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

By foolsgambit11 on 7/21/2012 5:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
He bought a stake in GM. He gave loans (with conditions) to Wall Street. Other than that, he hasn't even come close to nationalization of any industry. Those examples fall well short of nationalization themselves, and they were measures taken in exigent circumstances. The ACA is an attempt to keep private insurance as a viable industry, despite it being pretty clear it's a failed idea if your goal is to keep people healthy. So where is the evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything?

As for (in less inflammatory terms) the US waging cyberwarfare, doesn't that suggest we know what is needed with respect to cyberdefenses? I don't know what the proposed changes will look like, but I assume they'll be a series of regulations that mandate cyberprotections for critical infrastructure, and a system of inspections to ensure compliance, performed by the DHS. Hardly a nationalization program, and hardly unreasonable.

But maybe you're right, and Obama will take possession of every power plant, shipping company, telecommunications network, etc. in the US. Because apparently neither he nor any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has any desire to be reelected.

By EnzoFX on 7/21/2012 5:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
Get out of here with that level or rational thinking. You'll hurt some of the idiocy here.

By Ringold on 7/21/2012 9:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
but I assume they'll be a series of regulations that mandate cyberprotections for critical infrastructure, and a system of inspections to ensure compliance, performed by the DHS. Hardly a nationalization program, and hardly unreasonable.

Perfectly reasonable, sure sure, if your goal is maximum government employment. I proposed a solution that requires no such police-state creation. Ron Paul is right, the country accomplished pretty much everything it needed to prior to the creation of the DHS. The prior system worked generally, it just needed updating.

The ACA is an attempt to keep private insurance as a viable industry

That's a joke. The next step, to follow in the foot steps of the European socialists he looks up to, would be the 'public option'. Then, as is almost always the case when one exists, it's price will drop, drop, and drop, until the private options are eliminated. No private firm can compete with an entity that has the implicit or explicit backing of the Treasury department.

Case in point: Homeowners insurance in Florida. Sun-soaked retirees were having a hard time affording it along the coast, so the state created Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. It priced competitors along the coasts out of the market bit by bit until now 95% of all homes east of I-95 are insured through Citizens. How did it manage that? Completely ignoring actuarial science. It's an open secret that the next Category 4 or 5 that hits a populated chunk of the Florida coast will immediately plunge the state in to either bankruptcy or austerity that makes Greece look like Disney. But, leather-skinned retirees that are being subsidized by the taxpayer for living in high-risk area's don't complain!

That's simply how government always works.

Plus, if he wanted the Swiss model of private insurance, well, ObamaCare sure did a hideous job of copying it. Looks nothing alike.

"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