Talk:Cyber-security regulation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kpalaha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mwashington2020. Peer reviewers: Tkmu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LakshmiMod. Peer reviewers: Schmids.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

New page editor
Hello! I just wanted to introduce myself as the editor for the European Union Section. I have read and understood both summaries and direct legislation in order to better understand Cyber Security Regulations in the EU. In addition, I tried to consider the impacts of Brexit on regulations. Please let me know if you would like to see further information or if you have any commentsLakshmiMod (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Lakshmi Modugu

Add current context?
99.181.134.146 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rise Is Seen in Cyberattacks Targeting U.S. Infrastructure July 26, 2012

Recent proposed regulation
The Proposed regulation section in this article doesn't include details of the recently proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2012 and I believe discussion of this bill may provide useful background for other regulation in future. I've written a paragraph outlining the focus of the bill, results of the Senate vote and both the reactions in favor and in opposition to its content. I've mentioned my employer, The Heritage Foundation, and included a source written by a colleague so I would appreciate if other editors could read it and make sure that it sounds neutral.


 * In July 2012, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins. The bill would have required creating voluntary "best practice standards" for protection of key infrastructure from cyber attacks, which businesses would be encouraged to adopt through incentives such as liability protection. The bill was put to a vote in the Senate but failed to pass. The bill had support from officials in the military and national security including John O. Brennan, the chief counterterrorism adviser to the White House. According to The Washington Post, experts said that the failure to pass the act may leave the United States "vulnerable to widespread hacking or a serious cyberattack." The act was opposed by Republican senators including John McCain who was concerned that the act would introduce regulations that would not be effective and could be a "burden" for businesses. Other critics of the bill include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cybersecurity expert Jody Westby and The Heritage Foundation, both of whom argued that although the government does need to act on cybersecurity, the 2012 bill was flawed in its approach and represented "too intrusive a federal role".

It would be great to get someone's input here to review this and add it to the article if it looks ok. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks reasonable. additional sources might be cited such as this CNN story, this computerworld story, and this mashable story which also mentions the EFF's opposition. this TPM story also mentions the opposition by a coalition concerned about privicy issues, and how changes in the draft bill got some but not all of them to support it. Perhaps this eweek story which mentions possible presidential response should be cited. this AP-derived story has simialr content. The article should reflect the more complex reality that this was not a pure party-line vote. this editorial makes a similar point.
 * All that siad, i'd liek to get the reference format situation cleanned up first. DES (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi DES, thanks for looking at this for me. I've added in the information and sources you provided and after some trial and error, I think I've got the references like those currently used in the article. Please see the new version of the draft below. The one change I haven't added into my draft is the potential response from the White House. I'd considered including a line about the President's response in the original draft but it seemed largely like speculation from the media and I was wary that might not be considered encyclopedic. If you think it should be mentioned perhaps something like the following would work at the end of the paragraph:


 * Following the Act's failure in the Senate, media reports stated that the President might decide to issue an executive order to mandate parts of the bill.


 * 1) (August 9, 2012) "Obama might act on cyber security." TH Online.com. Associated Press. Accessed August 9, 2012.
 * 2) Brian Prince (August 7, 2012)  "President Weighs Options After Cyber-Security Bill Fails in Senate: Report." eWeek.com. Accessed August 29, 2012.


 * Here's the updated draft material:

In July 2012, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins. The bill would have required creating voluntary "best practice standards" for protection of key infrastructure from cyber attacks, which businesses would be encouraged to adopt through incentives such as liability protection. The bill was put to a vote in the Senate but failed to pass. President Obama had voiced his support for the Act in a Wall Street Journal op-ed and it also received support from officials in the military and national security including John O. Brennan, the chief counterterrorism adviser to the White House. According to The Washington Post, experts said that the failure to pass the act may leave the United States "vulnerable to widespread hacking or a serious cyberattack." The act was opposed by Republican senators including John McCain who was concerned that the act would introduce regulations that would not be effective and could be a "burden" for businesses. After the senate vote, Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison stated that the opposition to the bill was not a partisan issue, but rather that the Act did not take the right approach to cybersecurity.The senate vote was not strictly along partisan lines, six Democrats voted against the Act, while five Republicans voted in favor. Critics of the bill included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, cybersecurity expert Jody Westby and The Heritage Foundation, both of whom argued that although the government does need to act on cybersecurity, the 2012 bill was flawed in its approach and represented "too intrusive a federal role".


