BREAKING! Leaked Draft of Obama Secret Cybersecurity Executive Order!

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Great find. S&F&

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

Yes, I just read through it... and that's exactly what it is. I expected it to be more sinister being a secret executive order... but honestly there's nothing really controversial about it. It just basically says, he wants a finalized plan within a year which lays out a framework for better protecting critical infrastructure... this plan would also involve some type of internal government information sharing system designed to provide government agencies and operators of critical infrastructure with real time updates on cyber-security threats.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

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

Seeing as Executive orders have been going on for many years now, across multiple presidencies....
let me rephrase your question....
"So, how many times can several guys break the law, and ignore the balance of power, and get away with it?"

But no....let's just keep on blaming Obama.

Originally posted by Ghost375
But no....let's just keep on blaming Obama.

Well, he's the current a-hole in office, so why not? Doesn't make sense to me to blame this on someone who isn't in office anymore.

As life permits I'll have to see if I can't sew a few pieces of this tapestry together tonight. This secret EO is rather vague - but makes more sense if put into context.

1) A few years back some new laws were passed that let some high ranking businessmen basically become deputized federal agents - part of Homeland security.

2) The most recent public EO creates a "partnership in law enforcement" between certain, undefined, business leaders and the Federal government... a creation of a committee on law enforcement which includes civilians.

3) And now this - which seems to connect all those dots and possibly create a situation where telecoms are voluntary civilian arms of the government.

In and of itself this almost seems to make sense, under the guise of "homeland security". But history tells us that totalitarian communist regimes and even the Nazi's relied heavily upon sectors of the civilian population to act in accord with the authorities.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

As life permits I'll have to see if I can't sew a few pieces of this tapestry together tonight. This secret EO is rather vague - but makes more sense if put into context.

Please. I'm looking forward to your view. And I'm worried. ...Looks like Obama just pieced off Canada via FDA's approval of GSK Quebec's bird flu vaccine with adjutant - likely means The North American corporate partnership is really rolling now...

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

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

Seeing as Executive orders have been going on for many years now, across multiple presidencies....
let me rephrase your question....
"So, how many times can several guys break the law, and ignore the balance of power, and get away with it?"

But no....let's just keep on blaming Obama.

There is a difference between just any old executive order, and orders that bypass laws they can't get through Congress. That's the sort he seems to favor. His EO is the topic of the post. He's also stated, more than once, that he really doesn't respect the Constitution (you know, that document he took an oath to uphold?). So, what's your opinion of this EO?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


When did Obama state that he doesn't respect the constitution? I'm genuinely curious about this. I mean, I'm cool with making mountains out of molehills. Here at ATS, it's quite common...but I have to draw the line at pulling mountains out of your butt. Show me the clip of ol' Barry O. saying, "I don't respect the constitution," and I'll eat my hat and gladly provide the tinfoil for yours.

Hmmm... the presentation of this does seem to definitely imply an air of vagueness. Worded in just a way to seem harmless by what they intend to do with this. Well, first the Sopa act, then the NDAA act signed in this past January. It surprises me in no way whatsoever that our president would want further regulation of the internet. He seems to want to regulate everything else from what I have seen. Expect more. There will be more. Who knows? Maybe his cabinet will figure out how to regulate how many cubic liters of air we breathe every day - and possibly even tax that as well. Nothing surprises me when it comes to Obama.

reply to post by Rubicant13


Bear in mind that this is a theoretically leaked draft of the secret EO. Whatever happened to have been signed last month may or may not have been worded more strongly.

My gut feeling is that the vagueness probably stayed very much intact - as it opens the door to sweeping interpretation - especially when taken in context with EO's signed from Clinton forward - by ALL of the POTUS's since that time - but emphatically those signed post 911.

IMO the "cyber" aspects of this are very much secondary to the "partnership" references between Homeland security and private industries. Imagine a world where your boss, your ISP, even the loss prevention people at your local Wal Mart are all somewhat deputized and tasked with watching your behavior and reporting it.

For those who think this worry hyperbolic - I recommend Googling "KGB" and "Stasi".

The reality is that spying upon citizens, IMO, is about to become a big private sector industry.

This year, America, I have created 2.6 million jobs in partnership with corporations and local businesses. Our "homeland patrol" organization has helped the economy in ways previously thought impossible and has secured our nation from the threat of independent thinkers terrorist menaces...

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Rubicant13

 

Bear in mind that this is a theoretically leaked draft of the secret EO. Whatever happened to have been signed last month may or may not have been worded more strongly.

My gut feeling is that the vagueness probably stayed very much intact - as it opens the door to sweeping interpretation - especially when taken in context with EO's signed from Clinton forward - by ALL of the POTUS's since that time - but emphatically those signed post 911.

IMO the "cyber" aspects of this are very much secondary to the "partnership" references between Homeland security and private industries. Imagine a world where your boss, your ISP, even the loss prevention people at your local Wal Mart are all somewhat deputized and tasked with watching your behavior and reporting it.

For those who think this worry hyperbolic - I recommend Googling "KGB" and "Stasi".

The reality is that spying upon citizens, IMO, is about to become a big industry.

~Heff

Could not agree with you more, as this should worry people. You expressed what I would have said pretty much to the proverbial T, Heff. These kind of implementations spell trouble for every American's civil liberties and their right to privacy and their own right to expression as well. Not a good sign in my opinion.

***Update***

The general population is finally catching up to ATS, albeit nearly three weeks late.

From Politico:

A new draft of the White House's cybersecurity executive order maintains the administration's effort to improve the digital defenses of critical infrastructure — but it includes a number of changes, following several administration meetings with stakeholders.

The Nov. 21 draft obtained by POLITICO grants more time to the feds to devise and implement a voluntary system to protect power plants, water systems and other forms of critical infrastructure from crippling attacks. Yet it makes clear that commercial products won't fall into that category.

"The National Security Staff has held over 30 meetings with industry, think tanks, and privacy groups, meeting directly with over 200 companies and trade organizations representing over 6,000 companies that generate over $7 trillion in economic activity and employ more than 15 million people," Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House, told POLITICO on Friday.

I don't know who their sources are... but mine leaked it five days earlier than theirs did.

~Heff

Well that explains why they have been trying to reach me and sending me e-mail to do security training well I am disabled. I have not responded as I doubt I will ever go back but I probably should have at least done the training.It was bad enough before I left. I couldn't even keep up with all the passwords in addition to the cards and fingerprint readers. I am glad I no longer have to deal with that.