Ready to get your federal computer license?

Stefan netfortius at gmail.com
Fri Aug 28 22:26:49 CDT 2009


... this whole issue reminded me of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRmxXp62O8g

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQUWUfmR_I

On the more serious note: the vagueness of some terms and definitions is
what concerns me, for example. I am not sure if the problem could be fixed,
though, under a mechanism fundamentally very litigious - thus so very likely
to produce laws with potential for [lots of] interpretations (by paid
specialists, of course).
***Stefan Mititelu
http://twitter.com/netfortius
http://www.linkedin.com/in/netfortius


On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Scott Morris <swm at emanon.com> wrote:

> I'm trying really hard to find my "paranoia hat", and just to relieve
> some boredom I read the entire bill to try to figure out where this was
> all coming from....
>
> "(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or
> shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal
> Government or United States critical infrastructure information system
> or network;"
>
> Now, I'm sorry, but that doesn't say anything about shutting down the
> entire Internet.  Yes, I understand the idea that since they COULD
> possibly deem the entire Internet (that Al Gore created?) a critical
> infrastructure, it would seem simple enough to put a provision in to
> prevent that.  But IMHO the point is to involve people outside the
> government (read the parts on establishing the committee and voting on
> rules/regs) as opposed to dictating to them.
>
> And it's no different than it is today for groups that have to connect
> to/from particular agencies within the government.  There's already
> plenty of rules in place about that.
>
> So if someone hacks the electric grid, does it not make sense to unplug
> that portion of the infrastructrure from the Internet until the problem
> is fixed?  (e.g. shut down traffic to/from)  I think someone wrote an
> article after WAY over-thinking this whole thing and everyone else jumps
> on the bandwagon.
>
> So I'm open to hearing about things if I missed them.  Reading Senate
> Bills isn't all that exciting, so it's possible I zoned out a bit, but
> can someone explain to me where this thought process is coming from?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Beckman wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Hiers, David wrote:
> >
> >> Governments already license stock brokers, pilots, commercial drivers,
> >> accountants, engineers, all sorts of people whose mistakes can be
> >> measured in the loss of hundreds of lives and millions of dollars.
> >
> >  "'The power company allowed their network security to be comprimised
> > by a
> >   single Windows computer connected to the Internet in the main control
> >   facility, so we unplugged the entire Internet to mitigate the attack,'
> >   said Senator Rockefeller, the author of the bill that enabled the
> >   President to take swift action after an unknown hacker used the
> > Internet
> >   to break into Brominion Power's main control facility and turn off the
> >   power to the entire East Coast.  'It will remain unplugged and
> > nobody in
> >   the US will be allowed to connect to the Internet until the power is
> > back
> >   on and this hacker is brought to justice.'
> >
> >   Authorities are having a difficult time locating the hacker due to the
> >   unavailability of the Internet and electricity, and cannot communicate
> >   with lawmakers via traditional means due to the outage.  A formal
> > request
> >   to turn the power and Internet back on was sent on a pony earlier this
> >   afternoon to lawmakers in DC."
> >
> >  Can't wait.
> >
> > Beckman
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Peter Beckman
> > Internet Guy
> > beckman at angryox.com
> > http://www.angryox.com/
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list