Security is often increased at the cost of personal privacy and freedom. Anticipating opposition to reduced privacy and freedom, lawmakers and agencies often employ Orwellian doublespeak to garner support, examples include: The Patriot Act (takes away privacy), Department of Defense (starts wars), and No Child Left Behind (diminishes funding for public education).
So when Senators Lieberman(I) and Collins(R) introduce a bill called "Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act", there is reason for further investigation. Most of the bill is uncontroversial, such as recruiting federal cybersecurity agents and funding research for secure internet protocols. However, the bill also gives the President the ability to "issue a declaration of a national cyberemergency". During this time, the executive branch could restrict access to, from, and between portions of the internet, as well as demand that companies deemed "critical to the nation's infrastructure...immediately comply with any emergency measure or action". The bill places no explicit restrictions or oversight on the executive branch, only implicitly allows judicial review.
The aim of the bill is to protect our critical infrastructure (water, power, financial, etc) in the event of a cyber attack on the country. But is this the right approach? Jim Harper, information policy expert, offers this analysis: "Get critical infrastructure onto the Internet and get the government into the cyber security business. That’s a recipe for disaster. The right answer is to warn the operators of key infrastructure to keep critical functions off the Internet and let markets and tort law hold them responsible should they fail to maintain themselves operational."
I believe people are right to question the ability of the executive branch to carry out this duty fairly and efficiently. Earlier this month, the DHS erroneously seized 84,000 domains and replaced their content with a banner informing them and their visitors that the site had possibly violated child pornography laws. In December, federal employees (including soldiers) were warned that viewing or linking to wikileaks cables was explicitly breaking the law.
At the same time, hackers that have been traced back to China have attacked computer systems of both the Canadian Government and U.S. Oil Firms. The threat of an attack is definitely not fabricated.
So, I ask you, what freedom/privacy should we be willing to give up for infrastructure security? Are we protecting our infrastructure in the right way?
Sources:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20033717-281.html?tag=mantle_skin;content
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/02/18/new-cyber-security-bill-kills-the-kill-switch/?KEYWORDS=Cybersecurity+and+Internet+Freedom+Act
http://blog.ericreasons.com/2009/04/from-senator-who-wishes-internet-was.html
Infrastructure security and privacy are not at opposite ends; you don't have to accept less of one to get more of the other. Security affects privacy only when it's based on identity
ReplyDeleteI think the debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control.
Circumscribed government power; The United States legal system is based on this idea. We constrain the government's ability to collect information about us and Americans have historically believed that government will take advantage of its power; Yet we accept the price.
It should be no surprise that people choose infrastructue security over privacy. Even if you don't subscribe to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's obvious that security is more important. Security is vital to survival, not just of people but of every living thing. Privacy is unique to humans, but it's a social need. It's vital to personal dignity, to family life, to society -- to what makes us uniquely human -- but not to survival.
If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose infrastructure security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither
I concur with Paul's assessment of the "false dichotomy," as he so aptly put, presented before us. We should not be forced to believe that there is an inverse relationship between privacy and security and that we must choose the balance as we see fit. Which leads me into my point: I think the issue here is, as you have addressed in this post Brendan, the executive branch being given unchecked authority in this bill. Like you said, the rest of the bill seems uncontroversial; these other portions are still geared towards security and sound very progressive, yet they don't involve instituting measures that encroach on our privacy. It is possible to improve security without giving up privacy. In the regards to this bill, it would be as simple as implementing some sort of oversight on the executive branch's newfound authority. In the grand scheme of things, it boils down to the same concept: not allowing the government to take chunks of our liberties, and making sure we can filter out measures that infringe on our liberties from ones that are actually respectable.
ReplyDeleteMY contension is that we are looking at two different things here...Executive power versus the need for Executive presence. Lemme explain...We have witnessed Americans saying over and over the past two years," we want limited government."And then we hear,"governemt is not doing enough arbitration or intervention" on topics that could be arbitrated between companies and citizens...meaning companies should not fire employees and should find some way to keep them so that their employees do not have to turn to government for supplemental or alternative income (unemployment check).
ReplyDeleteLets be directly real...the government did not cause the housing market crash nor the financial markets crash...companies and citizens irresponsible spending did...it could be argued that the ongoing wars created by the government could play a role, but quite naturally irresponsible spending on all sides derived the crashes.
What is ultimate-, and on this post I share my opinion, seeing that I am a security agent for the country and government (military) and have witnessed Americans lose their lives protecting the integrity of America's security -is America must be involved in every aspect of securing itself. We task our government with providing a police force which is essentially created for maintaining and/or responding to peace or violations of peace and order, we hire a multiplicity of agencies to investigate, and rectify breaches of peace, some agencies that are exclusive to investigative practices domestically and some internationally and some both...and as we speak each of these agencies are more and more working with each other...utilizing the forever evolving technologies that create this culture of informational connectivity...
And it's not just physcial security breaches i.e. drug smuggling, murder, terrorist acts by way of suicide bomb or aircraft crashing into landmarks...its not just preventative measures and checks and services of bank robberies and counterfeiting currency...as you know there is a phantom crime ring...cyber crime that is the new culprit being used by our domestic mafia crime families...bloods and crips networks (oh yes they still exists...mexican mafia...local extremists i.e. michigan mafia, neo-nazis and even cell orgs that are part of the international islamic or pan-asian extremsit terrorist org... CONTINUED on next blog
CONTINUED...I build a wall around my house and fill that brick with stone and concrete as to catch ballistics before they hit my house. I have an alarm system that monitors and records activity in and around the property even while I am away...I keep a dog that is trained to respond to human threats or presence that she is unfamiliar with. I train the kids how to respond to intrusion or fire...we have drills...I keep weaponry that prepares me to take on a company sized militia (150-200) should I for some reason be attacked. And I keep multiple layers of communications availble to send out distress should I need the assistance of any agency described above...because for me I never know when the enemy becomes one or the other (the agency or the crime syndicate). Perhaps it is an overkill of security, as what I explained may not even be the extent...
ReplyDeleteThe point is that everything I am protecting could still easily be penetrated by cyber infiltration. One could merely sit outside of my property and wait for a vulnerable moment in my network and attack that way...taking away the utmost important thing that supports all these levels of security...meaning the money that pays for the security system and the food and the electricity and the water and the cable, internet, gas, telecommications...
Additionally, a major part of security is to not create occassions where people want to target specifically you. So I have to maintain good relations with my neighbors, by one being friendly, helpful as they need, and not making my house look so much better than theirs especially in a time where many cannot afford to upgrade. I live in an middle-middle class neighborhood...do y'all see where I am going with this...
America is a middle-class driven society. For over a hundred years the world has had its eye on America...watching it flourish, asking for its help when needed, emulating its practices where affordable...but also has watched America make itself look so good even when the world struggles...that other countries want to infiltrate our infrastructure not only to steal from us but to also destroy us.
So America doesnt only need that wall I explained I put up around my house, its doesnt only need a monitoring system (police force and all other agencies) it doesnt only need a response force with extreme weaponry(military), or a guard dog (vigilant citizens)...it needs phantom security for phantom infiltration entities...cyber security.
But who should host this cyber security...to me its obvious- the government; as it is the entity for all other security measures.
The argument if thats what this is, is to what extent should the government be allowed to provide cyber security? Citizens want to be protected when under attack, but unless they dont see a threat, they want the protector to stay away or at idle NOT realizing that working from the background is not essential...PMCS or preventative measures check and services is paramount in cyber security...it entails meassures that creates measures for citiznes not to be as complacent and trustworthy with their personal information and physical lives as they tend to be...CONTINUED on next blog
CONTINUED...Of course that does not always sit well with the American collective...because they believe freedom means do what I want when I want how I want and if someone tries to to stop me I will enact what I believe is my right to defend myself by either individual response or arbitration...
ReplyDeleteIn many cases this is the same attitude the criminal has...so as long as I dont get caught I am within my rights to do what ever I want...and if I get caught...then due process will allow me to deny deny deny until a final judgement prevails...and even then I can appeal.
I dont believe the government wants to control its citizens by finding ways to monitor every aspect of their lives virtually or physically. I believe that the government wants to utilize technology to practice PMCS as described above to best protect the integrity of the nation.
Now I am realistic...with more access to citizens information at will without judicial review or checks in power, can create occassions where certain powers are abused...but as I mentioned above...its two separate issues...the need for protection and a need to create policy and consequences for those who abuse the power of such appointed responsibility.
We have all seen Die Hard with a Vengence right? Definately a great example of Cyber warfare at work domestically.
Sorry I went so long, but Ill finish by saying...for those who fight to protect it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know-words of Marine Master Sergeant...I expand on that by saying a warriors home is wherever there is war. Cyber war is everywhere, so the warrior is nomadic.
I do not believe that the Federal Government should have any right to take control of what we view and do not view on the internet. Those who commit illegal acts on the internet will be caught, but for the rest of the 99% of law abiding citizens there should not be any worry of a state national cyber emergency. The problem I see with this bill a national cyber emergency is not defined. It has good intentions, but it is too easily corruptible. First they'll block access to leaked state secrets, which is not a bad thing, but then they'll block access to information we should know, like what is taking place in countries we don't belong in, then they'll block access to anything that makes the US look bad. Yes I am talking about extremes, but I don't want their to be even the slightest chance of this happening.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone for your comments.
ReplyDelete@Paul I agree that I had set out a false dichotomy in my post. The bill is not an issue of security vs privacy, but rather security vs government power (which many of us seem to believe that the government will abuse, just not in ways that affect our privacy).
@Lawson If the bill were to be implemented, I agree that the executive branch should have some oversight on its new found authority. But I wonder if the executive branch should be given the power in the first place, or if each infrastructure industry should be required to secure themselves in whatever way they see fit and face consequences if a breach should occur.
@gov'ner That was a very entertaining detail of your domestic security apparatus. While it seems very overkill to me, I have neither a family, nor anything of value to my name save for a laptop and some clothes.
I agree that the need for protection and the need to prevent the abuse of power are two separate issues. You also make a good argument for a governmental administration of protection. I still wonder if the government is best suited for cyber infrastructure protection, but what is important is that protections are put in place and that citizens ensure that the protections are adequate but not recklessly overreaching.
@ Saqib Khwaja I don't think you are talking about at extremes at all. Politicians have enormous incentive to cover up anything that reflects poorly on them -- regardless of the information's value to the public
If we create fear among our people, then we will react in extreme ways. Agree with @Paul and @Ryan. But @gov'nor, to say that the government was not responsible for the housing crisis, though, is a sham. See "Inside Job" or read about it. The government bailed out the crooks; no one went to jail. They did nothing to regulate what many saw was coming two years before the bubble broke. Government can regulate markets... and guess what, they still haven't done so. So governments are culpable when their citizens are threatened. The problem of course is that the government is bought by corporations with money. Or by caveat... we went to war in Afghanastan and Iraq for reasons that were not entirely truthful. Cyberwar will be fought the same way. You have to really read deeply on this topic. It's not just a mobile war, but it is very real threat.
ReplyDeleteStepping down from my soap box...
I just know Dr. Weisband don't think im going to counterargue your comments to my response to Brandon...you have me at gun point no different than corporations tend to have the government at gun point. In another dance I imagine we can have this discussion, Im not just a student here, I am home owner, property owner, business owner, minority, veteran of combat, parent, husband, community activist and a seasoned travelor of the world. I have prayed and studied, lived amognst a plethora of cultures and people so with respect and all pompice aside, I do not need to have read or watched anything when I lived it and saw first hand where the the things that ail us commence. I feel if I didn't share these thoughts now I may seem incompetant and out of the know of things. Let me NOT kill myself tonight.
ReplyDelete