It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rockefeller attaches cybersecurity bill to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2014

page: 2
59
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

pandersway
I've been saying it all along. The Rockefellers, Rothchilds and Morgans----THESE families need to be shut down PERMANENTLY!


Agreed completely, but at this point in time, old corporate and political family dynasties have amassed and consolidated so much power not much can be done.

They are and have been a problem around the world for a long time: two separate classes (in their own mind) -- them and everyone else -- with two separate laws for the classes, and the law does not apply to them like the rest of us.




posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Just an FYI, the bill says that any information shared to increase cyber security will not (can not) be used by Federal, State, Local or Tribal departments or agencies to regulate the activity of any entity. (They might be able to bust someone for unlawful activity, but free speech isn't one of them.) Cyber security measures are generally meant for hackers.




edit on 11-12-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Rockefeller is doing a bunch of stuff that he has wanted to do for awhile because he has already announced that he is not seeking reelection in 2014. So he is basically doing whatever he wants to do with no repercussions from the people of WV, not that he has ever had to face any before.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


The fox in the henhouse gambit. Again.


S. 1353

To provide for an ongoing, voluntary public-private partnership to improve cybersecurity, ...and for other purposes.



S&F& : up :



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


...any information shared to increase cyber security will not (can not) be used by Federal, State, Local or Tribal departments or agencies to regulate the activity of any entity


Erm. "Entity" means law-breaking corporation in this context.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by RedmoonMWC
 


The US government know exactly who they work for and it isn't the American people. Rockefeller's just paranoid because of how much his family and friends get exposed on the internet. People are talking about them. How he keeps getting elected in my state is a mystery(no it's not). He has to make sure that no one else gets back control of the coal and natural gas here that his family and friends have squatted over and got through dirty dealings. This bill must be stopped at all costs. If not, soon when you log onto the internet, you will have to sign in using your fingerprint and current photo or live stream of yourself while doing it. That way, they know exactly where to come and shut you up. Or try, anyways.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

dreamingawake


Jay Rockefeller (D WVA) has attached a cyber-security amendment (attached below) to the NDAA 2014 bill in Congress to mandate that precautions be taken to protect America’s cyber infrastructure and private entities.,,

Rockefeller attaches cybersecurity bill to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2014



Looking at the records of the next NDAA bill on US government sites, they say that it has not been amended. But it's possible the sites haven't been updated with the latest Congressional actions yet if it just happened yesterday. Assuming that this cybersecurity bill may be getting tacked on, these are a few things I noticed in the bill's text.

[The Director (of NIST, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, shall...]


(viii) include such other similar and consistent elements as the Director considers necessary;


In other words, the Director of NIST can add anything they want without requiring additional approval from Congress.


The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in coordination with the head of any relevant Federal agency, shall build upon programs and plans in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act to develop a Federal cybersecurity research and development plan to meet objectives in cybersecurity, such as—
...
(E) how to build new protocols to enable the Internet to have robust security as one of the key capabilities of the Internet;

(F) how to determine the origin of a message transmitted over the Internet; ...


One of the primary things the feds have been wanting to ensure in future Internet architectures and protocols is the ability to positively identify the origin of anything on the Internet. They really would like to make it impossible for anyone to do anything anonymously online. These clauses, especially "F," are referring to this.


(H) how to address the growing problem of insider threats; ...


You could probably call this the Edward Snowden clause.


(K) any additional objectives the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in coordination with the head of any relevant Federal agency and with input from stakeholders, including industry and academia, determines appropriate.


The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy can also add anything they want or anything that any head of any 'relevant Federal agency' or other 'stakeholders' want without requiring additional approval from Congress.

Most of the rest of the bill seems fairly innocuous and most people would agree such cybersecurity steps are logical. But the clauses cited above hint at how they want to identify who said or did anything they don't like. And they potentially give carte blanche for anything to be added under the banner of cybersecurity once the bill has passed.

This is the kind of sweeping and poorly defined language people objected to in previous years' NDAA bills (it's an annual bill). You might think the constitution limits the scope of the bill. But the reality is that once a bill becomes a law it would have to be overturned as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

To even get such a case heard takes a lengthy and expensive legal battle and the Supreme Court has to agree you have 'standing,' which apparently means they have to believe you personally were sufficiently damaged by a bill.

