How 'Bout Obama Controls Your PC, Too?

This is, unfortunately, no joke (emphasis mine):

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

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.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Yeah, that sounds like a typical piece of Obama legislation!

Still, do you see what this is? It's nothing less than an attempt to legally give the White House the power to switch on and off private sector computers! Talk about a lust for control! The biggest problem with this is that there are virtually no limits or definitions that clarify anything:

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.

This strikes me as being very reminiscent of the 'too big to fail' mantra for the banking industry that led to eventual government takeovers, but the phrasing for technology is now along the lines of 'critical to cyber-security'. And what about that periodic mapping and information sharing of private networks? Trust me, none of that happens in an unobtrusive way, and if the government is allowed to do that it could have serious business impacts on those companies.

Imagine, if you will, a company that is not playing nicely with the Obama administration (say, if they actually donated more money to Reps than Dems). Obama could tell them it was time for a periodic mapping session, send in a bunch of bureaucrats to tie up that company for a few days or weeks or months, severely hampering their ability to function. And that would just be the warning! And what defines a 'cyber threat'? The bill doesn't say. We know that China has recently hacked its way into our electrical grid...would that count?

The bottom line here is that this is way too much authority for the White House -- ANY White House, not just Obama's -- and should not be allowed. This is a clear infringement upon the individual and property rights of private American citizens and companies, and a vast overreach by government.

Just say no.

There's my two cents.