# What AlGore giveth, Obama taketh away (bill gives Exec Br authority over private networks) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 28, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059 "2009-08-28T17:57:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/1 "2009-08-28T17:57:41Z")
Today’s Drudge Report screams (in big, red, capital letters) Bill Would Give Obama ‘Emergency’ Control of Internet! The [linked article](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html) goes to a Cnet page discussing an in-the-works Senate bill that would grant the Executive Branch certain control over private networks in emergency situations. The bill is apparently still being hashed (heh) out, so it seems there is much speculation. Choice quotes from the article: > [@](#): > > The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. > > … > > When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said. > > … > > Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.) > > “The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.” > > Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network. Now, as mentioned in (an unquoted bit of) the article, the Executive Branch does have authority over some vital aspects of infrastructure (e.g., the grounding of airplanes on September 11). Given how horrible it is when the Dope goes down, and given the Internet’s prevalence and necessity to society (recall the fear pre-Y2K), Federal intervention to solve(?) a state of emergency is a good thing. Even the spectre of additional compliance and hiring regulations on vital industries doesn’t seem far fetched—there are already information security and other requirements in place, so catcalls of expansion into the private sector ring hollow. But then again, while I may be partial to the Obama administration, I don’t want to give the government any more power than necessary: power corrupts, Obama himself won’t actually be at the helm, administrations change (e.g., President Palin), etc. So: Does the threat of cyber (or other) attack justify Executive Branch authority over private networks? What situations would warrant intervention? What form(s) should that intervention take? What safeguards should be put in place? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/2 "2009-08-28T18:15:43Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Does the threat of cyber (or other) attack justify Executive Branch authority over private networks? It seems to me that it would be more a matter for law enforcement than the executive branch. It should be allowed under sufficiently immediate circumstances under the same basic principles as hot pursuit; the cops, for example, can burst into my house without a warrant if they are following a fleeing suspect who just crawled in the window. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > What situations would warrant intervention? Terrorists/enemy intelligence agencies planting viruses, remotely sabotaging things, etc. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > What form(s) should that intervention take? Containing the damage; purging the viruses or whatever. Tracking down the origin if possible. All the sorts of things I’d expect law enforcement to be better at than the executive branch. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > What safeguards should be put in place? Some sort of oversight agency with complete access to what the intervening group is doing, for one. If anything is kept secret at all it should be under narrow limits, and with a strict ( and short ) sunset rule. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/3 "2009-08-28T18:59:10Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It seems to me that it would be more a matter for law enforcement than the executive branch. How are you distinguishing between law enforcement and the Executive Branch? Do state-level law enforcement branches have the resources or capacity to work at such a scale? Or is this a silly semantic miscommunication (by Exec Branch I meant the DoJ, HS, and other Exec. Branch bodies) > [@](#): > > It should be allowed under sufficiently immediate circumstances under the same basic principles as hot pursuit; the cops, for example, can burst into my house without a warrant if they are following a fleeing suspect who just crawled in the window. > > Terrorists/enemy intelligence agencies planting viruses, remotely sabotaging things, etc. This seems to imply that evidence of cyber-attack or other situation would grant the administration pursuit access. How would that work? DoS attack on more than two government agencies? On more than two ‘critical’ companies? > [@](#): > > Containing the damage; purging the viruses or whatever. Tracking down the origin if possible. Given how many exploits spread via unpatched computers, should the gov. have mandatory access to install patches? At what level? I must admit I’m in the dark about what “taking over private networks” would mean. Sniff all packets traveling over them (don’t they already have that capability thanks to AT&T’s volunteerism)? Filter all traffic? Reroute? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/4 "2009-08-28T19:03:24Z")
> [@](#): > > It seems to me that it would be more a matter for law enforcement than the executive branch. Law enforcement is under the executive branch. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/5 "2009-08-28T19:11:21Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > How are you distinguishing between law enforcement and the Executive Branch? Law enforcement/technical professionals versus administrators/bureaucrats. Although now that I look it up apparently the FBI counts as executive branch so by that standard i guess I _ **do** _ support _ **certain parts** _ of the executive branch having authority. But the article talks about the White House being in charge; not law enforcement agencies. > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Given how many exploits spread via unpatched computers, should the gov. have mandatory access to install patches? At what level? > > I must admit I’m in the dark about what “taking over private networks” would mean. Sniff all packets traveling over them (don’t they already have that capability thanks to AT&T’s volunteerism)? Filter all traffic? Reroute? Those are technical questions beyond my knowledge. Which is why I made the point of secrecy being strictly limited; people who actually know the nitty gritty technical stuff should be allowed to know so they can find out if the government is overstepping it’s bounds. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/6 "2009-08-28T19:15:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Law enforcement is under the executive branch. That’s what I thought. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/7 "2009-08-28T19:23:59Z")
But the impression of a White House staff or extension being involved is different from DoJ. Granted, the WH sets policy, but it sounds like there was a semantic difference, not a tangible one. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/8 "2009-08-28T23:10:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Law enforcement is under the executive branch. The Executive Branch does not write law. That is for the Legislative Branch. This appears to be an attempt to write law. ---
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/9 "2009-08-28T23:32:55Z")
This sounds like another of those 2-edged swords. In those cases, those with a political agenda will frame it for their own propaganda purposes. Read this article from two days ago that was part of a series of articles in the NY Times about cyberwarfare. It is about how the Conflicker computer code lingers out there in more than 5 million machines. Nobody really knows if it is just incubating or whether the designers have abandoned it. In any event, it appears that those who constructed the code were linked to some political entity. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/technology/27compute.html?\_r=1&scp=2&sq=computer%20virus&st=cse](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/technology/27compute.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=computer%20virus&st=cse) We are in uncharted waters in regard to cyberwarfare. Simply taking the issue and trying to use it to scare the public and prevent proactive measures is highly irresponsible. We could be on the cusp of another situation where a disaster is about to happen, then in the aftermath the expose will show that the government knew something could happen and then the cry will be, “Why didn’t they do anything to stop it?” Maybe, just maybe, the legislation is a proactive measure to prevent or limit a major disaster. Again, read the article. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/10 "2009-08-29T00:41:06Z")
One of my friends who worked at NYC’s Office of Emergency Management mentioned to me that, in the event of catastrophic failure of the public data network, they (and FEMA?) had an agreement in place with Wal-Mart so that emergency services could use the company’s private network. I imagine this is the sort of thing the bill is codifying. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/11 "2009-08-29T00:43:22Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The Executive Branch does not write law. That is for the Legislative Branch. This appears to be an attempt to write law. Unless I’m missing something, the article is about a bill being proposed in the Senate. Who are you claiming is trying to write law? ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/12 "2009-08-29T02:46:08Z")
Unless they try to shut down all porn sites, I’m cool with it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/13 "2009-08-29T03:02:48Z")
Can’t be too bad, I don’t see any death panels. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-algore-giveth-obama-taketh-away-bill-gives-exec-br-authority-over-private-networks/508059/14 "2009-08-29T11:31:24Z")
But the Executive branch could cut off my access to SDMB! (and porn) And I would die without that! Sounds like a “death panel” to me. 🙂