Those who have tried to take previous versions of the NDAA to the Supreme Court have not had much success. And the NDAA is an annual bill that always gets passed because it is what authorizes all national defense for the next fiscal year.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


I just finished reading the bill, & I have to add my opinion to those already expressed, that there doesn't seem to be any framework outlined which will allow for the furtherance of a police state restricting freedom of speech.
I'm not saying that a police state wouldn't be the preferred condition for those in charge, but at least in this instance, there doesn't seem to be anything pointing in that direction other than the unfounded leap in logic made by the author of the blog linked to in the OP.

I read it with skepticism turned 'way up, & what I saw is, IMO, the end product of an awareness of just how dependent/vulnerable we've become due to our reliance of all things networked & potentially accessible by "outsiders". I might even go so far as to say that, in this instance, it's almost a relief to see that vulnerability being taken so seriously... a real issue meriting concern this time, rather than a manufactured one with the aim of furthering a hidden agenda.

And trust me, I never thought I'd see the day when I'd say anything like this about something put forth by a member of the Rockefeller family!



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

BuzzCory
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


I just finished reading the bill, & I have to add my opinion to those already expressed, that there doesn't seem to be any framework outlined which will allow for the furtherance of a police state restricting freedom of speech.
I'm not saying that a police state wouldn't be the preferred condition for those in charge, but at least in this instance, there doesn't seem to be anything pointing in that direction other than the unfounded leap in logic made by the author of the blog linked to in the OP.

I read it with skepticism turned 'way up, & what I saw is, IMO, the end product of an awareness of just how dependent/vulnerable we've become due to our reliance of all things networked & potentially accessible by "outsiders". I might even go so far as to say that, in this instance, it's almost a relief to see that vulnerability being taken so seriously... a real issue meriting concern this time, rather than a manufactured one with the aim of furthering a hidden agenda.

And trust me, I never thought I'd see the day when I'd say anything like this about something put forth by a member of the Rockefeller family!


I went through it as well expecting some dastardly evil in plain sight, but there was nothing that stuck out, though I'm no legal expert. There could be some loopholes in the new amended/added definitions, but I wouldn't know.

What did stick out was creating government competitions to be used for recruitment to government network security jobs, including high school students as early as grade 9.

There was also a part about a work for scholarship program, where you work as cybersecurity (which maybe also means gathering intel on forums?) and then get your summer off to attend college, paid for by government.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Cabin
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


This has been circuling around for couple of weeks already. If I remember it was also posted in RT, as well as different investing portals.

I will take a look at the bill myself, currently do not have time for it, although based on what is written in the hill:


The measure is far more modest than legislation that Rockefeller and other Senate Democrats backed last year. That bill would have pressured critical infrastructure companies, such as banks and power plants, to meet minimum cybersecurity regulations.

After opposition from Republicans killed last year's bill, President Obama issued an executive order instructing the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to craft voluntary cybersecurity best-practices for critical infrastructure companies.

Rockefeller's amendment would codify the executive order into law. It would also boost cybersecurity education, research and development for cyber threats.


thehill.com...

Article describing the EO:www.federalnewsradio.com...

Executive Order 13636 from February: www.gpo.gov...

Well I personally do not see anything abnormal in these bills. Cybersecurity is becoming more and more a risk, considering how much damage can be done via cyberattacks. A small loophole in the security of some corporations can get the data from millions to the hands of some individuas. These bills just seem to be requiring the largest corporations in certain fields more critical to set higher standards for their cyber-security. But well, I might be wrong as well, my legal reading skills are not the best.

My legal reading skills aren't the best either, but I know in previous versions of the same bill it was going to require govt implementation of the cybersecurity requirements in infrastructure (and when has govt been good at running anything? Have we had a major successful attack on infrustructure so far? Why fix what's not broken?) as well as a "kill switch" that the govt could use to shut down the entire internet for US users. I believe in the efficiency of private industry and the incompetence of govt so yeah, I'm opposed.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Philippines
 


What people should do is study Nazi Germany. Hitler did not gain power overnight it took years. They used fear,poverty,the progressive mindset to rise to the top.



To be honest this will have to play out just like it did back then. Nothing can be done to stop it. And TPTB have figured this out. Change will only come when the food and entertainment run out. Until then kiss your liberty goodbye.
edit on 12-12-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I think we have one member here within ATS that has been flushed by the US government for snooping around government websites and make statements ...

So to IMO it has already started. .. so make claims and you're disconnected .
edit on 0b36America/ChicagoThu, 12 Dec 2013 02:24:36 -0600vAmerica/ChicagoThu, 12 Dec 2013 02:24:36 -06001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 





Tool...



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by coolcatt
 


Solarflares can do the same...



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Philippines

pandersway
I've been saying it all along. The Rockefellers, Rothchilds and Morgans----THESE families need to be shut down PERMANENTLY!


