Print 16 comment(s) - last by JPForums.. on Sep 24 at 12:22 PM

Cybersecurity legislation is still needed according to lawmakers

Cybersecurity today is a huge issue not only for businesses and individuals in the United States, but also for the federal government. Defense News reports that the White House is working with the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and others to draft an executive order to counter cybersecurity threats. 
The cybersecurity effort from the White House and other governmental agencies comes after the U.S. Senate failed in an attempt to pass its own cybersecurity legislation. The legislation from the U.S. Senate would have set security standards for companies who operate critical systems for the United States infrastructure such as the electrical grid, water treatment facilities, and transportation systems.
An executive order on cybersecurity will not replace the need for cybersecurity legislation according to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. She says that the Executive Order will be less effective than legislation because it can't do several important things. An Executive Order is unable to do things such as provide liability protections for certain companies who are victims of cyber attacks, increase criminal penalties for cyber criminals, and provide the DHS with funding to hire and pay competitive salaries to cybersecurity workers.
Napolitano said, "We still need cyber legislation."
Some senators have little hope that cybersecurity legislation would be passed during the lame-duck session following the November elections.
Senator Joseph Lieberman said, "I would not count on it. The sooner the executive branch is ready to try to fill whatever gaps it can, the safer the country will be." 

Source: Defense News

Comments     Threshold

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

By JPForums on 9/24/2012 12:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
i wish executive order powers were expanded...
I don't. I may work well for a time given a leader both wise and benevolent, but leaders with both of those traits aren't always elected (or event available). Think of the worst president/governor you know of. Now imagine he got to dictate, via executive order, anything he wanted. Are you seeing the merits of checks and balances yet?
furthermore, it's extremely hard to get hundreds of people to agree on any one piece of legislation and more often than not objections are based primarily on party ideologies.
This is a good thing. With hundreds of differing opinions, the things they agree on are much more likely to be in the best interests of everyone than if it were just one or a few people making the decisions.
for a bill to make it through 100 senators and 435 voting congressman without being heavily modified, altered, watered down, riders attached to it or flat out voted down are slim to none.
If they are doing their jobs, it is getting modified, altered, ect. because the bill in its current form does not meet the needs of the people being represented. Unfortunately, our representatives have gotten comfortable with a system of passing bills that they know are bad in exchange for special treatment, unrelated addons, the so called "riders" you mention. However, the solution isn't to get rid of the house. It would be better to require each bill to begin with a very specific clause of intent. Anything not related to the intent of the law to be passed, should not be allowed in the bill. After the bill is pass, the law should not be applicable to anything not related to the intent of the law (prevents abuse). To prevent overly general clauses, when a law to be passed has a clause of intent overlapping with a law already passed, it requires a modification of the original (conflicting) law to narrow the intent so that it doesn't conflict. Such a modification would naturally require a higher vote count (3/5, 2/3) than simple majority. As an aside, this would also push state specific issues back to the states where they should be handled, as it would be increasingly less likely that a state specific issue would gain traction at the national level without "riders". The same can be said for state - local situation.
congress, and state legislators, usually are filled with people that are more interested in making a life long career out of their elected positions that actually doing something good/beneficial for their state or country.
I'd rather leave the decision in the hands of hundreds of people trying to make a life long career of their positions. called to account every two years, than one person with the same objective. Without checks and balances, one person looking to make a life long career of it can simply suspend elections until he's ready to retire. Again, imagine your least favorite president/governor in this position.
it would be much better if we just had a senate (no house of representatives)...
Ever since the passing of the 17th amendment, I almost agree with you (though it would be the senate that disappeared). In the original setup, the house, elected directly by the populace, was to represent the commoners or working class. The senate was elected via state legislature. The goal was to represent the interests of the rich or, more appropriately, the employers. Any legislation with any hope of passing would need to appeal to both. This effectively prevented both mob rule and oppression by the rich. Since the passing of the 17th amendment, the senate isn't effectively any different than the house (just less accountability due to longer terms). I say I almost agree because I'm not entirely convinced that we won't eventually find it was a mistake to pass the 17th amendment, but that is a very lengthy discussion for an other time.
if they approved have it go to the supreme court for a final constitutional ok.
I can really see the benefit of having a portion of the judicial branch dedicated to removing unconstitutional law before it effects the populace. I'm not sure whether the supreme court is the place to do it (they have plenty of other cases to see and not a lot of man power), but I generally agree with the sentiment. As this would be more of a federal legislative check court, it may be better to appoint at the state level as to remove a connection between those trying to pass the law and those checking it for constitutionality. I'm going to put some thought into this one, thanks.

"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

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