Cybersecurity Act of 2009 9(Introduced in Senate), Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002, Congress Passes Online Indecency Bill

[Metric Clay]

The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Resultshttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.773:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TONext Hit Forward New Bills SearchPrev Hit Back HomePageHit List Best Sections HelpContents Display--------------------------------------------------------------------------------GPO's PDF Display References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. Printer Friendly DisplayS.773Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------BeginningApril 1, 2009SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.Sec. 18. Cybersecurity responsibilities and authorities.Sec. 21. International norms and cybersecurity deterrence measures.SEC. 2. FINDINGS.SEC. 3. CYBERSECURITY ADVISORY PANEL.SEC. 4. REAL-TIME CYBERSECURITY DASHBOARD.SEC. 5. STATE AND REGIONAL CYBERSECURITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.SEC. 6. NIST STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLIANCE.SEC. 7. LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION OF CYBERSECURITY PROFESSIONALS.SEC. 8. REVIEW OF NTIA DOMAIN NAME CONTRACTS.SEC. 9. SECURE DOMAIN NAME ADDRESSING SYSTEM.SEC. 10. PROMOTING CYBERSECURITY AWARENESS.SEC. 11. FEDERAL CYBERSECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.SEC. 12. FEDERAL CYBER SCHOLARSHIP-FOR-SERVICE PROGRAM.SEC. 13. CYBERSECURITY COMPETITION AND CHALLENGE.SEC. 14. PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.SEC. 15. CYBERSECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT.SEC. 16. LEGAL FRAMEWORK REVIEW AND REPORT.SEC. 17. AUTHENTICATION AND CIVIL LIBERTIES REPORT.SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.SEC. 19. QUADRENNIAL CYBER REVIEW.SEC. 20. JOINT INTELLIGENCE THREAT ASSESSMENT.SEC. 21. INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND CYBERSECURITY DETERRANCE MEASURES.SEC. 22. FEDERAL SECURE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ACQUISITIONS BOARD.SEC. 23. DEFINITIONS.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TONext Hit Forward New Bills SearchPrev Hit Back HomePageHit List Best Sections HelpContents Display--------------------------------------------------------------------------------THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | USA.govComputer Crime andIntellectual Property Section (CCIPS) Email this Document!Provisions of Section 225 (“The Cyber Security Enhancement Act”)of theHomeland Security Act of 2002, H.R. 5710That Amend Title 18 of the United States CodeSEC. 225. CYBER SECURITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2002.(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘Cyber Security Enhancement Act of 2002’’.(b) AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO CERTAIN COMPUTER CRIMES.—(1) DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.—Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend its guidelines and its policy statements applicable to persons convicted of an offense under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code.(2) REQUIREMENTS.—In carrying out this subsection, the Sentencing Commission shall— (A) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses described in paragraph (1), the growing incidence of such offenses, and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent such offenses;(B) consider the following factors and the extent to which the guidelines may or may not account for them—(i) the potential and actual loss resulting from the offense;(ii) the level of sophistication and planning involved in the offense;(iii) whether the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial benefit;(iv) whether the defendant acted with malicious intent to cause harm in committing the offense;(v) the extent to which the offense violated the privacy rights of individuals harmed;(vi) whether the offense involved a computer used by the government in furtherance of national defense, national security, or the administration of justice;(vii) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of significantlyinterfering with or disrupting a critical infrastructure; and(viii) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect of creating a threat to public health or safety, or injury to any person;(C) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives and with other sentencing guidelines;(D) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally applicable sentencing ranges;(E) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing guidelines; and(F) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.(c) STUDY AND REPORT ON COMPUTER CRIMES.— Not later than May 1, 2003, the United States Sentencing Commission shall submit a brief report to Congress that explains any actions taken by the Sentencing Commission in response to this section and includes any recommendations the Commission may have regarding statutory penalties for offenses under section 1030 of title 18, United States Code.(d) EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE EXCEPTION.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end;(B) in paragraph (6)(A), by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end;(C) by striking paragraph (6)(C); and(D) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency.’’.(2) REPORTING OF DISCLOSURES.—A government entity that receives a disclosure under section 2702(b) of title 18, United States Code, shall file, not later than 90 days after such disclosure, a report to the Attorney General stating the paragraph of that section under which the disclosure was made, the date of the disclosure, the entity to which the disclosure was made, the number of customers or subscribers to whom the information disclosed pertained, and the number of communications, if any, that were disclosed. The Attorney General shall publish all such reports into a single report to be submitted to Congress 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.(e) GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION.—Section 2520(d)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘or 2511(2)(i)’’ after ‘‘2511(3)’’.(f) INTERNET ADVERTISING OF ILLEGAL DEVICES.— Section 2512(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—(1) by inserting ‘‘or disseminates by electronic means’’ after ‘‘or other publication’’; and(2) by inserting ‘‘knowing the content of the advertisement and’’ before ‘‘knowing or having reason to know’’.(g) STRENGTHENING PENALTIES.—Section 1030(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (3);(2) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘except as provided in paragraph (5),’’ before ‘‘a fine under this title’’;(3) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and(4) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(5)(A) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection(a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; and‘‘(B) if the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A)(i), a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.’’.(h) PROVIDER ASSISTANCE.—(1) SECTION 2703.—Section 2703(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, statutory authorization’’ after ‘‘subpoena’’.(2) SECTION 2511.—Section 2511(2)(a)(ii) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, statutory authorization,’’ after ‘‘court order’’ the last place it appears.(i) EMERGENCIES.—Section 3125(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end;(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon; and(3) by adding at the end the following:‘‘(C) an immediate threat to a national security interest; or‘‘(D) an ongoing attack on a protected computer (as defined in section 1030) that constitutes a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment greater than one year;’’.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------More information on: Federal Statutes Related to Computer IntrusionsGo to . . . CCIPS Home Page || Justice Department Home Page--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Updated page May22, 2003usdoj-crm/mis/krr--------------------------------------------------------------------------------| home | who we are | our mission | secure area | training | volunteer | contact | links| 911 report |CLEO LinksLaw Enforcement LinksUnited States Legal LinksCanadian LinksAustralian LinksUnited Kingdom LinksCyber Criminals most Wantedhttp://www.cyberlawenforcement.org/links.htmlCheck out our sister site!wiredpatrol.org© CyberLawEnforcement.org--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Law Enforcement SitesNational Criminal Justice Reference ServiceFederal Law Enforcement Training CenterUnited States Department of JusticeAgency Search EngineDepartments in the USArkansas State PoliceFlorida Department of Law EnforcementBack to TopBack to Main PageUnited States Legal LinksDarby and Darby LawFindLaw.comAmerican Law Sources On-lineBack to TopBack to Main PageCanadian LinksACJ NetThe Criminal Code Of CanadaBack to TopBack to Main PageAustralian LinksThe Police Law BulletinCommonwealth Director of Public ProsecutionsBack to TopBack to Main PageUnited Kingdom LinksPolice LawHome Office LegislationBack to TopBack to Main Page-----------------------------------------------------------------------------_____ _____ _______/ ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __| | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_| | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/| |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_\_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 5----------------------------------------------------------------------------A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online----------------------------------------------------------------------------CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 5 February 1, 1996CONTENTS: (1) Congress Passes Online Indecency Bill, Clinton Expected to Sign,CDT Plans Court Challenge(2) Subscription Information(3) About CDT, contacting ushttp://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_2.5.htmlThis document may be redistributed freely provided it remains in its entirety** Excerpts may be re-posted by permission ([e-mail]) **-----------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Congress Passes Online Indecency Bill, Clinton Expected to Sign,CDT Plans Court ChallengeBy overwhelming margins in both the House and Senate, Congress today (2/1) approvedlegislation to dramatically restrict the First Amendment rights of Internet users.With this act of Congress, the very same materials which are legally available todayin book stores and libraries would be illegal if posted on World Wide Web sites orusenet newsgroups. If signed by President Clinton as expected, this bill will transformthe Internet overnight from the freest communications medium to the most heavilyregulated medium in the United States.CDT believes this legislation is unconstitutional. We are committed to challengingit in the courts at the earliest possible opportunity.Despite the sustained effort over the past 12 months by Senators Leahy (D-VT),Feingold (D-WI), and Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA), Rick White (R-WA), and RonWyden (D-OR) to defeat the bill, the House passed the measure on a vote of 414 - 16,while the Senate concurred a few hours later on a vote of 91 - 5. Ironically, thevote comes exactly one year to the day that Senator Exon (D-NE) originally introducedthe proposal (2/1/95).CONGRESS MAKES CRIMINALS OF MOST INTERNET USERSThe Communications Decency Act, enacted as part of a massive telecommunicationsreform legislation, will impose $250,000 fines and prison terms for anyone whoposts "indecent" material, including the "7 dirty words", the text of classicworks of fiction such as The Catcher In The Rye or Ulysses, artwork containingimages of nudes, or rap lyrics, in a public forum.CDT strongly opposes this legislation. We believe the bill threatens the veryexistence of the Internet as a means for free expression, education, and politicaldiscourse. The bill is an unwarranted, unconstitutional intrusion by the Federalgovernment into the private lives of all Americans.Although the free speech rights of Internet users and the free flow of informationonline received a major setback today, the battle is far from over. President Clintonis expected to sign the legislation in the coming