Agreed completely, but at this point in time, old corporate and political family dynasties have amassed and consolidated so much power not much can be done.

They are and have been a problem around the world for a long time: two separate classes (in their own mind) -- them and everyone else -- with two separate laws for the classes, and the law does not apply to them like the rest of us.


Yes, there are things that can be done against their rule, that actually are very old, tested-and-true political solutions, but I'd rather not discuss that on this forum...



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Hackers, terroristic activities or identity theft, is a clear and present danger to the structural integrity of Internet security…! Theres that FEAR again, creeping, lingering. If the NSA feels you are a threat they will grab you up in a heartbeat outta nowhere, Don't you forget it.
people-snatchin' ?? Thats not what the law intents. With a tighter security system (the 'password' system currently in place, which needs to be improved upon) on the web, cyber-security will be in a constant observation with a special attention on what matters most, our money. And then, as it is now, our 'All seeing, all knowing, big brother' will keep a vigilant watch over our daily lives. And then…And then…justice wins.
These days the World Wide Web gotten so vast and so common place that the actual act of transformation to secure the virtual world will take a complete over haul, from the way we access it, thru the closing of loopholes(backdoor) and reprogramming the program - the internet is not free in America, with that, I would have no quandaries with being monitored if, big IF, the web was free, like radio, then the internet can be regulated by the FCC and rules laid out with which we would have to follow…and THEN, and only when one 'pays' for services will freedoms be given to the web surfer. which will still be scrutinized for erroneous behavior but will not be sanctioned and not limited to a PG rating…eventually the Web as we knew it will have restrictions limiting the sites accessible by the free users and the web will have no loopholes to slip threw...

the scariest part of this law is the jurisdiction with our free data will be web wide, no databank is safe from the web police, hackers will have to pay to play and then be ninja-style with the new reprogram, that would have no profitability or any real gain from the whole endeavor. Thus, making the web virtually hacker free.

So in my opinion, the 'law' proposed is tactfully taking the fear of 'big brother' to a direct "we are going to be watching you…" and the bulk of Americans don't like to be told what they can and can't do, let alone knowingly allow anyone to access there info especially the gustapo … as well as having to pay for it. I mean, they are already monitoring everything that you are doing now, we just do as we do, looking at our nude pics, downloading music illegally, talking smack all day long about the government and besmirching the presidents good name…the whole time an agent sits reading, waiting, for you to slip and say the wrong thing. bah!

~ The truth shall set us free ~



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I know this is a ridiculous question, but how do we hit the restart button? Cause it's apparent that things are so out of whack now it's almost incomprehensible... I honestly feel that politicians go into politics with good intentions, but are so quickly corrupted it's not even funny...

I think it happens in one of two ways.

1. Either work with the "agenda" and you will keep your comfy warm job

2. Go against the grain and you will be a 1 term politician and your political dreams will be crushed.

It's a shame that our country has gone from a power to total sh*t in no time..... Just sad



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   


Sad but true



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Rockefeller has been in office in WV since I was an infant. People here are perfectly content to just keep on voting him in. I couldn't possibly tell you why. My own mother thinks she has his ear. "I'll just write Rockefeller, he'll deal with it and write me back," she says. I keep telling her that he doesn't know she exists, and someone on his staff prints those pretty letters she receives. And nothing changes. She's just one example.

I've tried to see what he has done for this state, but when I look around I see that West Virginia has turned into a black hole. The coal industry is losing it's foothold here, and no jobs are being created to replace the jobs that are lost. Small business owners are struggling just to keep their doors open. I've been unemployed for a year, and my resume is pretty nice. But I can't find a job either. And I've really put myself out there. I'm trying to get my son to go to college out of state. I want him to have opportunity. He won't find any here. Rockefeller's a joke.



posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

SubTruth
reply to post by Philippines
 


What people should do is study Nazi Germany. Hitler did not gain power overnight it took years. They used fear,poverty,the progressive mindset to rise to the top.



To be honest this will have to play out just like it did back then. Nothing can be done to stop it. And TPTB have figured this out. Change will only come when the food and entertainment run out. Until then kiss your liberty goodbye.
edit on 12-12-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)


If only they had television and utilized sports like American football perhaps the Nazis may have won, or maybe the Nazis are still around in America today, having learned from mistakes in the past.

Nothing will change, the masses are too dumbed down. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, too bad the vigilant left the USA to enjoy liberty elsewhere
edit on 12-12-2013 by Philippines because: minor edit




top topics



 
59
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join