In my former state MG, Brazil, they passed a "new law" into effect that targeted internet "crime". In a matter of hours the only internet (virtual) opposition newspaper of the state was shut down by the military police, their computers were seized, and their domain name juridicoid-ly stolen.
They don't want to "protect" the country, they want to shut down any dissidence. They want "their" judges to have jurisdiction over the internet, and that doesn't only apply to Brazil. That is why there are "no amendments" to this bill in question. It sprung from hell all ready and perfectly written with one and one thing alone in mind. To protect the extreme-right's corruption. That is evident, since to protect the ideas and interest of the left (where? where? I am from the US! Did you see any left?) with juridicoid measures in unthinkable.
Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology fear if passed in its current form, the proposal leaves too much discretion of just what defines critical infrastructure.
Well, "critical infrastructure" is like Palestinian water, medicine, and food; you just shut it down when they need it. It's that simple. Fortunately, they don't need it that often.
QUOTE
The bill would also impose mandates for designated private networks and systems, including standardized security software, testing, licensing and certification of cyber-security professionals.
There are attempts to juridicoidify the internet all over the world. The "mandates" for "designated private networks" is a dead give-away. But if the "designated private networks" are such critical feature, why doesn't the law pay for it? (because that is work of a lobby setting up a darwinian struggle which they don't stand a chance to lose money on, and not at all any sort of "critical" feature.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The bill would also impose mandates for designated private networks and systems, including standardized security software, testing, licensing and certification of cyber-security professionals. |
There are attempts to juridicoidify the internet all over the world. The "mandates" for "designated private networks" is a dead give-away. But if the "designated private networks" are such critical feature, why doesn't the law pay for it? (because that is work of a lobby setting up a darwinian struggle which they don't stand a chance to lose money on, and not at all any sort of "critical" feature.)
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Cybersecurit...owers_0413.htmlThe Raw Story | Cybersecurity Act would give president power to 'shut down' Internet
From which I selected:
QUOTE
Snowe added, "America's vulnerability to massive cyber-crime, global cyber-espionage and cyber-attacks has emerged as one of the most urgent national security problems facing our country today. Importantly, this legislation loosely parallels the recommendations in the CSIS [Center for Strategic and International Studies] blue-ribbon panel report to President Obama and has been embraced by a number of industry and government thought leaders."
Why would a president want power over a "measure" that from the very first second could potentially crash the whole world's economy and spread panic? Who will end up with money in their pockets?
Where are the statistics on all of this "massive cyber-crime"?
Where are the statistics of all this "global cyber-espionage"?
Who are the "number of industry and government thought leaders"?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Snowe added, "America's vulnerability to massive cyber-crime, global cyber-espionage and cyber-attacks has emerged as one of the most urgent national security problems facing our country today. Importantly, this legislation loosely parallels the recommendations in the CSIS [Center for Strategic and International Studies] blue-ribbon panel report to President Obama and has been embraced by a number of industry and government thought leaders." |
Why would a president want power over a "measure" that from the very first second could potentially crash the whole world's economy and spread panic? Who will end up with money in their pockets?
Where are the statistics on all of this "massive cyber-crime"?
Where are the statistics of all this "global cyber-espionage"?
Who are the "number of industry and government thought leaders"?
Critics decry the broad language, and are watchful for amendments to the bill seeking to refine the provisions
Ok: who are the critics? (meaning who is the lobby lobbying for?)
QUOTE
Adds Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many systems (banks, telecommunications, energy)are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government."
If we let this "federalize" pass, and if we believe that "critical infrastructure" means the internet, I really like -and much worse, believe- this graph. She is right!
However, in practice the theory is quite different. Federalizing the virtual when banks control the most virtual of all resources will turn out to be a declaration of war on global population. Period.
And it won't take long to see it in action either.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.