days. Several civil liberties andpublic interest advocacy groups, including CDT, People for the American Way, EFF, andthe ACLU are already preparing to challenge these new restrictions in court. Otheraffected entities, including commercial content providers, Internet Service Providers,and the commercial online services industries, are also expected to mount courtchallenges to this legislation. CDT is confident that the courts will find theCommunications Decency Act unconstitutional and reject it outright.INTERNET COMMUNITY ACTIVISM MADE A CRITICAL DIFFERENCEAlthough the CDA passed by Congress today represents a significant threat to theviability of the Internet and the free speech rights of individual users, theefforts of the Internet.community to mobilize against the bill kept it from beinga lot worse.The Christian Coalition, with the support of House Judiciary Committee ChairmanHenry Hyde (R-IL), fought hard to hold online service providers criminally liablefor materials generated by their subscribers. Fortunately, these efforts were notsuccessful. Holding providers liable would have forced them to pre-screen allmaterial on their networks, or, worse yet, shut down entire parts of their servicesfor fear of massive fines and prison sentences. The Christian Coalition was alsounsuccessful in their efforts to remove provisions encouraging the development anddeployment of parental control applications.Due to the efforts of the 115,000 Internet users who signed the petition againstthe CDA, the more than 20,000 users who in one day flooded Congress with phonecalls, faxes, and email messages, and those who throughout 1995 regularly calledtheir Congresspeople to express concerns about the various proposals, the Internetcommunity showed itself to be a true political force with real influence over thelegislative process. Although we did not accomplish all of our most importantobjectives, we have become a powerful force. This is not the last time Congresswill consider issues vital to the interests of Internet users across the UnitedStates. We must never loose sight of the fact that, despite the apparent defeattoday, there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done.SEVERAL KEY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOUGHT FOR THE RIGHTS OF INTERNET USERSAlthough a majority of Congress today demonstrated a complete lack of understandingof the Internet and the implications of the Communications Decency Act, severalmembers deserve credit for standing up for freedom of speech and the free flow ofinformation online.During the course of the debate over the last year on the CDA, Senators PatrickLeahy (D-VT) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), along with Representatives Chris Cox (R-CA),Rick White (R-WA), Michael Oxley (R-OH), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Ed Markey (D-MA),showed courage and conviction by working to support enlightened alternatives togovernment content restrictions. These members have shown themselves to be friendsof the Internet, and we look forward to working with them on other issues which lieahead.ANALYSIS OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT PASSED TODAYThe legislation approved today was not changed from a previous version releasedDecember 21, 1995 (See CDT Policy Post No. 33). Briefly, the proposal containsseveral troubling elements. Among other things, the bill:* Relies on the vague and blatantly unconstitutional "indecency"standard (Sec 502 (a) - (c))* Prohibits sending "indecent" material directly to a minor or makingindecent material available for display in a manner available to aminor (including World Wide Web pages, ftp sites, or usenetnewsgroups) (Sec 502 (d)).* No longer contains the provision of the Cox/Wyden/White billprohibiting the FCC from imposing content or other regulations on theInternet or other interactive media.* Would allow states to impose additional restrictions on non-commercialactivities such as free-nets, BBS's, and non-profit content providers(Sec 502 (h)).* Creates a new crime for the solicitation of minors using a computer,the US mail, or any other means of interstate or foreign commerce (Sec508).The full text of the bill, along with other relevant background information(including final vote tallies when available) can be found at CDT's InternetCensorship Issues Web Page (http://www.cdt.org/cda.html).As CDT prepares to fight this issue in court, we will continue to update you onour progress as information becomes available.For More Information Contact:Jerry Berman, Executive DirectorDaniel Weitzner, Deputy Director+1.202.637.9800-----------------------------------------------------------------------(3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATIONBe sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civilliberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Postnews distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of theCenter For Democracy and Technology, are received by more than 9,000 Internetusers, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leadingsource for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting theInternet and other interactive communications media.To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail [e-mail] a subject:subscribe policy-postsIf you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to theabove address with a subject of:unsubscribe policy-posts-----------------------------------------------------------------------(3) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING USThe Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interestorganization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to developand advocate public policies that advance democratic values andconstitutional civil liberties in new computer and communicationstechnologies.Contacting us:General information: [e-mail] Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology1001 G Street NW * Suite 500 East * Washington, DC 20001(v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968-----------------------------------------------------------------------End Policy Post 2.5 2/1/96-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Return to the Net-Censorship Issues PageReturn to the CDT Home Page