Senators Ramp Up Fear Mongering To Try To Rush Through Cybersecurity Bill
from the and-of-course dept
We're still waiting for any actual evidence that this new cybersecurity bill is really necessary. An actual description of the real problem being dealt with would be a good start. Instead, we just get pure fear mongering. While some Senators are asking supporters of the bill to slow down and carefully consider the issue, the bill's backers, led by Senator Lieberman seem to be on "full speed ahead" mode -- trying to skip hearings and markups to take the bill straight to the Senate floor for a vote.In this case, Senator John McCain is urging caution, and pushing back at claims that because totally different cybersecurity bills have been introduced in the past, this one can be rushed:
To suggest that this bill should move directly to the Senate Floor because it has ‘been around’ since 2009 is outrageous," McCain said. "First, the bill was introduced two days ago. Secondly, where do Senate Rules state that a bill’s progress in a previous congress can supplant the necessary work on that bill in the present one?"Of course, it isn't that McCain is "the voice of reason" here. He's actually pushing for a different bill that will give NSA broad spying powers over the internet. The dispute between McCain and Lieberman is really a long-running territorial dispute -- concerning whether Homeland Security or the Defense Department get to control the "cybersecurity" budget. The Lieberman bill gives the power to Homeland Security. McCain wants to give it to the DoD. Neither seem to want to bother with evidence of the actual need here.
Of course, backers of the bill are falling back on their typical doomsday scenarios to explain why they have to rush and avoid any sort of discussion or evidence:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned the committee there could be grave consequences if Congress does not act to protect cybersecurity.Yes, and think about how life would suck if someone hacked the road system in West Virginia and turned all roads into cabbage patches? I mean, if we're talking about total hypotheticals with no actual likelihood of happening, that seems just as reasonable a scenario as Rockefeller's. It's pure, insane, unsupported hypothetical fear mongering. Is our air traffic system connected to the internet? I sure hope not. If it is, that's the problem -- not the lack of some cybersecurity bill. We've seen no evidence that the air traffic or rail switching are subject to attack, so creating Hollywood-style scenarios is pretty ridiculous. Is Rockefeller honestly suggesting that the folks who run these systems aren't doing everything they can to secure those systems and that there would be any significant differences if this cybersecurity bill is passed? Somehow I don't think the folks who maintain our air traffic control system are sitting around thinking there's nothing they can do until a cybersecurity bill is in place.
"Think about how many people could die if a cyber terrorist attacked our air traffic control system and planes slammed into one another," Rockefeller said. "Or if rail switching networks were hacked—causing trains carrying people—or hazardous materials—to derail and collide in the midst of some of our most populated urban areas, like Chicago, New York, San Francisco or Washington."
So how about we take a step back, and rather than passing a broad bill based on fear mongering, folks like Rockefeller and Feinstein (hell, or even McCain) produce some actual evidence of a threat? Or is that too hard?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cybersecurity, cyberwar, dhs, dianne feinstein, dod, evidence, jay rockefeller, joe lieberman, john mccain, nsa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They didn't. In fact, they're bending over backwards to make it clear that this is totally unrelated to SOPA-PIPA. And while there are reasons to distrust them, on this they're being truthful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The next question is which of the defense contractors Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, or Solera is pushing this forward? It would actually be interesting to see who bought this law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is truly pathetic that we have people completely ignorant of the technologies that they are seeking to control. The fact that they are using the boogeyman of teh terrorists to push it through should be all the proof the average American needs to vote these octogenarians out of office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
.... As long as any organization can buy a politician ...
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Medication needed!
Rockefeller, Feinstein, Napolitano, McCain, and especially Lieberman need some serious therapy and medication to help them get through this period of panic they seem to be stuck in. Seriously, they need to sit down, relax a little, and STFU...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What, 10 posts a day on this now, all without being a lobbyist?
Hmmm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Madlibs pwn3d!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no argument, so who really fails here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I really hope you visit a good psychologist soon, do you have insurance or maybe disability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm pretty sure...
Its a rough job but someones got to grab your junk to make sure you really are what you say you are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But think of the cabbage
Mike, stop giving ideas to our enemies. This cyber-cabbageocalypse will kill us all!
You'll be making snide remarks out of the other side of your head when a trojan-infested road savoy is gnawing on your innards, or when the leaf heads march on the capitol building.
"Don't worry," you say. "They're rich in vitamins C and K!" But did you also know cabbages are rich in vitamin D? Not the secosteroids, but D as in DEATH?!?! That's right, VITAMIN DEATH!!! They have it, and they're coming for us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But think of the cabbage
I have an army of goats on standbye!
We'll defeat that evil cabbage in its tracks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But think of the cabbage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Switzerland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the Money
What company(ies) benefit from McCains bill?
If we could find these answers we would know why the rush is on, and why there is competition for control between DHS and DoD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money Lebowski
The problem here is who wants to get paid for fear mongering. I'm kind of glad that there's two different versions of this bill. Since the two are going to be fighting about this, at least it won't become a huge concern. What's really going to scare me is when both parties put through a big bill where neither party is responsible for anything but they get all the monitoring powers is when I begin to worry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As Joe Biden once said, "I use the Google"
We are the terrorists. Americans are the biggest threat to the American government, and the government is getting damn scared of us. With elections so polar and nearly equally divided, we actually are a fairly scary bunch. Look at the hate toward Obama and Santorum, add media zombification to that and any government would want monitoring to know how we're reacting to their policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As Joe Biden once said, "I use the Google"
I was thinking that recently as well, though from a UK perspective. Similar to the Gatekeepers of content, our governments are currently fearing a lack of control. People now see government interference as a systemic problem and seek to work around it where possible. A process I find kind of fascinating and which I am naively optimistic about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As Joe Biden once said, "I use the Google"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Create a 'panic' and then pander for money and power to 'fix it'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Think about how many people could die if a cyber terrorist attacked our air traffic control system and planes slammed into one another," Rockefeller said. "Or if rail switching networks were hacked—causing trains carrying people—or hazardous materials—to derail and collide in the midst of some of our most populated urban areas, like Chicago, New York, San Francisco or Washington."
