Ex-U.S. spy chief: may take crisis for new cyber law
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wire-news/ex-us-spy-chief-may-take-crisis-for-new-cyber-law_655893.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies have unique capabilities that can help protect American companies from cyber espionage and attack, but it will probably take a crisis to change laws to allow that type of cooperation, a former spy chief said on Monday.
Intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency are authorized to operate abroad but generally are restricted from working within the United States,
"Until we have a banking collapse or electric power goes off in the middle of a snowstorm for eight weeks, or something of that magnitude, we're likely just to talk about it and not do much," Mike McConnell, former director of national intelligence, said.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Democratic-controlled Senate have separate efforts under way on legislation aimed at improving cybersecurity. The House intelligence committee in December approved a bill that would allow U.S. spy agencies to share cyber-threat intelligence with private companies. Some critics worry that could lead to government surveillance of private data.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the Senate will take up "comprehensive" cybersecurity legislation this year.
snip
----------------------
http://maxkeiser.com/2012/01/24/ex-u-s-spy-chief-may-take-crisis-for-new-cyber-law/
Sounds like Cheney and Rumsfeld writing a few years before invading Iraq that it would take a new Pearl Harbor to get the American people behind an invasion. Notice he also wants to hand taxpayer funded data and research (code-breaking) over to the ‘private sector,’ which is code-word itself for wealth transfer to the same exact guys who write these laws when they’re in government. Believe me, the ‘private sector’ is seldom Joe Bag of Donuts. The most recent exception, of course, being the internet itself, created via taxpayer dollars. Now they’re trying to say, “oh, we meant to give it to just the ‘private sector’ [monopolies].
