Further to this particular Bill, I thought that Riaz's post last year (14th March, 2012) would be relevant particularly in light of what information state agencies can access, see:<br><br><h2>March 09, 2012</h2>
<div>
<h3>DOJ Asks Court To Keep Secret Any
Partnership Between Google, NSA</h3>
<div>
<div>
<p>The Justice Department is defending the government's
refusal to discuss—or even acknowledge the existence of—any
cooperative research and development agreement between
Google and the National <span class="il">Security</span> Agency.</p>
<p>The Washington based advocacy group Electronic Privacy
<span class="il">Information</span> Center sued in federal district court here to
obtain documents about any such agreement between the
Internet search giant and the <span class="il">security</span> agency.</p>
<p>The NSA responded to the suit with a so-called “Glomar”
response in which the agency said it could neither confirm
nor deny whether any responsive records exist. U.S. District
Judge Richard Leon in Washington <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1533-15" target="_blank">sided
with the government</a> last July.</p>
<p>A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit is scheduled to hear the dispute March 20.</p>
<p>EPIC filed a Freedom of <span class="il">Information</span> Act request in early
2010, noting media reports at the time that the NSA and
Google had agreed to a partnership following the <span class="il">cyber</span>
attacks in China that year against Google.</p>
<p>EPIC asked for, among other things, communication between
the NSA and Google about Gmail and Google’s “decision to
fail to routinely encrypt” messages before Jan. 13, 2010.</p>
<p>The NSA’s response to the request for records noted that
the agency “works with a broad range of commercial partners
and research associations” to ensure the availability of
<span class="il">secure</span> <span class="il">information</span> systems. The agency, however, refused to
confirm or deny any partnership with Google.</p>
<p>The <span class="il">security</span> agency said it routinely monitors
vulnerabilities in commercial technology and cryptographic
products because the government relies heavily on private
companies for word processing systems and e-mail software.</p>
<p>“If NSA determines that certain <span class="il">security</span> vulnerabilities or
malicious attacks pose a threat to U.S. government
<span class="il">information</span> systems, NSA may take action,” DOJ Civil
Division lawyers Catherine Hancock and Douglas Letter said
in a brief in the D.C. Circuit in January.</p>
<p>DOJ’s legal team said that acknowledging whether NSA and
Google formed a partnership from a <span class="il">cyber</span> attack would
illuminate whether the government “considered the alleged
attack to be of consequence for <span class="il">critical</span> U.S. government
<span class="il">information</span> systems.”</p>
</div>
<div>
<p>NSA said it cannot provide documents—or confirm their
existence—because the <span class="il">information</span> would alert adversaries
about the <span class="il">security</span> agency’s priorities, threat assessments
and countermeasures.</p>
<p>DOJ said media reports about the alleged Google partnership
with NSA do not constitute official acknowledgement.</p>
<p><em>The Washington Post</em> and <em>The New York Times</em>
both reported that Google contacted the NSA after the Jan.
2010 <span class="il">cyber</span> attack, which the company said was rooted in
China and targeted access to accounts of Chinese human
rights activists. <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> said
NSA’s general counsel worked out a cooperative research and
development agreement with Google.</p>
<p>EPIC’s attorneys, including Marc Rotenberg, the group’s
president, said in court papers that the document request
includes records that are not relevant to the NSA’s
<span class="il">information</span> assurance mission.</p>
<p>“The NSA mischaracterizes EPIC’s FOIA Request by stating
that responsive documents would reveal ‘<span class="il">information</span> about a
potential Google-NSA relationship,’” Rotenberg said.</p>
<p>The crux of the records request, Rotenberg said, is
Google’s switch to application encryption by default for
Gmail accounts soon after the <span class="il">cyber</span> attack. Google in 2008
began allowing users to encrypt mail passing through the
company servers, EPIC said in its brief, but encryption was
not provided by default.</p>
<p>EPIC’s brief said the failure of the NSA to conduct a
search for records “deprives the court of the ability to
meaningfully assess the propriety” of the agency’s response
that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of
responsive records.</p>
<p>“Without first conducting the search, not even the agency
can know whether there is a factual basis for its legal
position,” Rotenberg said.</p>
<p>EPIC said its records request does not seek documents about
NSA’s role to <span class="il">secure</span> government computer networks. “Google
provides cloud-based services to consumers, not <span class="il">critical</span>
<span class="il">infrastructure</span> services to the government,” Rotenberg said.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p> <span>Posted
by <a rel="author" href="http://profile.typepad.com/1218477827s15125" target="_blank">Mike
Scarcella</a> on March 09, 2012 at 12:29 PM in <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/balancing_act/" target="_blank">Balancing
Act</a>, <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/crime_and_punishment/" target="_blank">Crime
and Punishment</a>, <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/current_affairs/" target="_blank">Current
Affairs</a>, <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/justice_department/" target="_blank">Justice
Department </a>, <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/legal_business_1/" target="_blank">Legal
Business</a>, <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/lobbying/" target="_blank">Lobbying</a>,
<a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/politics-and-government/" target="_blank">Politics
and Government</a>, <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/travel/" target="_blank">Travel</a>,
<a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/webtech/" target="_blank">Web/Tech</a>
</span> <span>|</span> <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/03/doj-asks-court-to-keep-secret-any-partnership-between-google-nsa.html" target="_blank">Permalink</a>
</p>
<p> <span><a href="http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Flegaltimes.typepad.com%2Fblt%2F2012%2F03%2Fdoj-asks-court-to-keep-secret-any-partnership-between-google-nsa.html&phase=2" target="_blank">Digg This</a>
</span> <span>|</span> <span><a href="http://del.icio.us/post" target="_blank">Save to del.icio.<span class="il">us</span></a>
</span> </p>
</div>
</div><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com" target="_blank">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear All,<br><br>The US Senate has introduced a new Cybersecurity Bill through Senators John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee, Tom Carper, incoming Chairman of
the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and
Dianne Feinstein, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence where they made a Press Release, see:<a href="http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7a7124d7-190c-4160-abf3-4012c2db737c" target="_blank">http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7a7124d7-190c-4160-abf3-4012c2db737c</a><br>
<br>To see the Bill, visit: <a href="http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540-aca3-3e857c7627da" target="_blank">http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b678eb9a-b5c1-4540-aca3-3e857c7627da</a><br>
<br>This is interesting and relevant as far as it pertains to critical information infrastructure that the US considers to be part of the US Infrastructure. Whilst the models point to public private collaboration which makes sense because it is the private sector that controls much of the infrastructure anyway except in situations where if there were a State of Emergency and the rights to control/access infrastructure by the State and it has its challenges. Aside from the public private model there should be room for civil society in the equation as someone has to speak out and act as a watchdog in times when it is needed.<br>
<br>Kind Regards,<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div>P.O. Box 17862</div><div>Suva</div><div>Fiji</div><div><br></div><div>Twitter: @SalanietaT</div>
<div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div>
<div>Tel: <a href="tel:%2B679%203544828" value="+6793544828" target="_blank">+679 3544828</a></div><div>Fiji Cell: <a href="tel:%2B679%20998%202851" value="+6799982851" target="_blank">+679 998 2851</a></div><div><br></div>
<div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala</div><div>P.O. Box 17862</div><div>Suva</div><div>Fiji</div><div><br></div><div>Twitter: @SalanietaT</div><div>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro</div>
<div>Tel: +679 3544828</div><div>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851</div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><span style="line-height:16px"><br></span></font></div>