HAHAHA!
So laws 'secure' computers now?
How dense are our politicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OTOH, how often do you hear someone in conversion say "well that should be illegal!" Issues that are too large or burdensome for the individual to handle is one thing, but it's usually about things that they just don't want to be bothered to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrorism isn't much of a threat when people are more important than property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nevertheless, there may be some reason for concern...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That micro nation off the coast of England... Think it's called "the kingdom of sealand"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Planes crashing into one another *did* happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cybersecurity's Real Terror
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help me understand
Also keep in mind that I am in TOTAL agreement that these people are nuts and should shut up.
That being said, surely the air systems are on the internet, I mean, they probably have a vpn or something, but in theory if they're using computers that connect they're on the internet and could be infiltrated right? Help me understand why this is wrong thinking- I'd like to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help me understand
I am not 100% sure about the air traffic systems but they should be designed the same way. All hardware (radar ect) is on-site and hooked to the internal network. This network does not communicate with ANY machines outside the network. So to hack it you would have to physically be inside the control station or tower.
These closed networks do sometimes get hacked. For instance the Stuxnet virus infection in the Iranian power plants. But for this to happen someone inside the plant has to upload the virus or someone has to unknowingly bring it in on a device. Hooking up and infected usb drive to a terminal or putting an infected laptop onto the wifi.
There is no way to make a security system that someone can not break into. You can easily make a security system that YOU would never be able to hack, but someone(s) is smarter then you and will break you security. So vital systems like power, air traffic are (or should be) on closed networks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Help me understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Help me understand
Pretty much everyone who has a grasp of what's going on these days in computer and network security—so-called “cybersecurity”—is probably fearful to the point of paranoia. At the same time, the situation calls for sustained and reasoned thinking. Only high-functioning schizophrenics can really cope.
Therefore, the first thing to do is to shoot anyone who panics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Maybe Congress will....
This reminds me so much of the overhyped doomsday scenerio's of Y2k where the people yelling loudest about it were coincidentally the same ones offering the expensive(lucrative?)solutions to a more or less non-problem that programmers had been quietly fixing for nearly a decade beforehand. It's like someone Netflixed Die Hard 2 and couldn't fall asleep afterward, what if they hack all the planes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government or The Omnipotent Protector?
Justify yourselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like "breaking the internet"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
World War Web Advisories 1 - 4
http://amerikanreich.com/2012/02/15/world-war-web-advisory-4-s-2105-cybersecurity-act-of-201 2-a-k-a-the-empire-strikes-back/
World War Web Advisory #3: ACTA, SOPA, PIPA and Now PCIP!
http://amerikanreich.com/2012/02/02/world-war-web-advisory-3-acta-sopa-pipa-and-now-pcip/
World War Web Advisory #2: We Must Stop ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)
http://amerikanreich.com/2012/01/22/world-war-web-advisory-2-we-must-stop-acta-the-ant i-counterfeiting-trade-agreement/
World War Web Advisory #1: Are You An Unwitting Victim Of Internet Censorship?
http://amerikanreich.com/2012/01/21/world-war-web-advisory-1-are-you-an-unwitting-vic tim-of-internet-censorship/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Penetrating critical systems.
Apparently, it *is* possible to penetrate these systems, though if they're established as closed intranets, entirely disconnected from the global World Wide Web, they are harder to penetrate than would be the case were they connected to the global network. But not impossible, not by a long shot.
It's a matter of public record and many news reports that there have been a number of cybersecurity breaches of our government networks, including defense and intelligence networks. My impression, and it could be incorrect, that the majority and most alarming have apparently been caused by other nations' agencies; China is the usual suspect, with good reason, though one wonders just how "inert" even some of our ostensible allies -- Israel, Britain, France, and Germany all spring readily to mind -- actually *are.* While HUMINT (human intelligence) can be invaluable, especially coming from a long-term, deep-cover mole within a defense, intelligence, security-law enforcement agency, so can be intelligence gained in other ways. Further, if a hostile actor finds a way to defeat or circumvent defense barriers on networks, he can go on the attack, including -- potentially -- taking a network down. Or so I understand.
My point is that while this legislation is yet one more abomination coming out our increasingly abominable Congress and should go right straight down the toilet (along, metaphorically, with certain Senators and Representatives, by the way), if my understanding that we are at risk is correct, then perhaps -- but ONLY perhaps -- something by way of legislation needs to be done, though we need to ride herd -- hard -- on the critters under the Capitol Dome, with whips close to hand to be sure they don't make further encroachments on the Constitution.
If they persist, thought elections aren't far away, in the first place, only 1/3rd of the Senate will be facing re-election, assuming the currently-sitting Senator plans to stand for office again (and I think a few are retiring), so the second place becomes reasonable: start recall-election drives. Even if state laws make it impossible to have such an election prior to November's general one, the negative publicity could hurt a candidate hard, perhaps even causing him or her to go down in utter flames -- and shame. GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!, IMHO. Let 'em burn. Few currently on the scene, on either side of the aisle, deserve anything better anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One day soon we will wake up living in a Jewish policestate & treated like Palestinian's here in the US.
We're almost there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I totally agree. Allowing access to control ANYTHING through the internet without thinking it through is insane. Hackers will always find ways around the system. Just ask Microsoft. No, this bill has "ulterior motives" written all over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]