 * 1) Jennifer Rizzo. (August 2, 2012) "Cybersecurity bill fails in Senate." Accessed August 29, 2012.
 * 2) Paul Rosenzweig. (July 23, 2012) "Cybersecurity Act of 2012: Revised Cyber Bill Still Has Problems." The Heritage Foundation. Accessed August 20, 2012.
 * 3) Ed O’Keefe & Ellen Nakashima. (August 2, 2012 ) "Cybersecurity bill fails in Senate." The Washington Post. Accessed August 20, 2012.
 * 4) Alex Fitzpatrick. (July 20, 2012) "Obama Gives Thumbs-Up to New Cybersecurity Bill."  Mashable. Accessed August 29, 2012.
 * 5) Brendan Sasso. (August 4, 2012) "After defeat of Senate cybersecurity bill, Obama weighs executive-order option". The Hill. Accessed August 20, 2012.
 * 6) Jaikumar Vijayan. (August 16, 2012) "No partisan fight over cybersecurity bill, GOP senator says". Computerworld. Accessed August 29, 2012.
 * 7) Carl Franzen. (August 2, 2012)  "As Cybersecurity Bill Fails In Senate, Privacy Advocates Rejoice". TPM. August 29, 2012.
 * 8) Alex Fitzpatrick. (August 2, 2012) "". Mashable. Accessed August 29, 2012.
 * 9) Jody Westby (August 13, 2012) "Congress Needs to Go Back To School on Cyber Legislation". Forbes. Accessed August 20, 2012.


 * If this updated version looks ok to you, do you think you could add it into the article? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Since DES said the draft was reasonable, I've followed all his recommendations and there haven't been any other replies here, I've boldly added the draft material into the article. Thurmant (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference format
Most of the citations in this articel use the ref and note templates. Some use the tag. The proposed addition, above, uses the ref tag. Either method is acceptable, but one method should be chosen. (note that many of the benefits of the note/ref template system can be obtained via List-defined references which i happen to like. but whichever method is chose, let the article stick to one method, please. DES (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: the citations in this article mis-use the ref and note templates. The template documentation states:
 * This method remains operational for backwards compatibility reasons only, so that old articles which used this method didn't break down. This relatively new article, which was created in 2005, runs counter to the Manual of Style (see WP:CITE), and makes the information less accessible to the reader. Not one of the references makes use of the label variable, so we get an article with 47 footnotes pointing to 21 references and no way to visually relate the two.  What happens when the article gets printed?  You wind up with a useless article.   Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 14:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This method remains operational for backwards compatibility reasons only, so that old articles which used this method didn't break down. This relatively new article, which was created in 2005, runs counter to the Manual of Style (see WP:CITE), and makes the information less accessible to the reader. Not one of the references makes use of the label variable, so we get an article with 47 footnotes pointing to 21 references and no way to visually relate the two.  What happens when the article gets printed?  You wind up with a useless article.   Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 14:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is the right venue for this, but I added a bit to the page and utilized the tag tag system to cite my sources. Now it appears to have doubled up the references section - I'm not sure how to correct it.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated - my goal was to add content, not discredit the page.  eLStrike 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elstrike (talk • contribs)

Blacklisted Links Found on Cyber-security regulation
Cyberbot II has detected links on Cyber-security regulation which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://perry4law.org/clic/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=457
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=453
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=568
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cyberlawsinindia/?p=98
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=1095
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=1068
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=1017
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=544
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Cyber-security regulation
Cyberbot II has detected links on Cyber-security regulation which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=1017
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=1068
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=1095
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=453
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=457
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=544
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cecsrdi/?p=568
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/clic/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://perry4law.org/cyberlawsinindia/?p=98
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner:Online 00:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyber-security regulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613183200/http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htm to http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
Major portions of this article appear to be direct copies of the book Cyberwarfare Sourcebook by A. Kiyuna and L. Conyers (ISBN 9781329063945). Nietvoordekat (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

IT
What are the legal requirements for cyber security 102.69.163.144 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)