One of the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act's biggest points of contention is how critical infrastructure should be defined. How should it be defined?
The directive that created the Homeland Security Department lists 18 critical infrastructure sectors, and I believe that's what the bill refers to.
How do you get the private companies that run critical infrastructure to comply with government demands for increased cyber security?
This would have to be in the event of what they call an existential issue, which is a threat to the survival of the republic. So it's not going to happen every week or every month or every year. But if there is a threat to the survival of the republic that could be controlled by government intervention, do you want to say that this action cannot be taken? The threshold for taking this action was very high in the original version of the bill that was introduced in June, so I wonder if it would ever be used. Of course, you can fairly ask: Can you have an existential crisis over the Internet? I don't know, probably not. But you could do some nasty things. Still, I would never expect to see this used.
If the U.S. government were to identify a cyber threat and step in to protect critical infrastructure systems, what might that look like?
The bill really doesn't give the government the ability to control the Internet. If, for example, one electrical grid is infected with a computer virus, you would want to insolate it from other electrical grids in the U.S. People have brought up the idea of a kill switch for the Internet, but this bill is not about a kill switch. The model here came out of the Defense Department, which has the ability to examine the U.S. military's command network. If, for example, the Pacific Command's computers are infected and have problems, the DoD can give them a week to clean up their problems or they will be taken off of the larger network. In this scenario the Pacific Command would still have access to its own network.
So the idea behind this legislation, at least as it's currently written, would be to disconnect companies from the Internet but not to shut down the Internet in a crisis situation?
That's right. We need to think about how we intervene in networks in an emergency. It would be nice if we could do that in some logical fashion and in some way that was more transparent. I'm pretty sure if there was a crisis, a real crisis, there would be no debate over this. How do we now define an expanded role for the government in national security? Part of that will be: Should the government have the right to intervene through regulation or this kind of disconnect ability? We have to have a serious debate. The problem is that the debate has been driven largely by this Internet pioneer ideology and by business interests, and that's not a good way to approach national security.
Subscription Center
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentSurfing the net is not critical. To protect critical stuff, get the machines running it off the public internet. Disable optical and USB flash drive connections (and all other, older, ports) to the workstations hooking to the mainframes or server farms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince people are corruptable and spies/saboteurs can get into facilities, no complete protection is possible. But as long as machines are exposed to public access (internet, cd/dvds, usb drives, etc.) the amount of protection possible is only medium, a little better than that of a tech-savvy home computer user.
I say the government needs the power to shut off the internet. Next time a certain country near the Sea of Japan gets decides to be bad they can slap em' in the face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say the government needs the power to shut off the internet. Next time a certain country near the Sea of Japan decides to be bad they can slap em' in the face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe root vunerability in our countries infrastructure is due to the fact that software companies in the US have been able to do business with "shrink-wrap" license agreements which basically obsolve them of having their product work as they say it should; so actual security in these applications and products is an after thought. If we held companies to a higher standard (yes the cost of mission critical software would go up) then they would have to spell out how secure their product actually is and then stand behind that claim. Cutting off the internet to protect our key infrastructure systems at the expense of the free flow of information (regardless of whether it is friendly to the current government powers) is like shooting the dog because it has fleas when an anti-flea bath would do the trick!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Shutting off the internet from a company" can be the same as "shutting down the company". Now we are talking (I hope) only about "critical infrastructure" which (I can only assume) wouldn't include E-Bay and the sorts - who's existence depends on the internet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut many of the common practices today place companies at risk if the plug was pulled - either by "us" or "them".
Every system that is "moved to the cloud", or outsourced to remote locations (to decrease costs) increases this network dependency. Internal communications depend on it (e-mail and phone). Business systems are centralized and accessed via communications link that effectively "go over the internet" - at least physically.
When networks were less reliable, much work was done to keep critical resources localized to minimize issues "when" (not if) the network stopped working. Today's networks are (seemingly) reliable enough for many companies to be betting the business on those connections remaining up.
This is hard enough of a problem to solve, but then you also throw in the fact that so many companies are multi-national, with networks and systems having global dependencies.
Don't fall for this New World Order stuff. The New World Order will initiate the cyber-attacks, then they will claim they need the power to control the internet to prevent the cyber-attacks that they themselves have initiated. The American public will be duped once again and we will give our government the power to control the internet. There goes our ability to communicate and our freedom of expression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe New World Order will fail. The global awakening cannot be stopped.
I agree that the Federal government needs an ability to protect critical assets in case of an attack. However, just as there are strict limits on the situations where the military is allowed to control private property to protect the country, there should be clearly specified limits on the control of these critical assets. Also, there must be access to judicial remediation; to deny legal appeals would give too much power to the government. I believe Mr. Lewis' attitude toward the situation is highlighted by his statement "...we have to keep the Internet open and unstructured because that will empower innovation. People really believe that. People also believe in flying saucers, and these ideas are about equal." Excuse me?!?!? He believes the idea that believing in openness in communications fosters innovation is equivalent to believing in flying saucers?!?!? That's using an emotive argument to belittle anyone that disagrees with him. I believe experience has shown science and society flower with openness in communications. And is he considering that shutting down or disconnecting telecommunications won't affect the Internet? I suppose you'll still have access to your home network.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, yes, i agree the government needs some control, but it should require specific, transparent, high-threshold protocols to invoke and it should be subject to judicial review.
I recall three major episodes in our history during my own lifetime when instruments of our government were used to silence critics of government policy. The first was the painful experience of the McCarthy era that had intellectuals of every sort looking over their shoulders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second was the period when undercover agents from Hoover's office and elsewhere made mush of our civil liberties, when the Nixon crowd got so carried away that the very presidency itself was compromised, and when the Central Intelligence Agency busied itself with grossly illegal activity in Central America and elsewhere in the Iran/Contra scandal.
The third and most recent period is still with us and we find massive invasions of privacy, lavish use of heavily-armed civilian police, lawless behavior by mercenaries, exponential growth in the private prison industry, and what seems to be unbridled behavior by mega-corporations given their imprimatur by the conservatives on our Supreme Court and in our Congress.
One can go back in time to the Palmer raids after World War One, or still further back to the Alien and Sedition Laws in the early years of the Republic.
Why should we trust the faceless and not particularly competent operatives who now sniff around the digital discourse we enjoy in our millions?
Billions, potentially, as global networking finds its stride.
There's some really dangerous potential for brutish and cynical abuse of authority hanging out there in "What if" land and it's already the case that I can legally be "disappeared" for daring to make that statement in these United States.
We need a better handle on guarding our guards. The Romans forgot that and it didn't work out so well for them, did it!
FMarkus
We are the Illuminati and you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Individuality is irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr maybe we just don't want Iran to trash our economy with a $500 scumware bundle.
This disconnect would have to be physical and is easily bypassed by one careless person with a wireless connection such as a cell phone. With the recent effort to replace the centralized domain name registry with a distributed registry that would be somewhat immune to centralized control, I find this idea more challenging than scary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this