Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:36 PM
Hissyspit (45,753 posts)
Cybersecurity Bill Dead After Second U.S. Senate Rebuff
Cybersecurity bill dead after second U.S. Senate rebuff
Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:12pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared a U.S. cybersecurity bill, opposed by business and privacy groups, dead on Wednesday after it failed a test vote for the second time.
The bill would have increased information-sharing between intelligence agencies and private companies. It also would have set voluntary standards for businesses that control electric grids or water treatment plants.
Business groups opposed the bill as overregulation and privacy groups worried it might open the door to Internet eavesdropping.
"Everyone should understand cybersecurity is dead for this Congress," said Reid, a Democrat, adding, "Whatever we do on this bill, it's not enough for the Chamber of Commerce."
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8AE04720121115
5 replies, 1934 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Cybersecurity Bill Dead After Second U.S. Senate Rebuff (Original post)
|woo me with science||Nov 2012||#4|
Response to Hissyspit (Original post)
Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:58 AM
BouzoukiKing (163 posts)
5. Personally, I'm in favor of INvoluntary...
...standards for our basic, life-supporting infrastructure: water, electric grids, etc. Any serious geeks out there (like me) know how exposed we really are. And I'm not necessarily talking about terrorism, either - although that is, unfortunately, part of it. We need our life-grids to be secure, to talk to each other seamlessly; to exist under an umbrella of standards and professionalism that only the federal government can both supply and audit.
But that is an entirely separate circumstance from the privacy issues surrounding information-sharing between "...intelligence agencies and private companies." Or information gathering and sharing in general. We need more privacy, not less.
And yes, the argument can be made that the above two paragraphs are in conflict. Too bad. It just makes the problem more difficult - not insoluble.