craziness might be a put-on, but it might be straight up.
To make sure their systems will continue to work, they will greatly reduce the available pool of people to administer them by demanding licences that a lot of techies will not co-operate with, or will have refused on spurious grounds such as having a name slightly similar to someone on a secret watch list.
to the lockdown and total control of OUR internet. goodby freedom.
it's very clear why the filthy overlords want to control the internet and how we can use it, and in case you have no clue, it's because this internet allows us to find out things, speak our minds and share our ideas. all of which present a massive threat to our rotten greedy ruthless rulers.
and in UK we have a self proclaimed leader who nobody voted for and nobody wants, and who will not seem to allow any further elections or referendums to take place.
do not trust any political system or leader on our planet. they all work for the same hidden all-controlling and all-owning few.
what a very very sad time it is that we live in where this is allowed to take place. and i for one say NO.
I'd be considerably less wary of this if the Feds were even vaguely competent in maintaining the security of their own network infrastructure. Tell you what, how about you apply this law only to fed.gov first and if you get your own house in order then we'll see about letting you start telling the private companies what to do?
And a whole lotta angry citizens on your hands to deal with when you cut their main source of information off. More so if you put them out of a job with your idiotic ideas on license requirements for IT jobs. Good luck with that, you'll need it!
The USA still thinks it owns the Internet, ha ha. that's so last century now.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
