Print 86 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Jul 25 at 1:08 PM

Republicans, Democrats both support measure to expand federal power, but Ron Paul leads minority opposition

In an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper published by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (NWS), President Obama laid out his opinion of why poor cybersecurity is such a dire threat to the nation and his opinion on what should be done about it.

I. President Obama Calls Out Businesses for Poor Security

In the piece he describes the results of a recent wargames simulation by nation defense and intelligence agencies, recalling, "Across the country trains had derailed, including one carrying industrial chemicals that exploded into a toxic cloud. Water treatment plants in several states had shut down, contaminating drinking water and causing Americans to fall ill."

The scenario was fictional, but President Obama warns it could happen, if safeguards are not put in place.

Train derailed
President Obama claims terrorists could use cyber-attacks to derail trains.
[Image Source: Zimbio]

He blames poor security partially on the corporate sector, calling out the glaring incompetence security-wise of decision makers at some utilities and other vital infrastructure firms.  He writes:

Yet simply sharing more information is not enough. Ultimately, this is about security gaps that have to be filled. To their credit, many of these companies have boosted their cyber defenses. But many others have not, with some lacking even the most basic protection: a good password. That puts public safety and our national security at risk.

The American people deserve to know that companies running our critical infrastructure meet basic, commonsense cybersecurity standards, just as they already meet other security requirements.
Obama speaking
President Obama wants to expand the federal gov't to "solve" the cybersecurity "crisis".
[Image Source: U.S. Aid]

President Obama is proposing an amendment National Security Act of 1947 [PDF], which is ostensibly targeted at promoting information and expertise sharing between U.S. government agencies and key civilian-sector contractors/infrastructure providers.

II. Bill to Expand DHS is Backed by Both Parties, But Has a Few Vocal Critics

The bill, S.2105 [PDF], is a redraft of earlier House bill H.R. 3523.  

The new bill is dubbed the "Cybersecurity Act of 2012".  The key change from the earlier house measure is that the Senate bill funnels the information shared by private sector firms through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  President Obama vocally opposed the earlier House bill, which put the DHS in more of a backseat role.

Homeland Security
The bill would expand the scope of the DHS. [Image Source: CyTalk]
The new bill enjoys a fair measure of bipartisan support in the Senate.  It is sponsored by Senators Susan Collins (R- Maine), Joe Lieberman (I/D- Connecticut), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), and J. D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D- West Virginia).

However, the bill has a couple of vocal opponents among the more liberal and more conservative members of the House.  Among those opposed to expanding the DHS's role is Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).  Rep. Paul called the bill "Big Brother writ large."

Ron Paul
Rep. Ron Paul is one of the few opponents of the measure to expand federal government.
[Image Source: AP]

Rep. Paul has suggested that the Department of Homeland Security is poor in talent, offensive to civil liberties, and redundant, commenting [source]:

Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn’t absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.

President Obama is urging Democrats and Republicans to come together, as they oft do, to overlook civil liberties and debt concerns and pass a bill to expand the federal government.  As with many such expansions of federal government pushed by America's two ruling parties in recent years, there will likely be large price tag to this measure.  And as usual the justification is "national security".

Sources: WSJ, U.S. Senate

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By tecknurd on 7/21/2012 12:45:55 AM , Rating: 1
Presidents in the past did make dramatic statements like "Trains full of chemicals derailing and killing people" to get your attention. It seems to be working because it got your attention. Since hacking has increase and more and more companies are showing their vulnerabilities, of course something like the law Cybersecurity Act is showing up. Probably this law is just enforcing that all companies comply to the standard security configuration. Banks have to go through a set security standard and why it is any different for corporation sites. Right now the security that companies setup is not working, so Cybersecurity Act should hopefully make it better.

The nationalized health care is not what it means. It basically means that all health insurance companies are required to include the basic coverage. Also every American citizen are required to get health insurance or else be penalized/taxed. This is the same law as driver's insurance. I think this health care reform should have been done before driver's insurance was require by law. It is better late than never. People that are healthy or have no diseases do not understand why the new health law is pass while people that have a disease are applauding it. The health reform has nothing about an American citizen paying bills for the people that have diseases. Medicaid and Medicare is those ugly's services that the government pays some of the bills or all the bills. Those two are redundant. Just one of those services are fine enough, but old people bitch that they want their Medicaid or Medicare.

Nationalized Banks! LOL

Nationalized Wall Street! LOL

It seems you do not know what you are talking about.

RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Ringold on 7/21/2012 1:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
It basically means that all health insurance companies are required to include the basic coverage. Also every American citizen are required to get health insurance or else be penalized/taxed.

If that were all there was to it, the law would've been 5 pages long, max. Maybe 100 pages of related regulation.

Instead, it's so long and complex that people suspect more Chinese have read it then Americans (Chinese bureaucrats keep a very close eye on what we do). ObamaCare will probably top out at 30 to 50,000 pages of related regulation once all the various involved agencies are done with it.

RE: Oh, so he wants to nationalize everything now?
By Lerianis on 7/21/12, Rating: 0
By Reclaimer77 on 7/21/2012 2:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
Best thing we could have done was to go to a nationalized health care industry and moved on. Other countries have done that.... why shouldn't the United States?

And this puts your firmly in the "idiot" category.

By Ringold on 7/21/2012 4:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
stop lying. The truth is that most European nations have LESS of a waiting time for doctors and specialists than the United States.

You're the one that's either a liar or simply ignorant. Wikipedia's a fairly well-known slightly left-leaning institution, so allow me to use it as a source.

Using Canada as an example, an estimated 782,936 Canadians spent time on medical waiting lists in 2005, waiting an average of 9.4 weeks.[10] Canada has set waiting-time benchmarks, e. g. 26 weeks for a hip replacement and 16 weeks for cataract surgery, for non-urgent medical procedures.

Someone in actual need of a hip replacement that can barely walk wouldn't call it non-urgent, but hey, that's socialism. Meanwhile, I had work done on my knee within 24 hours of what Canada would call a non-urgent injury a couple years ago, and was offered knee replacement within the same time frame. My folks are older and both had cataracts removed, within a week.

It goes on to describe the hundreds of thousands in total that flee what are generally socialized medicine advanced economies, and it lists the popular destinations... None of which are in the EU, though a few EU states are thinking about trying to get in on the action.

So tell me, if you are correct, then why do so many Europeans and Canadians pay for something they already paid for through taxes if it's so good and quick?

Further, laws can be written broadly but clearly. Note the constitution. The Roman's, and I think ancient Greeks even, understood that short, simple laws provide the most transparency. Complexity is used to hide shenanigans from the ignorant masses. Most of our countries greatest legislation is no longer then a childs story book, it's only been since WW2 generally that length has exploded.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki