Rockefeller attaches cybersecurity bill to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2014

Call your senator and tell them to vote ‘no’ on the cyber-security amendment attached to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Bill. You can copy and paste the information below into your senator’s emails!  They must know that we are aware of what they are up to, and that we will expose them! Senator main number is 202 224 3121 and their email can be found here:

Jay Rockefeller (D WVA) has attached a cyber-security amendment (attached below) to the NDAA 2014 bill in Congress to mandate that precautions be taken to protect America’s cyber infrastructure and private entities. Those of us who represent private entities, will soon find our free access to the internet eliminated. The fact that this internet control bill is attached to the NDAA is no accident because this means that anyone who they deem as a dissident for posting anti-government rhetoric on the internet can be snatched off the street and held indefinitely, without due process, for their “terrorist” views. There is a second and equally disturbing development in that the government has declared that the people of this country do not have the right to challenge the government on its unconstitutional actions. This is a position which fully exposes the fact that America is no longer a democratic republic, but rather a dictatorship which serves the elite. At issue is the ACLU’s right to sue the National Security Association (NSA) for the unconstitutional  and unwarranted intrusions into the private lives of all Americans by spying on their communications and their web-surfing habits. This position, taken by the government, validates that we have no rights and are living under a dictatorship. BILLS-113s1353is

Rockefeller attaches cybersecurity bill to NDAA 2014

Rockefeller’s proposal, S.1353, was unanimously approved by the Commerce Committee in July but has stayed relatively dormant ever since. On Thursday he submitted that bill as an amendment to be considered as part of an annual Pentagon spending plan that could fast track his attempts to land his proposal on President Barack Obama’s desk after attempts in Congress to adopt cybersecurity legislation have largely proven to be futile.


In a statement made by Rockefeller that circulated earlier this week, the 75-year-old senator suggested that the time is now upon Congress to finally enact a bill that would mandate precautions be taken to protect America’s cyber infrastructure, and the private entities attached to it amid on going reports of high-powered attacks aimed at the likes of government computers and the networks of critical services.

“The Commerce Committee took action months ago and unanimously passed this bipartisan bill that will improve the nation’s cybersecurity. But it’s been sitting on the sidelines for too long and there’s too much at stake to not look for every opportunity to pass it in the Senate,” Rockefeller said in a statement first published on Wednesday by John Eggerton at Multichannel News. “So I’m introducing that legislation as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill and imploring my colleagues to join me in supporting this effort.”

According to Rockefeller, his bill “creates an environment that will cultivate the public-private partnerships essential to strengthening our nation’s cybersecurity.” When it was first introduced in the Senate earlier this year, the Commerce Committee said passage of the bill would “Formalize cybersecurity as one of [National Institute of Standards and Technology]’s priority areas of focus” and “create a NIST-facilitated, industry-driven process for developing a set of voluntary cybersecurity standards for critical infrastructure.” At the time it received endorsements from the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Motorola Solutions, the Electric and Nuclear Power Coalition, IBM and the US Chamber of Congress.

I’ve always thought this was a great way to emphasize the critical need for a public-private approach when it comes to solving our most pressing cybersecurity issues,” Rockefeller said then.


Since Congress will need to approve a version of the NDAA in order to authorize the Pentagon’s funding for the next fiscal year, the addition of Rockefeller’s bill as an amendment ensures that it will at least be considered by his colleagues for passage in the coming weeks, setting the stage for lawmakers to finally let a cybersecurity bill of this capacity become codified.

In 2012, attempts in Congress to pass the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, ultimately failed due largely in part to a major public campaign that condemned the would-be law due to allegations that it would erode privacy on the web by encouraging the growth of a public-private partnership between internet companies and the federal government.

Proponents of CISPA, including then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, said at the time that America was at a “pre-9/11 moment” and warned that a “Cyber-Pearl Harbor that would cause physical destruction and the loss of life” could soon occur on American soil if the country’s critical infrastructure and top-tier businesses weren’t obligated to come together and share information about potential hacks waged at US networks.

The architects of CISPA have since reintroduced their bill, and Pres. Obama signed an executive order in February that mandated administration officials to come up with standards to reduce cybersecurity risks and encourage companies to adopt the new framework.

“We know hackers steal people’s identities and infiltrate private e-mail,”Obama said after signing the order in February.“We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets. Now our enemies are also seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, and our air traffic control systems.”





Considering that Rockefeller is the same politician who once claimed the internet should not have existed at all, and we should be kept to using papers and pens, one must take a hard look at this action and question what kind of Trojan Horse is built into this cyber-security amendment. Watch the video, captured from C-SPAN, of Jay Rockefeller saying that the internet should have never existed, here.



On December 31, 2011, while on vacation in Hawaii, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law which in addition to allocating $662 Billion to the Pentagon also contains a measure which allows for U.S. Citizens to be taken into custody, held indefinitely, without any due process, in addition to not ever have been charged with a crime. Not only can any citizen deemed a threat to “national security interests of the United States,” be held forever without evidence or trial, but it will be the U.S. military in charge of arresting those citizens. Click on the following link to get more information on the NDAA:

  • Where

    It would help a lot if you would point to the offending sections of the bill.

    • admin

      Wow. You didn’t read anything written nor are you aware of what your government is attempting to do behind your back. I usually don’t have time to reply to comments, but I’m begging you to read and watch everything I put on that article which will link you to what you need to know. We need ALL Americans on board. Thank you.

      • Drama is contagious

        Why don’t you just answer his question once. Then it will be posted and everyone can read it . You wouldn’t have to answer anymore than one time. If you are so concerned about this, you would think you could take the time from your busy schedule to help others see the tyranny you clearly see. Since you clearly know exactly where it is , please show the rest of us sheep the light.

