homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

US Republicans Introduce 'Softer' Net Security Bill

 3:35 pm on Mar 2, 2012 (gmt 0)

US Republicans Introduce 'Softer' Net Security Bill [uk.reuters.com]
Eight top Republicans introduced a cybersecurity bill on Thursday aimed at stopping an overarching, bipartisan measure proposed earlier this month in order to better protect critical infrastructure.

The measure, introduced by the top Republicans on eight committees, would require federal contractors to inform the government about cyber threats and make it easier for government regulators and corporations to communicate about threats.



 6:16 pm on Mar 2, 2012 (gmt 0)

The last time politicians got soft on security was with the airlines during the Clinton administration because airlines claimed tougher security would make customers unhappy and then 9/11 happened.

Do what must be done to protect us, not make us happy.

Happiness is a warm puppy but it doesn't make us secure.

Just say'n.


 4:25 am on Mar 4, 2012 (gmt 0)

So is safety more important than freedom? That is usually the balance.

Also, are you claiming that tighter airline security would have stopped 9/11?

Current airline security (and a lot of other security) is largely security theatre, with lots of time an effort on pointless measures.

On the last long haul flight I took they allowed had a rule about fluids at one end but not the other, but the airport that did not have limits on fluids checked shoes with the other did not. So a terrorist wanting to use either attack (neither of which is terribly effective or anything much to worry about) on that flight would just have to pick the right airport.


 12:36 pm on Mar 4, 2012 (gmt 0)

Also, are you claiming that tighter airline security would have stopped 9/11?

We'll never know now will we because the politicos caved to corporate pressure claiming tighter security would impact their already faltering businesses.

They were going to get tough in '96, they knew it was a problem:

They backed off, the problem didn't.

Freedom is nice, but without life, the liberty and pursuit of happiness part is kind of meaningless!

For instance, I sure wouldn't want to sit around for weeks or even months in a permanent blackout because hackers weren't stopped from bringing the grid down because of political pressure. Nor would I want the banking or finance system to crash with a push from hackers as it's already on tilt. Having the freedom to sit in the dark house with no internet, no TV, no radio, no money, no food, no fresh water, no working bathroom, now that would be a real treat.

Not that stiffer security legislation can necessarily stop anything, but softer security legislation certainly won't do as much as stiffer would, so if you're going to waste your time implementing security laws, go for the max IMO.

Trust me, there probably wouldn't be botnets nor spam/phishing originating from, or delivered to, any US computers if I had a pen in some legislation as I firmly believe it can be quashed!

Problem is, the ISPs need a major shove to force them to install the technology to stop the garbage as they appear to be unwilling to tackle it without pressure because of the costs involved, same excuses made regarding airline security.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved