Lieberman bill would give Feds ability to take over computer networks if there's an imminent threat

[thewayne]

Whee! I'm sure there will be zero mission creep on this one.

Let's take a look at the current 'threat level', shall we? It's currently yellow, the second highest of a five level scale. Has it ever been in the bottom two values since 9/11? I doubt it. Will it ever be in the bottom two levels? I doubt it. There's too much profit, both $$$ and political, to be made by keeping the populace afraid.

This bill is to ensure that "critical infrastructure" will remain up during an emergency. WE ALREADY DO THAT. I've worked in government for over 15 years in several different agencies, AND WE HAVE THOSE PLANS IN PLACE. Whether or not they would work is another question entirely and not easily tested without serious operation disruption. But how could the Feds effectively swoop in and take over our network effectively? They don't know passwords, they don't know architecture, they don't know valid users, they don't know valid services. They don't know ANYTHING about our configuration.

What could possibly go wrong?

Could you imagine if your network were running something like Plan 9 or was totally mainframe based? They wouldn't have a clue.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/lieberman-bill-gives-feds-emergency-powers-to-secure-civilian-net/

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/06/03/038203/Bill-Gives-Feds-Emergency-Powers-To-Secure-Civilian-Nets

Comments

Threat Levels

[hafoc.livejournal.com]

Let's consider They who set threat levels, and try to be fair to Them for a moment, shall we?

If we assume They are acting in good faith, They are never going to set threat levels to green because Their job is to encourage people to be cautious. They can't do Their job by saying threats are at a minimum, so They never will. No evil intention required.

If we assume They are butt-covering bureaucrats-- and I work for a government myself, so I know there's a lot of butt-covering going on-- then They don't want to be the one who set threat levels to green just before the next terrorist attack. And face it, there WILL be another one, always, no matter what we do.

Of course, if They are evil sods, They also get the most power by trying to keep people scared. So assuming evil intentions you come to the same result; no Condition Green, ever.

My point, though, is that you don't have to assume that people who have the job of trying to protect us from something are acting from nefarious motives because they overemphasize the threat. It's their JOB to see bogeymen in every corner, whether they're the TSA or the Department of Agriculture talking about some new crop pest, or the Navy agonizing about the strategic threat of Fiji's fisheries patrol boats.

Doesn't mean we don't have to keep an eye on Them! I won't ever say that. In fact, the fact that most of Them are good, honest people trying to do their best, and it's all for our own good, makes Them all the more dangerous. Good-intentioned zeal, combined occasionally with incompetence, is far more dangerous than knuckle cracking, gleeful, maniacal evil; evil will quit when it has gotten its Meel-yion Dollars, but sincere good intentions are relentless.

[beeyochkitty.livejournal.com]

I really didn't think I could hate Lieberman more. It's their job to look out for boogeyman - but this is the poster child for "not the way to do it".

[silveradept]

Leave it to Lieberman. Or Stevens. Or someone else who knows just enough to be scared and not enough to know that they're being played for fearmongering fools.