Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

BREAKING! Leaked Draft of Obama Secret Cybersecurity Executive Order!

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Hi ATS,

I've just found this and have not even given it more than a cursory overview before deciding to post. A risky gambit - but a necessary one, IMO, if this information is accurate. Hopefully we will, as a community, work together to figure it all out.

Since creating a transcript of the PDF file ( based upon photo images of pages ) would have taken quite a bit of time and effort, at this late hour ( it is currently 2:00 AM here ) - I've simply taken screen captures of the information on each page which contained any content and then cropped them to fit ( hopefully ) onto the ATS posting area. I did try to make them a bit larger than the 500 pixels I normally utilize - so they may end up with a scroll bar underneath them.

If so I'll try to edit later. Right now I will simply include 3 pictures per post ( to ensure the database doesn't wig out on me ) and will also include a link to the PDF for those who wish to download directly.

Cryptome.org
Direct Link to PDF on Cryptome





~Continued...




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   





~Continued...



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   




~Continued...



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   




~Heff



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Looks like its for "critical infrastructure", for the most part.

Will have to delve deeper.........

S&F



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Hmm very interesting find Heff. What bothers me is the executive order thing. Seems to me that Obama has the same problem lots of folks have w/Republicans. He doesn't like being told no. Granted it doesn't get all the add on's going through normal channels, but this tendency to just issue "decrees" is worrisome. Good intentions pave a well trod road.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Well Done & thank you for the share, You remind us the reason we are here

Hail Deny Ignorance!

Hail Hail Hail!




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
That was some heavy reading. I'm not the smartest (not really smart at all, actually), so some of that bureaucratic jargon confused me a bit.

But, if I am understanding this correctly, this is an executive order that will enforce government regulation of the internet. Please tell me I read that wrong.

Edit: Okay, I believe I am wrong. It seems that it will be to heighten the security of "critical infrastructures," with that term being relatively loose. So, in a way, I was kind of right.

And I agree with what was said above, this demonstration of pushing something through with an executive order after congress failed to give him what he wants is quite alarming.
edit on 11/16/12 by Echo3Foxtrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot
 


My initial reaction is that you are probably correct on some levels. A cursory reading doesn't seem to indicate why this was a secret EO rather than a public one.

Of course it is possible that the actual order signed last month could differ from this leaked draft.

Currently I'm trying hard just to stay awake - and to Google some of the names, organizations, and terminology used above to see if there is a smoking gun - or at least some smoke that might lead us to a gun.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I tried looking in to the man who signed it. Google results come back with an MD and a wall street hot shot (or something like that). I'll try looking in to the other names that this is a memorandum to, but I'm not sure that'll lead anywhere.

Edit: Brian P. McKeon, EVP and CFO of IronMountain

Dr. Brian P. McKeon, MD
edit on 11/16/12 by Echo3Foxtrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
The CIPAC that is referenced in the EO:

Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council is part of Homeland Security.

Their sight reads like a freaking Orwellian nightmare. Talk about broad brush powers...

~Heff



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
This happened yesterday.


U.S. Senate Republicans yesterday killed cybersecurity legislation backed by President Barack Obama, increasing prospects the White House will implement some of the bill’s provisions through an executive order.


Administration officials have continued to warn about cyber threats capable of widespread damage. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in a speech in New York last month said computer assaults by other countries or extremist groups could be as destructive as the Sept. 11 attacks

The legislation, introduced in February by Senators Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, would have created voluntary cybersecurity standards for companies that operate infrastructure such as power grids and chemical plants considered essential to U.S. national security. The bill also would have encouraged companies and the government to share information on cyber threats
www.bloomberg.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 



Obama signs secret directive to help thwart cyberattacks



President Obama has signed a secret directive that effectively enables the military to act more aggressively to thwart cyber­attacks on the nation’s web of government and private computer networks.

Presidential Policy Directive 20 establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace, according to several U.S. officials who have seen the classified document and are not authorized to speak on the record. The president signed it in mid-October.

Source

What happened yesterday was plausible deniability IMO.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


This makes it sound all nice and harmless. However, that order reads vaguely. Probably to leave room for "interpretation."

Edit: Should point out that what Heff has there is just a draft. Which means it's not even final. There will be/have been "adjustments" made to the order. This really worries me.
edit on 11/16/12 by Echo3Foxtrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Overtly, I don't think we can rationally disagree that cyber threats can be more than life altering to the point of life threatening as we have become so dependent on the internet in daily life. That said, I can't imagine a realistic consensus or appropriate resolution to save whatever we can without over shooting the range. I would never willingly submit to more civil liberties being stolen from us, so the need to have some support mechanism to "police" cyber terrorism presents a true no win situation for me.

Like you, Heff, I'm awful tired and have an early meeting with other lovely government authorities in a few hours, but I am anxious to see what comes of this thread and the input. We all know something like this is coming sooner or later, and I for one appreciate your homework giving us some notice.

As is, I don't believe I can think of anyone, any organization, or certainly no governmental presence or entity I would trust to determine where to draw the line and how much authority they should have in return. Well, if ATS was offered the chance to outline a solid protective program I bet we have good enough input. What are the chances?

Good luck to us all.
edit on 16-11-2012 by samstone11 because: Left important part out



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
I just posted what I read. I'm not familiar enough with this issue to have an opinion. When I think of the vulnerability of computer network sytems for electric companies, nuclear stations this sounds like a good idea.
Wait Wait I am not so naive that I think this "protection" will not overlap into some Patroit Act for the internet.
However I feel as if we are already being monitored on the internet. So in your opinion what would be the worse case scenario for us citizens?



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


IMO this is the compromise to the mythical "cut off switch". There really isn't a way for the government to kill the Internet. It's privatized and too diverse.

BUT if they were to enter into a psuedo legal "partnership" with those who own the hubs - the access points? Well then cutting the vast majority of American users off becomes much more feasible.

And all in the name of "homeland security".

~Heff



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Okay I get it. My brother is a techie. Just the other day he was saying that in the near future the U.S. would eventually make the internet like a intranet. Whereas you would only be allowed to communicate within the country.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Nice catch! Looks, at a quick glance, like he's trying to run around Congress for all that control he's been wanting, in the name of "security". NOT a good thing!

So, how many times can one guy break the law, and ignore the balance of power, and get away with it?

Just noted that military comment.......exactly how would the MILITARY act to counter such a threat? A few guys with programs could do that, and sure, they could be military, but I don't like the sound of that.....and that from a military wife..... Seems WAY too open-ended.
edit on 16-11-2012 by LadyGreenEyes because: added comment



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Great find. S&F&


I just scanned the info but it looks like a plan to make a plan... ???





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def