Simple Question: What Cyberattack Would The New Cybersecurity Bill Have Stopped?
from the until-you-can-answer-that... dept
Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted (in secret, of course) to approve a new cybersecurity bill, dubbed CISA (as it was in the last Congress), though it kept the content of the actual bill secret until this week. The only Senator who voted against it was... Senator Wyden, of course, who rightly pointed out that this bill is "not a cybersecurity bill – it’s a surveillance bill by another name."The good folks over at the EFF have a rundown on why the bill is terrible:
Also, the bill goes away from previous cybersecurity bills that put Homeland Security in charge (which, by itself, isn't great, but DHS is the best option if you're debating between DHS, the NSA and the FBI). While the information still goes to DHS under this bill, DHS doesn't then get to parse through it and figure out where it goes. Instead, the info needs to be shared "in real time" with the NSA. All of which just gives weight to the fact that this is a surveillance bill, not a bill to protect against "cybersecurity attacks."Aside from its redundancy, the Senate Intelligence bill grants two new authorities to companies. First, the bill authorizes companies to launch countermeasures (now called "defensive measures" in the bill) for a "cybersecurity purpose" against a "cybersecurity threat." "Cybersecurity purpose" is so broadly defined that it means almost anything related to protecting (including physically protecting) an information system, which can be a computer or software. The same goes for a "cybersecurity threat," which includes anything that "may result" in an unauthorized effort to impact the availability of the information system.
Even with the changed language, it's still unclear what restrictions exist on "defensive measures." Since the definition of "information system" is inclusive of files and software, can a company that has a file stolen from them launch "defensive measures" against the thief's computer? What's worse, the bill may allow such actions as long as they don't cause "substantial" harm. The bill leaves the term "substantial" undefined. If true, the
countermeasures"defensive measures" clause could increasingly encourage computer exfiltration attacks on the Internet—a prospect that may appeal to some "active defense" (aka offensive) cybersecurity companies, but does not favor the everyday user.Second, the bill adds a new authority for companies to monitor information systems to protect an entity's hardware or software. Here again, the broad definitions could be used in conjunction with the monitoring clause to spy on users engaged in potentially innocuous activity. Once collected, companies can then share the information, which is also called “cyber threat indicators,” freely with government agencies like the NSA.
But if you want to know the single biggest reason why this bill is bogus: ask those supporting it what cybersecurity attack this bill would have stopped. And you'll notice they don't have an answer. That's because it's not a cybersecurity bill at all. It's just a bill to try to give the government more access to your user info.
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: cisa, cybersecurity, dhs, information sharing, nsa, ron wyden, senate intelligence committee, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
NSA's mission = hacking and surveillance
Cybersecurity = encryption and UNBREAKABLE security design
See how the two are INCOMPATIBLE?
A civil and transparent agency should be in charge cybersecurity. And by transparent, I don't mean Obama's type of Transparency™
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I understand the criticisms leveled by people over at the EFF, but what they say about generalities is true of every piece of legislation passed by every federal and state legislative body since laws were first committed to writing. To be accurate, the only "perfect" bill is one that is never enacted...but in a society as ours that is based upon the rule of law that is not possible, so flexibility in language must be provided and tolerated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And again, this is being pushed as a cyberSECURITY bill which by definition (ie most sensible people) means protecting and encrypting systems so they can't be hacked into. What this bill does is the exact opposite, all it does is allow companies to "hack back" (something they ALREADY can do) and allow MORE of your personal information to be data-minded by the NSA.
You notice the contradiction? That' because it's not a cybersecurity bill but a surveillance bill wearing the trappings of cybersecurity.
We can have good security without sacrificing privacy but this bill is not the way to go and solves nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait, this bill isn't about cybersecurity after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feds to states: Go ahead and ignore state law
What the fuck gives the federal government the authority to relieve any agency of the State of Washington from that state agencies' obligation to fully obey Washington law?
What the fucking fuck-fuck?
Where does it say that in the federal Constitution? It doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feds to states: Go ahead and ignore state law
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
(See commentary: “... Congress may not ‘commandeer’ state regulatory processes by ordering states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program...”).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feds to states: Go ahead and ignore state law
What does California have to say about this? Access to public records is written into the California Constitution. Do the feds have some sort of free-floating, untethered authority to tell your state's agencies to ignore your state's constitution?
What does California have to say about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feds to states: Go ahead and ignore state law
Does the recently, secretly rewritten (due to 9/11) Constitution of the United States count?
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feds to states: Go ahead and ignore state law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feds to states: Go ahead and ignore state law
However, be assured that we do now have the right to do exactly that, and many other things that the old outdated pre-9/11 Constitution did not allow.
You can trust us when we say that this is entirely for your benefit.
USG
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The NSA already has "direct access" to Google...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The NSA already has "direct access" to Google...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C'mon, use the right terms!
Everyone knows this is called "ICE". Data walls, Code Gates, Traces, Sentries, though it'll be a while before we get the mind-computer interfaces that would make Black Ice a reality.
Ah, the smell of a Cortical Scrub in the morning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: C'mon, use the right terms!
You only THINK you smell it... :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone's cheering, and it's not just the spies
Feel like double-trolling someone you don't like? Use their computer/network in an attack, and then watch as the 'counter-attack' results in it being even more broken than before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone's cheering, and it's not just the spies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone's cheering, and it's not just the spies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone's cheering, and it's not just the spies
This is of course the whole plan.
Once the public starts to react to having their computers wiped by Pissco or Microsloth because someone, somewhere - most likely CIAF BINSA - linked their box as a zombie in an electronic attack on that company, the Surveillance Corporation, currently known as the CIAF BINSA, can "prove" the need for Cyber-security counter-measures and get better tax-payer funding for their next generation of assault wares and better "public" support for the whole concept of Retaliatory Cyber Security.
It will also "prove" to the tax-paying public, the need for "Retaliatory Cyber-Security" attack wares used by corporations.
If you want to make legislation that will be obviously unpopular because it pries into public privacy or decreases public communications security, you must first create a crime-laden environment that can be used to show why the legislation is necessary.
This is how all of the "War On ******" scams are created. \
Its a tried and true business model.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still Fighting The Last War
Of course, it's lame to merely be reactive, and to plan and prepare for the attacks that happened in the past. It is smarter, and thus I suggest that we instead prepare for the attacks that might happen in the future.
So now, our gov't has leapfrogged my suggestion. Instead of fighting the last war, or the next one, we are putting up "defenses" for problems that never happened, and never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still Fighting The Last War
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Still Fighting The Last War
Though somehow I doubt the US willing to learn this particular piece of advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is simple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]