Obama Administration Looking To Expand Definition Of 'Critical Infrastructure' To Hit Back At Russians
from the oh-really-now? dept
One of the ridiculous parts of all of the discussions around "cybersecurity" concerns what should be considered "critical infrastructure." That's because, thanks to various executive orders, what the President declares as "critical infrastructure" leads to different cybersecurity requirements. There have been concerns that this will result in broadly classifying the internet as "critical infrastructure" in a manner that will lead to easier surveillance. But, as we noted nearly a decade ago, broadly classifying the internet as critical infrastructure would be silly, when the use of that designation should be narrowly focused on things like voting and banking (not to mention things like energy grids and water supplies).Apparently, however, as the Obama administration is looking to respond to what it believes was Russian "interference" in the 2016 Presidential election, it is realizing that none of it targeted "critical infrastructure." And thus... it now wants to change the definition of what's covered. That should be concerning.
First off, at this point we should make a quick aside that there remains zero evidence released publicly that there was any actual hacking of our voting systems. None. Zip. Zero. And basically everything claiming otherwise has been partisan hackery. Before the election Trump supporters were going on and on about how voting machines could be hacked -- but have been mostly silent since the election. Instead, since the election ended, it's been Clinton supporters insisting that Russian hackers tampered with voting machines. For a decade and a half we've been warning about bad e-voting machines and how insecure they are, but so far no one has presented anything in the way of proof that electronic voting machines were hacked. Actual voting infrastructure is pretty clearly "critical infrastructure." But what about other things -- like the emails of top party leaders? Well, that's what the administration now seems to want to change into "critical infrastructure."
This is from a Washington Post article on the expected response by the White House against Russia:
The sanctions portion of the package culminates weeks of debate in the White House on how to revise a 2015 executive order that was meant to give the president authority to respond to cyberattacks from overseas but that did not cover efforts to influence the electoral system.The targeting of "state election systems" definitely seems a bit more like it should obviously be considered "critical infrastructure" -- though those attacks on state systems were not targeted at the actual voting infrastructure, but computer systems that contained information about voters and such. But it seems a lot more questionable to argue that political parties' computer systems should automatically be seen as "critical infrastructure." That seems to be heading down the slippery slope of declaring certain individuals email accounts critical infrastructure, and lots of mischief could be associated with such a designation.
[....]
But officials concluded this fall that the order could not, as written, be used to punish the most significant cyber-provocation in recent memory against the United States — Russia’s hacking of Democratic organizations, targeting of state election systems and meddling in the presidential election.
With the clock ticking, the White House is working on adapting the authority to punish the Russians, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. President Obama pledged this month that there would be a response to Moscow’s interference in the U.S. elections.
As the article notes, even though it's believed by many that Russian hackers got into election systems, it doesn't appear they did anything in those systems, so it's tough to show that there was actual harm:
“You would (a) have to be able to say that the actual electoral infrastructure, such as state databases, was critical infrastructure, and (b) that what the Russians did actually harmed it,” said the administration official. “Those are two high bars.”It definitely seems that voting systems should be seen as critical infrastructure, but given how declarations of critical infrastructure come with some pretty hefty requirements -- and opening up the possibility of greater surveillance -- the administration should be pretty careful about expanding the list as a reactionary move to the last election.
Although Russian government hackers are believed to have penetrated at least one state voter-registration database, they did not tamper with the data, officials said.
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: critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, e-voting, hacking, obama administration, retaliation, russia, voting, voting systems, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hillarys email problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hillarys email problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hillarys email problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hillarys email problem
Ewww...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hillarys email problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hillarys email problem
I am happy she lost and STILL would like to see tha skank pay for her flippant abuse of power and generally treating the idiots of America like serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hillarys email problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hillarys email problem
Hillary broke the law and has been now proven a liar which are facts that are not even being contested now, she is skating because there is a recommendation to NOT DO ANYTHING about it. People have gone to jail for less and you don't seem to care.
