The Obama Administration will consider an executive order on cybersecurity in the wake of a defeat in the Senate on a bill to deal with the issue. This is another example of the executive branch taking action when the legislative branch bogs down in gridlock. The result is a stronger executive and an increasingly irrelevant Congress.
The White House hasn’t ruled out issuing an executive order to strengthen the nation’s defenses against cyber attacks if Congress refuses to act.
“In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in an emailed response to whether the president is considering a cybersecurity order.
“Moving forward, the President is determined to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyber threats and we will do that,” Carney said.
Carney did not bother to elucidate the authority on which Obama would enact cybersecurity regulations. The executive has clear authority in areas like housing, where the executive branch has already-appropriated funds through TARP and executive agencies like the FHA hold the underlying mortgages (incidentally, the FHA isn’t exactly leaping to reduce principal on mortgages themselves). I don’t know if the FCC would be able to regulate against cyber attacks, or the Department of Homeland Security, or even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the case of nuclear facilities. But this could just add on to existing regulations on critical infrastructure providers, and I’m sure the executive branch will somehow find a way, as they did with No Child Left Behind waivers and changes to student loan rules and deferred action on DREAM-eligible immigrants. And nobody is likely to raise much of an objection beyond a stage whisper.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), one of the main co-sponsors of the Cybersecurity Act, said she prefers that Congress address the problem, but she is open to presidential action if Congress fails.
“I suppose if we can’t, the answer would be yes,” she said when asked whether she would support an executive order.
We’re really talking here about a breakdown of democracy. I’m not a big fan of the cybersecurity bill because it uses that threat of cyber attacks as a back door to information sharing of private communications. In this instance, executive action would be preferable, since it would probably only lead to the core goal of increased standards for critical infrastructure facilities to guard against cyber attacks. But this is really no way to run a democracy, where the executive branch has to end-run around Congress because they find themselves unable to get anything done. It damages democratic accountability. These end runs don’t deal with the core problem of unnecessary and unworkable supermajority requirements in the Senate. That’s where an executive branch that wants the American system to work needs to target.





6 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Barack Obama has been the biggest disappointment I ever voted for, and nowhere is that more true than in the area of civil liberties. Either Mr. U of Chicago Con Law Professor forgot everything he learned about the Constitution, or discovered in his desk a secret 28th Amendment which reads, “9/11 changed everything.”
Hope and change, my ass.
A break down in our democracy to be sure, David. I agree with tammanytiger as well. What an utter disappointment Obama has been on civil liberties.
The whole point of being elected to congress these days is to kiss up to the K Street buzzards. Hell, I think the congress scum would forego their paychecks toward that end. As for accountability.. accountability to whom? The people? They don’t give a crap about the voters. Most of ‘em get re-elected anyway without lifting a finger.
Accountability these days mean avoiding doing or saying anything that might rock the boat for later consideration as a lobbyist or industry hack, nothing more. If you’re still surprised by this, you haven’t been paying attention for the last thirty years.
Consider what I am writing to be total snark or not!!
Back in the 1940s and 1950s there emerged this brand new technology which a new post-war generation of artists, writers,thinkers and dreamers sought to use to entertain, and to educate a whole new generation of citizens: it was called television. Due to the paranoia and aggressive blacklisting by the right wingers, the public ended up getting Leave it to Beaver, conformist family values broadcasting instead of free-thinking and free expression. Now that we have the computer Internet we have been living in a revolution of total freedom to explore new ideas and to see clearly our clouded history.
Do we really want to give political leaders, past, present and future, the power to throttle those creative new voices? To control whose narrative is heard on the tubes and whose is deleted??
Here is a bit of history which we do not want repeated: The Blacklisting of the 50s.
This reminds me of the ’70s and ’80s, when Cheeney, Rummy and Poppy first came onto the scene.
Now we can only hope that Obama and all of our future presidents (Bush’s III, IV, V, VI, VII…) won’t abuse these powers. Ha, so much for audacity.
I don’t see why the government needs to be involved with private cyber security.
The government is pushing spy viruses out on the web which violates the tentative cyber war/protection policies he championed. They want internal control and back doors in all their software: private software, and private services.
It’s totalitarian. We’ve seen how they are with FISA and with the Bailouts. No matter if the public is completely against it, it gets shove down our throats and there will be multiple votes until enough arms are twisted to overthrow democracy.