Re: Senate Legislation Would Federalize Cyber Security

["Larry Seltzer" <larry () larryseltzer com>]

Saw this too. Would that it was in jest...

Larry Seltzer
eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
http://security.eweek.com/
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/
Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
larry.seltzer () ziffdavisenterprise com


-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org]
On Behalf Of Paul Ferguson
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:45 AM
To: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: [funsec] Senate Legislation Would Federalize Cyber Security

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Via The Washington Post.

[snip]

Key lawmakers are pushing to dramatically escalate U.S. defenses against
cyberattacks, crafting proposals that would empower the government to
set
and enforce security standards for private industry for the first time.

The proposals, in Senate legislation that could be introduced as early
as
today, would broaden the focus of the government's cybersecurity efforts
to
include not only military networks but also private systems that control
essentials such as electricity and water distribution. At the same time,
the bill would add regulatory teeth to ensure industry compliance with
the
rules, congressional officials familiar with the plan said yesterday.

Addressing what intelligence officials describe as a gaping
vulnerability,
the legislation also calls for the appointment of a White House
cybersecurity "czar" with unprecedented authority to shut down computer
networks, including private ones, if a cyberattack is underway, the
officials said.

How industry groups will respond is unclear. Jim Dempsey, vice president
for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, which
represents private companies and civil liberties advocates, said that
mandatory standards have long been the "third rail of cybersecurity
policy." Dempsey said regulation could also stifle creativity by forcing
companies to adopt a uniform approach.

[snip]

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR200903
310
3684.html

Somehow, this strikes me as a very bad idea....

- - ferg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)

wj8DBQFJ0xtbq1pz9mNUZTMRAk2oAJ44KDALS8wR3u+mQFF3zdg+C3K9twCg7w4m
JtBlu6qbviPa6jU4zRfDMO4=
=qxH9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.



_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.