        • Objectivity is key.

          I read the bill, although just about any piece of legislation can be interpreted to suit ones own interests, I did not see anything in there that would have any direct impact on an individual. In fact under section 3 it specifically states that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer any regulatory authority on any Federal, State, tribal, or local department or agency.”. It appears to be more of a cooperative effort between private corporation and government to increase malicious intent on the internet. Really the only part I read that couldbe an issue is where it lays the groundwork that the Director can implement new programs for cybersecurity later on at his/her own discretion, but nothing states any monitoring outright of individuals, or at least there is nothing that would give authority on top of what they already have.

          • Objectivity is key.

            Increase security against malicious intent*
            my head got ahead of my typing

    • John

      I’m with you where, I read it and can not find this wording. Admin, please point it out for me.

    • Mongoose

      Alphabet — is that you?

  • Carl Collicott

    In order to ascertain the limits of any given “Act” of Congress, whether its legislation for the several states of the union, or for international agreements. Suffice it to sat Congress stopped legislating for the states about 100 years ago, a simply solution, is to enact “laws” according to foreign agreements, and then try to enforce the “laws” on the American citizen. Listed on the International labor Organization/ International Maritime Labor, website (below), is a host of “Acts” of Congress that have no application to the several states. Included in the list is the Homeland Security Act, the Patriot Act, the Public health Service Act, the later amended by the ACA. And of course the National Defense Authorization Act. Consistent with the nature of the NDAA, the definition of a “United states citizen”, is a “Shipping Corporation, Title 46 U.S.C., section 802.

    Homeland Security Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-296).

    *Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act, 2001 (107-569).

    Public Health Service Act (42 USC, Chapter 6A). amended by section 1001 of public Law 111-148 ACA, OBAMAMCARE.

    2003-11-24 USA-2003-L-67183
    United States
    General provisions
    National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136).
    Congressional and Administrative News, 2004-02, No. 12, pp. 1392-1826

    Comprehensive legislation authorising appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defence. Provides for military contstruction, defence activities of the Department of Energy, and personnel strength for the Armed Forces. Also regulates military personnel policy, compensation and other benefits of military personnel, and health care of military personnel.

    The PTA (below) lists the mandatory regulation as Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations section 296

    Public Laws—Continued
    108–136 …………………………………..46 Part 296

    46 CFR 296.1 – PURPOSE.
    • CFR
    • Updates
    • Authorities (U.S. Code)
    prev | next
    § 296.1
    This part prescribes regulations implementing the provisions of Subtitle C, Maritime Security Fleet Program, Title XXXV of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the Maritime Security Act of 2003 (MSA 2003), governing Maritime Security Program (MSP) payments for vessels operating in the foreign trade or mixed foreign and domestic commerce of the United States allowed under a registry endorsement issued under 46 U.S.C. 12105. The MSA 2003 provides for joint responsibility between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) for administering the law. These regulations provide the framework for the coordination between DOD and DOT in implementing the MSA 2003. Implementation of the MSA 2003 has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Maritime Administrator, U.S. Maritime Administration and by the Secretary of Defense to the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, respectively.

    46 CFR 296.2 – DEFINITIONS.
    • CFR
    • Updates
    • Authorities (U.S. Code)
    prev | next
    § 296.2

    Act means the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ).

    Section 2 Citizen means a United States citizen within the meaning of section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916, 46 U.S.C. 802, without regard to any statute that “deems” a vessel to be owned and operated by a Section 2 Citizen.

    46 U.S.C.—Continued
    802—803………………………………….46 Part 355
    • CFR
    • Updates
    • Authorities (U.S. Code)
    prev | next
    § 355.2
    Requirements regarding evidence of U.S. citizenship; affidavit guide.
    (a) In order to establish that a corporation is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of section 2, Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, the form of affidavit to be used as a guide is hereby prescribed for execution in behalf of the primary corporation and filing with an application or, if required, subsequent filing within 30 days after the annual meeting of the stockholders (if the primary corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary and contrary to the bylaw provision does not hold the annual meeting of stockholders, the subsequent filing should be annually and related to the date of the original filing) as evidence of the continuing U.S. citizenship of a “person” as defined in section 1, Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, which shall read as follows

    Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

    46 App.:802(a) (words before 3d comma and after 11th comma).
    Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 451
    Title The system of liability of articles III and IV of the Hague (Visby) Rules

    The Shipping Act, 1916, referred to in text, is act Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 451, 39 Stat. 728, as
    amended, which is classified generally to chapter 23 (§ 801 et seq.) of this Appendix.
    For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 842 of this Appendix
    and Tables.

    Title The system of liability of articles III and IV of the Hague (Visby) Rules

  • disasterjunkie

    Revolution is coming!

    we number in the millions .. stop that.

  • John

    Trust me, I am fully aware of the threats to my liberties in this administration. I do need help on this one though, I have read the entire bill. Please can you show me where it states that it gives the government the right to en-prison me for anti government postings.

  • Nick

    Carl Collicot, thank you for posting that. I now know why Obama would even sign the NDAA, and why Fox and misguided hippie sites which I normally respect would pounce on it without reading it.

    • Carl Collicott

      You’re welcome , they have the nerve to call this crap “Public laws”

  • Crystal

    After the my past 6 months of hell, I think any office of the Government nor any private citizen should be allowed to break my constitutional right of privacy! I live in America where I am suppose to have my personal freedom! If we don’t stand up as A Free Nation soon we will be walking Robots. And NO the President of US does not have a right to my privacy , nor do I have a right to his!

  • Crystal

    Not be allowed!

  • tinman

    There is only one reason a shit with the name ‘rockefeller’ would want anything to do with the internet…control.
    Fuck that douche bag!!!