Justice Dept., FBI Networks Come Under Attack as Cybersecurity Bill Works Its Way Through Congress

Network World and the Associated Press are reporting that malware has crippled computers at the U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI. The U.S. Marshals Service, a division of the Department of Justice, is the oldest federal law enforcement agency and has served the country since 1789.

“It was not clear if the malware was the cause of the network outage or if the agency took down systems to stem the spread of what was believed to be the Neeris worm, which saw a new version appear last month that copies Conficker’s evil ways,” report John Fontana and Carolyn Duffy Marsan for Network World.

“The U.S. Marshals confirmed it disconnected from the Justice Department’s computers as a protective measure after being hit by the virus,” the Associated Press reports, “an FBI official said only that that agency was experiencing similar issues and was working on the problem.”

Both agencies shut down internet access and some email while IT worked on the problem.

The network problems occurred as the Senate considers a so-called “cybersecurity bill” sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. For now, the focus of the bill dwells on federal government systems and critical infrastructure systems, including the national power grid, telecommunication networks and financial systems.

The bill would give unprecedented power to the executive. Provisions in section 18 of the bill would give Obama the authority to shut down a critical infrastructure network during a cybersecurity emergency that threatens national security, while section 14 would establish the Dept. of Commerce as a clearinghouse of threat and vulnerability information for federally and privately-owned critical infrastructure systems and networks. Section 14 also says the Secretary of Commerce would “have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” The secretary would also manage how information is shared between the government and public and private infrastructure operators, according to Michael S. Mimoso of SearchSecurity.

“Another provision in the bill calls for an identity management and authentication program for government and critical infrastructure information systems and networks. Is this a precursor to a national ID program, or a jab at online privacy?” writes Mimoso.

Again, it is interesting to note that government networks are now coming under attack as legislation works its way through the bureaucratic labyrinth.

Is it possible the attack was a black op designed to nudge the bill into law?

Corporate Media Exploits Teen Idol to Push Cyberbullying Bill

The corporate media has linked teen idol Miley Cyrus, who plays schoolgirl rock star Hannah Montana in the hit Disney series and movie, to an unconstitutional bill now working its way through Congress

According to Reuters, Cyrus recently posted an angry tirade on her Twitter web page in response to criticism about her weight. “Those remarks that you hateful people use are fighting words, the ones that scar people and cause them to do damage to themselves or others,” the teenager wrote. “Kids hurt themselves. This is not something to be taken lightly.”

The First Amendment of the Constitution shouldn’t be taken lightly, either. If passed, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (HR 1966) would outlaw speech meant to “coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person.” According to the text of the bill, individuals who “bully” others via any electronic means could face fines, two years in prison, or both. Critics call it the Censorship Act of 2009.

As UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh noted on his blog, a number of common situations could be considered felonious under the language of the bill. “I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite/campaign promise breaker/fool/etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) ‘to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior’ — unless, of course, my statements aren’t seen as ’severe,’ a term that is entirely undefined and unclear,” Volokh wrote.

Volokh’s example is demonstrative. If the bill becomes law it will undoubtedly be used by government and political groups to go after opponents and critics. The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act is less about assuaging the crushed feelings of teenagers and others easily hurt by insults and taunting than it is about shutting down the free speech of targeted individuals and groups.

The Anti-Defamation League is a strong supporter of the bill. “Research by the Anti-Defamation League found as many as half of U.S. teenagers are affected by cyber-bullying, whether through emails, instant messaging, cellphones, texting or websites, with the anonymity of electronic media emboldening bullies,” reports Reuters.

The ADL is a special interest group dedicated to shutting down the free speech of people accused of defaming the Jewish people and allegedly engaging in bigotry and other forms of racism (incidentally protected by the First Amendment). It is not specifically interested in protecting the feelings of teenagers teased because they are fat.

The ADL also tracks “extremists” and was instrumental in the production of the Department of Homeland Security’s document characterizing advocates of the Second Amendment, pro-life activists, and returning veterans as “rightwing extremists” deemed a threat to the country.

In March of this year, the ADL described Joe Banister, Tommy Cryer, Pat Shannan, Dave Von Kleist, Jack McLamb, Greg Dixon, Ted Gunderson, and Michael Badnarik as “extremist speakers.”

In April, the group attempted to link talk show host Alex Jones to the accused cop killer Richard Poplawski. “One of Poplawski’s favorite places for such conspiracy theories was the Web site of the right-wing conspiracy radio talk show host Alex Jones. Poplawski visited the site, Infowars, frequently, shared links to it with others, and sometimes even posted to it,” the ADL wrote on its website.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would allow the ADL and other groups to effectively shut down the First Amendment for individuals they believe promote “hate speech,” that is to say speech not considered politically correct by favored groups (i.e., federally protected minorities). It would allow the government to shut down “hate” radio (conservative, libertarian, and patriot radio) without reimposing the so-called Fairness Doctrine. It would theoretically criminalize talk show hosts such as Alex Jones, Micheal Savage, and others who call for government officials to be arrested and tried for treason.

Moreover, the bill would put a federally-imposed damper on the internet where the democratization of speech is widely accepted, much to the displeasure of the government and protected groups intolerant of criticism.

“Put simply, this legislation would be used as a tool for a judge and jury to determine whether there is significant evidence to prove that a person ‘cyberbullied’ another,” wrote the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Linda Sanchez. “That is: did they have the required intent, did they use electronic means of communication, and was the communication severe, hostile, and repeated?”

Free speech — especially free political speech — is often severe, hostile, and repeated. If enacted, the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would turn passionate and even vehement political speech into a crime punishable by two years in prison.

According to the founders, political speech was the only kind of free speech that government was strictly required to permit, as free speech is a natural right. Ten of the fourteen early state constitutions or Declarations of Rights, including the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, name freedom of speech and the press as a fundamental right.

Rep. Linda Sanchez and the supporters of this bill would deny that natural and god-given right.

Morley Safer Doesn’t Trust Citizen Journalism

Veteran newsman and 60 Minutes correspondent, Morley Safer, just won the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award from Quinnipiac University’s School of Communications. His long and distinguished career certainly justifies receiving this honor. It’s too bad he had to spoil the ceremony with the crotchety old man impression that he must have picked up from Andy Rooney.

In an attempt to address his concern for the withering state of newspapers, Safer warned that the medium’s decline “threatens all of journalism and, by extension, our precarious right to know.” He stated his belief that newspapers provide the source material for stories presented in other mediums. There is a case to be made for these assertions, but he went too far when he attacked new media, characterizing it as crammed with nuts:

“The blogosphere is no alternative, crammed as it is with the ravings and manipulations of every nut with a keyboard. Good journalism is structured and structure means responsibility,” he said. He added later, “…I would trust citizen journalism as much as I would trust citizen surgery.”

If Safer is really concerned with responsibility, he ought not to lash out indiscriminately at online journalism. If he wants to cast a net around “every nut with a keyboard,” and label them all journalists, then I should be able to do the same with his medium and every nut with a microphone.

Surely there are manipulative ravers on the Internet, but they could hardly be called journalists. The same is true with television and newspapers. Josh Marshall (a reporter of proven reliability) and Michelle Malkin (a purveyor of bias and propaganda), are two completely different species. Credible and principled Internet journalists would cringe at the thought of being associated with likes of Matt Drudge. Would Safer fare any better by being lumped together with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Does Safer think that Ann Coulter brings honor to the newspapers who carry her column? Does he think that the National Enquirer or the New York Post are structured and responsible? If Safer wants to draw parallels between online reporters with their old media equivalents, he should not be making apples to idiots comparisons.

It would also be helpful if Safer refrained from disparaging the public at large. Safer’s analogy to “citizen surgery” carries an insulting implication that “citizen” equates to “unqualified.” Many citizens are quite capable of producing good journalism. And, perhaps to Safer’s surprise, some journalists are, in fact, good citizens. The two designations are not mutually exclusive. A better analogy might compare a modern surgeon with an old-school sawbones who refused to use an MRI or other advanced technologies. I expect that most people would prefer the modern surgeon. And as it turns out, most people prefer new media, as demonstrated in this poll:

* 67% believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
* 32% said Internet sites are their most trusted source for news and information, followed by newspapers (22%), television (21%) and radio (15%).
* 75% believe the Internet has had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism.
* 69% believe media companies are becoming too large and powerful to allow for competition.

There is a notable irony in that Safer would level these criticisms while accepting an award honoring the First Amendment. A true advocate for a free press would welcome more public participation, not less. After all, what could be more representative of free expression, and a free press, then citizen journalism?