Part D

Solutions to Problems Arising from the Issue

There are many solutions to the problems that arose in part C. One of these solutions is to only allow the President to have the power to shut down the private sector computers instead of having another group of people do it for him. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license (Adams 2009). Allowing other people to shut down the private sector computers when the bill specifically says that it is only the President’s authority to do so is breaking the law and to have the President do it instead will be more efficient. If the President was to be properly trained then the extra people that are currently used as “cybersecurity professionals” need not be there any longer.

Also another solution to one of the problems that arose was that the language of the bill made companies timid. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue” (Adams 2009). Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government (Reich 2009). The language of the bill can have a number of relatively easy solutions. One is that a new draft of the bill is formed with language more suitable to companies ears and this is due to the fact that the language in the old one frightened them into thinking that the President would be watching over their companies 24 hours 7 days a week, when really it meant that he would periodically check in to see how and what the company was doing. Another example is to have the President address the issue himself, describing all the benefits associated with his new ability to shut down private sector computers such as national defense and national security.

Part C

The Impact of the Issue

There are many advantages when it comes to the president having the ability to shut down private sector computers in a “cybersecurity emergency”. One of these advantages is that the creator of the bill, a man named Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) he claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said (Adams 2009). Another advantage, however it can also be seen as a disadvantage, is thatIf your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national security perspective” (Adams 2009).

However there are some disadvantages too. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001 (Adams 2009). The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection. Also other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license (Reich 2009). To complete this project, it requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete (The Washington Times, 2009).