I probably hate Bush more than you do but I try to avoid allowing my political pettiness to distract me from the issue at hand. Bush was a disgrace so was Hillary. As long as you are okay with either of them you have no standing to bitch about another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillarys email problem
"Who's there?! Obama to take my guns?!"
"Valdmir Putin, I'm taking your country."
"Oh ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillarys email problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hillarys email problem
pot, kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hillarys email problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: hillarys email problem
*Crickets*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exposing corruption of the Democratic party should be seen as a good thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exposing corruption of the Democratic party should be seen as a good thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exposing corruption of the Democratic party should be seen as a good thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Exposing corruption of the Democratic party should be seen as a good thing
Fair? .. No
Is one party bad while the other one good? .. No
Has anything changed? .. No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eastasia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Podestas email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hacking or trolling?
Anyway, I can't help but think the Russians had a nasty little hand, but overall I doubt anything they did made a big difference. Blaming the Russians for Trump's election would be nice, but we're fully capable of screwing our own selves without their help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hacking or trolling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hacking or trolling?
So does the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hacking or trolling?
It says something about US politicians when they are claiming the release of FACTUAL INFORMATION about what they have been doing is "hacking the election".
Stop being slimy, underhanded, liars and start representing your people and someone exposing your emails will not be a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hacking or trolling?
It says something about US politicians when they are claiming the release of FACTUAL INFORMATION about what they have been doing is "hacking the election".
Makes you wonder why all these republicans are bitching and moaning about bias in media.
I don't remember seeing a corresponding republican email dump.
You know, just to be fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hacking or trolling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hacking or trolling?
I don't remember seeing a corresponding republican email dump.
Perhaps you should explain what you mean by "free pass."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hacking or trolling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hacking or trolling?
So where'd you hear about the e-mail server?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every time they do something that robs more liberty from the people, they keep it in there.
the Dems bitch and moan like girls when a Rep is in power, and the Reps bitch and moan like girls when a Dep is in power.
But when their own is in power... then its just fucking fine and dandy. Anyone voting for an R or D should shut the fuck up because they have ZERO standing to bitch about anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, full disclosure: I voted L on the presidential, R on a few local things, and D on a few others, as well as indies for other state/local positions. I picked those who I though would do the job best. I would think I get to bitch, since I took the time to do more than check the box that says I vote the party slate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yay, Russians!
It is total asshattery that anyone from the U.S. government should wag a finger at another nation for cyber attacks on non-government assets given our track-record of hacking real, infrastructural military and industrial assets of foreign governments, e.g., the Iranian uranium-enrichment program.
Finally, repeating over and over again that our intelligence agencies say they have high confidence that the Russians did the deed convinces me of nothing. I'm approaching the point where I might not believe a "convincing" trail of evidence from the intelligence community, but I certainly don't take fuzzy, third-party statements about CIA/NSA confidence as a justification to tie my shoe much less sanction Russia, or as some would have it, rattle sabers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yay, Russians!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yay, Russians!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My cat's laser pointer toy is 'critical infrastructure'
YMMV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as we make it so bad that they don't keep any evidence to show they have been hacked, there can never be a problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, wait - I forgot, partisanship. If they vote Democrat, it's all good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is my opinion that even if it is True that Russia was successful in completely stealing the election for Trump the Democrats completely deserve it.
I want both parties to take this shit seriously and right now... neither of them are paying anything other than political lip service to it all as "The People" just keep voting in the biggest idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, but don't fall for Trump's line about millions of non-citizens voting illegally. That didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
critical infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Russian Malicious Cyber Activity document available
PDF file
https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proving Trump correct
Trump's made no secret that he wants to cosy up with Russia. And here is Obama, damaging Russian relationships practically to the point of severing them entirely.
Really makes you wonder if Trump has a point and if Obama is doing this out of spite.
(And before anyone accuses me of being pro-Trump or anti-Obama or whatever: I'm not even American. I don't care who the US president is. I'm not Russian either for that matter.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proving Trump correct
The US being the world's most powerful country makes the US President the world's president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proving Trump correct
The only benefit of the left/right see-saw politics game is to distract us from the fact that this has all been done in the name of the "free market" and "to benefit consumers."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]