FARK.com: (7258982) Looks like the TSA is coming to your PC. Good thing you're already naked, that makes it easier. But you will have to raise BOTH hands

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Looks like the TSA is coming to your PC. Good thing you're already naked, that makes it easier. But you will have to raise BOTH hands (bloomberg.com)		55
		More: Interesting, obama, United States budget process, executive branches, critical infrastructure, Department of Homeland Security, Foreign Relations in Washington

• • •

12998 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Aug 2012 at 12:02 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7258982

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

55 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

AverageAmericanGuy		2012-08-09 12:04:19 PM

FTFA: Senate Republicans last week blocked a bill backed by Obama that would have set up voluntary cybersecurity standards for operators of infrastructure such as power grids and water- treatment plants that are considered essential to national security.

Republicans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups said the voluntary standards would be a back door to government regulation of companies.

Don't say Republicans never did anything for you.

wedun		2012-08-09 12:05:55 PM

oh god! not the voluntary standards!

austin_millbarge		2012-08-09 12:07:45 PM

This bill looks to be pretty far down on the list of things to be concerned about.

bemis23		2012-08-09 12:07:54 PM

I know it's too much to expect submitters to actually read the article, but holy fark balls subby - you're seriously mentally deficient.

davidphogan		2012-08-09 12:08:23 PM

Well that was a misleading headline.

Carousel Beast		2012-08-09 12:09:08 PM

wedun: oh god! not the voluntary standards!

While I'd think an extension of CJIS security policies to infrastructure companies would be A Good Thing^TM, it being a matter of Federal jurisdiction is questionable. Seems more like an item for the States to regulate.

urban.derelict		2012-08-09 12:09:50 PM

I will raise both hands... and six donuts...

/yes i am the most popular guy at the nudist camp; I'm that guy

DeadBaby		2012-08-09 12:10:14 PM

I think utilities and other vital services should adopt more stringent security. I think Obama is right on this one. The Republicans are just doing what they have for the past 3 years and that is exactly the opposite of what Obama does.

Maybe he should just start using reverse psych on 'em?

eas81		2012-08-09 12:11:21 PM

elysive		2012-08-09 12:15:24 PM

FTFA: U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups said the voluntary standards would be a back door to government regulation of companies.

Ya, the executive order sounds super. We should encourage this man to take more power to secure us because his work with Homeland Security, the TSA, and the NDAA have just been so stellar. I was a huge fan when he re-upped the Patriot Act too. To think that I hated Bush for his unique violations of my civil liberties all those years and thought Obama would be different because he was a Democrat.

limeyfellow		2012-08-09 12:15:44 PM

Doubleodoug		2012-08-09 12:17:12 PM

What's the matter?
If you aren't doing anything wrong you've got nothing to hide... or does that only apply to the general citizenry?

indylaw		2012-08-09 12:19:47 PM

a) You realize that it wasn't Barack Obama or the Democrats who dreamed up the TSA, right?

b) Scoff all you want, but it would be nice if we had some sort of protections in place to keep viruses or hackers from disrupting, say, the nation's power grids. I understand that power companies are usually private companies, but if Con Edison were taken down for days because of some computer attack, the results could be disastrous.

machoprogrammer		2012-08-09 12:20:24 PM

Doubleodoug: What's the matter?
If you aren't doing anything wrong you've got nothing to hide... or does that only apply to the general citizenry?

Only to general citizens. That is why you cannot record police out in public.

kindms		2012-08-09 12:20:35 PM

Perhaps they should have gotten their ducks in a row before unleashing the viruses on the world that attack these very things.

These clowns never think of the repercussions of their actions until it bites them in the ass, And even then they don't take responsibility

Hey lets write some of the most sophisticated viruses ever seen on planet earth and unleash it what could possibly go wrong ?

pute kisses like a man		2012-08-09 12:21:37 PM

Marine1		2012-08-09 12:23:36 PM

Carousel Beast: wedun: oh god! not the voluntary standards!

While I'd think an extension of CJIS security policies to infrastructure companies would be A Good ThingTM, it being a matter of Federal jurisdiction is questionable. Seems more like an item for the States to regulate.

Let the states regulate things? Why?

indylaw: a) You realize that it wasn't Barack Obama or the Democrats who dreamed up the TSA, right?

b) Scoff all you want, but it would be nice if we had some sort of protections in place to keep viruses or hackers from disrupting, say, the nation's power grids. I understand that power companies are usually private companies, but if Con Edison were taken down for days because of some computer attack, the results could be disastrous.

a) He's had every opportunity to dismantle it, and has instead presided over a regime of even more intrusive actions on the part of the TSA. At this point, President Obama is just as liable for the problems the TSA/DHS causes as Bush, if not more so.

b) Agreed.

edmo		2012-08-09 12:24:55 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Don't say Republicans never did anything for you

They loved this shiat when Dubya was pushing it.

Just goes to show the parties don't matter. You get the same results, it's just each side has to reverse postions on issues after each election.

stonicus		2012-08-09 12:25:44 PM

Republicans will take away your broom then biatch at you for not sweeping the floor.

Marine1		2012-08-09 12:28:20 PM

stonicus: Republicans will take away your broom then biatch at you for not sweeping the floor.

And Democrats will require you to sweep floors that don't need sweeping, with government-approved brooms, and will levee heavy tax on the brooms so that your competition, who doesn't want to work to purchase a broom, can be provided one with government funds.

Both sides are evil. The sooner you lemmings on this site realize that, the sooner we'll be better off.

Kuroshin		2012-08-09 12:29:06 PM

Republicans, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups said the voluntary standards would be a back door to government regulation of companies.

Like they already do with PGE? Or PUCs? Or the BPA?

I don't get it.

Also, infrastructure should be under government purview. It's one of the few things that really shouldn't be left to the "race to the bottom" downward-swing of Capitalism. You can't have competition within a monopoly.

Given the slippery nature of cybersecurity, I'm not sure how they would implement any program. It would be a good idea to prevent something like Stuxnet kicking us in the balls, but someone would have to constantly be poking systems to ensure that every known and new hole is being covered. Not a bad thing, just horrendously labor intensive (constant hacking, patching, hacking again, patching again, etc.).

/need moar coffee - barely coherent

elysive		2012-08-09 12:29:36 PM

indylaw: a) You realize that it wasn't Barack Obama or the Democrats who dreamed up the TSA, right?

The TSA is an agency within the Dept of Homeland Security within the President's cabinet, which means that Obama directs their policies. He has also publicly defended the scanners and pat-downs as necessary, so I can blame him for the current TSA fark ups all I want. The TSA got worse under his administration and he has made no efforts to fix it. In fact the administrations other actions (NDAA, FBI with its GPS tracking device fiasco, DEA cameras tracking citizens in border states) indicate they are pro- f'ing citizens civil liberties in the arse. It's surprising considering that Obama is a Democrat (which I thought was the opposite of fascist), a civil rights attorney and a professor of constitutional law.

SkunkWerks		2012-08-09 12:32:04 PM

And, once again, when they stop calling it "Cybersecurity" I'll assume that the US Governement has finally matured enough to discuss concepts like "Computer Security".

Till then, for the lulz.

OnlyM3		2012-08-09 12:35:18 PM

indylaw

a) You realize that it wasn't Barack Obama or the Democrats who dreamed up the TSA, right?

You do realize we know you're lying, right?
Question 1: Who said "To profesionalize, you must Federalize"?
Protip 1: It wasn't bush
Protip 2: It wasn't a Republican

Fact: TSA groping didn't start till zero put his people in charge.

Carousel Beast		2012-08-09 12:36:54 PM

pute kisses like a man: Carousel Beast: wedun: oh god! not the voluntary standards!

While I'd think an extension of CJIS security policies to infrastructure companies would be A Good ThingTM, it being a matter of Federal jurisdiction is questionable. Seems more like an item for the States to regulate.

(dormant) commerce clause. everything is appropriate for the federal government to decide (except a federal law requiring no guns around schools... that's the only exception that I can remember)

Yeah, abusing the constitution is bad no matter which side does it, or for what reasons - even good ones. Like I said, CJIS sec policy would be a good idea here. Asking the States to sign on to it would be appropriate. Handing down an executive order, not so much.

soakitincider		2012-08-09 12:49:32 PM

democrats and republicans make horrible leaders.

Carlip		2012-08-09 12:52:36 PM

So it's not passed through the normal legislative process that's worked for the past 240 years, that means an unconstitutional executive order is needed to try to create a law based on a very small number of senators worries about a threat that cannot be substantiated? What could go wrong?!

SkunkWerks		2012-08-09 12:54:48 PM

Carlip: a threat that cannot be substantiated?

Clearly you've never been to Singapore.

Albert911emt		2012-08-09 12:59:48 PM

When the cyber "Pearl Harbor" finally does happen, it'll be the republicans screaming the loudest, "why wasn't something done to prevent this?!?!? Who can we blame to up our chances in the next election? Gotdamn democrats and their anti-American lack of cyber security!!!"

Nuclear Monk		2012-08-09 01:00:02 PM

Why would voluntary standards need to be established by a law? Can't they just send out a brochure?

SkunkWerks		2012-08-09 01:05:17 PM

Albert911emt: cyber "Pearl Harbor"

Don't make me throw things at you.

/PSA

robbiex0r		2012-08-09 01:05:54 PM

OnlyM3: indylaw

a) You realize that it wasn't Barack Obama or the Democrats who dreamed up the TSA, right?
You do realize we know you're lying, right?
Question 1: Who said "To profesionalize, you must Federalize"?
Protip 1: It wasn't bush
Protip 2: It wasn't a Republican

Fact: TSA groping didn't start till zero put his people in charge.

?

SkunkWerks		2012-08-09 01:11:57 PM

OnlyM3: You do realize we know you're lying, right?

I do realize that the creation of the TSA has been something of an embarrassing "bastard child" for the GOP. "How can we create a federal agency charged with making people feel safer at airports at least at a superficial level without creating a whole slew of federal workers who would have to be compensated as substantially as any other federal worker? How can we do this on-the-cheap?"

I do realize I know you're delusional about him lying.

I also realize anything with the word "cyber" in front of it that doesn't hail from Doctor Who is pretty laughable.

pute kisses like a man		2012-08-09 01:13:46 PM

Carousel Beast: pute kisses like a man: Carousel Beast: wedun: oh god! not the voluntary standards!

While I'd think an extension of CJIS security policies to infrastructure companies would be A Good ThingTM, it being a matter of Federal jurisdiction is questionable. Seems more like an item for the States to regulate.

(dormant) commerce clause. everything is appropriate for the federal government to decide (except a federal law requiring no guns around schools... that's the only exception that I can remember)

Yeah, abusing the constitution is bad no matter which side does it, or for what reasons - even good ones. Like I said, CJIS sec policy would be a good idea here. Asking the States to sign on to it would be appropriate. Handing down an executive order, not so much.

oh, I wasn't paying attention to the actor. whoops. that would have cost a few points in the real world.

machodonkeywrestler		2012-08-09 01:21:09 PM

Marine1: stonicus: Republicans will take away your broom then biatch at you for not sweeping the floor.

And Democrats will require you to sweep floors that don't need sweeping, with government-approved brooms, and will levee heavy tax on the brooms so that your competition, who doesn't want to work to purchase a broom, can be provided one with government funds.

Both sides are evil. The sooner you lemmings on this site realize that, the sooner we'll be better off.

Which is why I will vote for the conservative democrat, Barack Obama.

JackieRabbit		2012-08-09 01:24:58 PM

Voluntary standards = election year bullshiat

spectrek		2012-08-09 01:34:01 PM

Think we're having fun now? Just wait till Hussein proclaims himself dictator.

MythDragon		2012-08-09 01:46:21 PM

What about cyber-skin?

kimmygibblershomework		2012-08-09 02:09:08 PM

Come on subby, this would have had a way better headline if Bush had done it.

SkunkWerks		2012-08-09 02:12:23 PM

MythDragon: What about cyber-skin?

Still pretty laughable. Then again most sex toys are out of context.

2 Replies		2012-08-09 02:13:24 PM

Doubleodoug: What's the matter?
If you aren't doing anything wrong you've got nothing to hide... or does that only apply to the general citizenry?

I still can't believe people seriously make that argument.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Guilt about an undisclosed offense does not in ANY WAY justify an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
It's like saying "If you can't get pregnant, you should no issue with being raped in the ass."

SkunkWerks		2012-08-09 02:13:36 PM

spectrek: Think we're having fun now? Just wait till Hussein proclaims himself dictator.

I can deal with a bronze statue leading.

Well, a piece of the ass of a bronze statue, anyway.

krackpipe		2012-08-09 02:31:21 PM

FTFA; "Believe me, the critical infrastructure of this country is under threat," Brennan said, adding that foreign states and hackers "are developing advanced technologies, and we have to improve our defenses on this issue."

Believe you? How about you tell us something once in a while if you want our support? Since 9/11, all of us civilians are suspects in our own damn country and there's a one-way flow of information. No Americans were involved in that 9/11 bullshiat, got it Brennan? Meanwhile we're going broke with all this superfluous security bullshiat and paying your guys' pensions. And now you want to cry "Believe me"? Last time I checked, you need to say that in the mirror.

WhoGAS		2012-08-09 02:53:31 PM

krackpipe: FTFA; "Believe me, the critical infrastructure of this country is under threat," Brennan said, adding that foreign states and hackers "are developing advanced technologies, and we have to improve our defenses on this issue."

Believe you? How about you tell us something once in a while if you want our support? Since 9/11, all of us civilians are suspects in our own damn country and there's a one-way flow of information. No Americans were involved in that 9/11 bullshiat, got it Brennan? Meanwhile we're going broke with all this superfluous security bullshiat and paying your guys' pensions. And now you want to cry "Believe me"? Last time I checked, you need to say that in the mirror.

Shush up and enjoy your chocolate rations.

/...
/Feel the same.

Gleeman		2012-08-09 03:48:22 PM

Is Obama trying to break H. W.'s Executive Order record?

But obviously we need this because of all the hacker attacks on infrastructure in the last decade...oh, wait.

EddyKilowatt		2012-08-09 03:51:33 PM

Cassandre		2012-08-09 04:09:27 PM

Marine1: stonicus: Republicans will take away your broom then biatch at you for not sweeping the floor.

And Democrats will require you to sweep floors that don't need sweeping, with government-approved brooms, and will levee heavy tax on the brooms so that your competition, who doesn't want to work to purchase a broom, can be provided one with government funds.

Both sides are evil. The sooner you lemmings on this site realize that, the sooner we'll be better off.

No, Republicans are evil, Democrats are incompetent. The only thing we have going for us right now is that stupidity cancels out evil at least as often as it does good.

meyerkev		2012-08-09 04:55:43 PM

Gleeman: Is Obama trying to break H. W.'s Executive Order record?

But obviously we need this because of all the hacker attacks on infrastructure in the last decade...oh, wait.

To be fair, while we're not getting the full story, from the bits we're getting it does sound like China is pretty much constantly hitting everything and everyone looking for anything they can steal.

/I can't even count the number of times I've seen "And the first thing I do is block all Russian and Chinese IP addresses" on Fark.

This About That		2012-08-09 05:03:13 PM

"President Barack Obama is considering executive-branch action on U.S. cybersecurity after Congress failed to pass legislation to protect national security assets..."

Deciding to not pass a bad bill is not a "failure". Come on Barack, don't make me vote for Mitt. Don't make me even think about that.