AfterDawn: Tech news

U.S. Senator: Cyber security bill unlikely to pass this year

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 30 Oct 2010 23:39 User comments (6)

U.S. Senator: Cyber security bill unlikely to pass this year United States Senators have said it is unlikely that Cyber security legislation will pass this year as the 111th Congress comes to an end.
Recognizing that critical infrastructure of the United States depends on computer and network systems, legislators are debating what powers should be given to the U.S. President to respond to, and handle situations such as cyber attacks.

Countries like the United Kingdom and the United States have expressed concerns that some critical systems (health, transport, defense etc.) could be affected by cyber attacks launched by cyber criminals or rogue states. Lawmakers in the U.S. are looking to pass new legislation that would give the President powers to handle attacks from the Internet or threats of attacks, but say that any legislation is unlikely to pass this year.

"I'm not optimistic of major cyber security legislation passing at this late time." Republican staff director on the Senate Intelligence Committee Louis Tucker said. "Considering the objections to some of the cyber bills out there, comprehensive legislation will probably have to wait until next year."

A piece of legislation backed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tom Carper, D-Del has some privacy activists concerned. ACLU legislative counsel Michelle Richardson said the problem is the legislation fails to specify the powers it wants to grant to the President.

Defense News reports that the bill states: "The president would be granted emergency measures to protect the nation's most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited." Aides to the sponsoring Senators have said the bill does not authorize the government to take over critical infrastructure.

"The Obama Administration must disclose what authority it thinks it already has before the new legislation can be considered," Richardson said.

Previous Next  

6 user comments

131.10.2010 5:11

Any delays would be a wonderful thing..."security" is the excuse that they use every time they steal our rights.

The proof is in the bill itself...the president has neither the skills nor the intel to use it for security...only for censorship.

231.10.2010 15:58

KillerBug... Come on man shut up and drink the Kool-aid, you won't care any longer :) But seriously, i agree with you and possibly i'm alone (i doubt it) but echos of George Oswell's 1984 starts coming to mind, sure we don't stand screaming a screen during hate time... But the government is working away out our rights and privacy... While I think currently it isn't the government per sa that are in control but large corporations telling legislators what they want... I think eventually power will fully transition from governments to the corporations...

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 31 Oct 2010 @ 16:02

331.10.2010 16:05

Originally posted by SomeBozo:
I think eventually power will fully transition from governments to the corporations...
It already Has.

Powered By

43.11.2010 13:27

Originally posted by DXR88:
It already Has.
Since the beginning of time. In US history, land speculators got hawks promoted into positions of power so that we were more likely to go to war with the native Americans. They made fortunes selling 'Indian' land to the public.

The Surgeon General was removed from office at about the time of the CW. He had run tests on medicine containing mercury the army was using. The testes showed a patient was 5 times more likely to DIE if given the proscribed medicine than if no medicine was administered. He had the Army stop buying and using the medicine. That was the end of him. They used that medicine all through the CW. I suspect the US is less corrupt than the rest of the world but not by much.

54.11.2010 14:49

Originally posted by Mez:
The testes showed a patient was 5 times more likely to DIE if given the proscribed medicine than if no medicine was administered.

You mean someone was reading some guy's balls to predict the future? ;)

64.11.2010 14:51

Originally posted by dbminter:
Originally posted by Mez:
The testes showed a patient was 5 times more likely to DIE if given the proscribed medicine than if no medicine was administered.

You mean someone was reading some guy's balls to predict the future? ;)
Yes, something like that. I must have hit 2 keys and didn't notice it.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive