There are some worthwhile issues underlying the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act: we have to modernize and expand our notion of common defense. Of particular concern are computer-based attacks aimed at our economy (say, for instance, utilities and financial networks) and national information and communication systems. In essence, Lieberman's legislation allows the President under emergency conditions to assert control over parts of the Internet for periods up to 120 days, an extension of which requires Congressional approval.
I have no problems with key infrastructure industry companies being required to devise, implement, test and maintain state-of-the-art computer security software and a disaster recovery plan, including ongoing server backups, replicated databases and backup networks, subject to government/industry audits. However, I would prefer the process to be more advisory, giving companies and individuals flexibility to achieve security objectives rather than prescribing a one-size-fits-all, likely obsolete or incomplete checklist. We are more interested in processes, such as timely implementation of security patching, restrictions on server port access, remote access privileges, and server objects and processes, more contextual access, encrypted data flows, and internal controls.
The proof is in the pudding. First of all, I'm worried about the moral hazard of anything remotely resembling the nationalization of computer security, not to mention the potential vulnerability of a single point of failure (versus, for example, the enemy having to deal with the complexity of multiple decentralized security schemes). Second, I have more confidence in a private sector drawn from over 300 million people motivated by their own self-interest in devising defenses against cybercrime or cyberwar than in a federal bureaucracy (with all due respect to NSA and other government agencies). Third, I'm concerned over further "slippery scope" encroachments by the public over the private sectors (e.g., Andrew Napolitano's concerns over violations to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which I mentioned in a different context in yesterday's post.) I also want to ensure we have the proper Constitutional checks and balances, including any current updates to the Congress' traditional power to declare war.
Disclose Act Unconstitutional: Thumbs Down
The Supreme Court, in Citizens United v FEC, set aside an unconscionable double standard in so-called campaign finance, where for-profit corporations (and unions), unlike nonprofit groups were denied an opportunity to express their point of view, on political issues affecting their businesses, employees, and their owners. Democrats, of course, love corporate taxes but don't think if, say, a corrupt President manipulates bankruptcies to favor lower-standing unions over bondholders, or if he also attempts to declare war on banks (especially big banks) by punitively taxing them, they should be deprived of their Constitutional rights. Let's call it "taxation without representation". You see, the President and the Democratic Congress are afraid of the American people making up their own minds. Watch them cry "it's unfair" to give corporations the opportunity to pay for media time while Obama et al. use a tax-paid staff and free air time to promote their anti-business agenda.
Apparently the right to an opinion only applies to progressives; their rights are "more equal" than everyone else's rights--never mind the fact that self-professed conservatives outnumber progressives better than 2-1. In fact, Gallup shows the percentage of conservatives has increased, in the age of Obama, from 37% to 42%--it's highest point since 1994. You remember 1994: that's when the mid-term elections swept the GOP to control of the Congress for the first time since the 1952 election.
The Disclose Act attempts to do a number of blatantly unconstitutional things and is particularly notable for excluding the politically powerful NRA from consideration. It carried 219-206; if that vote count sounds familiar it's because that roughly corresponds to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill vote several weeks back. (Only 2 GOP votes for the measure: the liberal Republicans from New Orleans and Delaware.) There is no doubt that the act will not pass constitutional muster (in fact, unlike every other campaign reform since the 1940's, it bars a preliminary Supreme Court review)--for example, it arbitrarily decides to disqualify any corporation with more than 20% foreign ownership; it excludes banks that were forced to participate in the TARP bailout (under threats from Treasury Secretary Paulson) [Isn't it strange that the Dems didn't have a problem with approving federal funds to support ACORN, which almost invariably supported Dems in general elections...] It also tries to dictate the nature of a political ad (e.g., demanding company officers appear in the ad) and discourages ads by burying the corporations in copious paperwork. The equal protection violations alone doom this proposed law.
All the partisan Dems can hope, at best, if this passes (so far the 41 Senate GOP votes are blocking the measure), is to try to mute the Constitutional rights of corporations for one or 2 election cycles. But even liberal groups like the ACLU and the Sierra Club oppose this morally bankrupt law.
Political Cartoon
Bob Gorrell implicitly notes that BHO has his own problems with the Tali-Cong. Things that make you go 'hmmm'; remember Obama's strident rhetoric that we had been fighting the 'wrong war' (in Iraq)? Be careful of what you wish for... By the way, how's next year's withdrawal looking, Obama? The Taliban are waiting to hear from you....
Quote of the Day
A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walks out.
Walter Winchell
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1975
Barry Manilow, "Could It Be Magic" (my favorite Manilow song)
Styx, "Lady"
America, "Lonely People"
James Taylor, "How Sweet It Is (To Be Loved By You)"
Electric Light Orchestra, "Can't Get It Out Of My Head"
