(I think I got "educational programs", which IIRC was from Rockefeller's draft bill, confused with "outside consultation" from this order.)
I did a clause-by-clause comparison (you're welcome! all part of the service I provide) and while there are minor deltas (like which sentence of a clause the Attorney General appears in, or whether deadlines are 90 days or 120 days) it's the same thing:
* Coordinate better in managing FedGov systems
* Figure out a way to relay threat info from FedGov to private sector
* Inventory the US for computer systems that if disabled could kill people
* Reach out to owners of those systems to help them not be owned up over old dialup modems everyone forgot about
The old joke is it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. The government keeps demonstrating it's really out to get us, or specifically it wants vast new powers over every remaining corner of freedom, including the Internet.
(That goes for me too, of course. Totally possible I'm wrong.)
Since the last decade our civil liberties have only been eroding -- that is the trend, not the opposite of that or something. So a good amount of leeriness is probably healthy and very well warranted. It's great that you're reading the executive orders and getting down to things, but please don't go off on those who by default take the position of skepticism. There's a reason they are that way, and that reason is a pretty good one.
I have no actual "authority" on HN.
*) And I tend to agree with you. The history of the U.S. has been a waxing and waning of civil liberties, and I think we're in a waning point right now. That said, the long term trend has been towards more liberty.
Afaik only some leaked drafts have been circulating around and speculations have been going wild. After the PIPA/SOPA backslash are you honestly expecting "good intentions" when the a president is trying to get a very similar subject "solved" by circumventing public discourse?
Even if the executive order had been a recapitulation of CISPA, CISPA has nothing at all to do with PIPA and SOPA.
But it most probably isn't a recapitulation of CISPA; it is simply a series of directives on how the federal government should secure their own networks.
Executive orders are a clear signal, that a President is unable to get a majority of delegates behind a specific agenda point. We have seen over and over again that under the cover of good intentions bad things are sneaked upon the public - and presidential orders are the ideal tool to accomplish this.
I can completely understand that he is trying to circumvent the House on partisan issues (e.g. welfare, health care, etc) and avoiding compromises on his key agenda points.
But if he is unable to create consent on a deeply hawk'ish issue such as defense, then there is something seriously wrong - either with the president or with the proposal. Considering that there he is still part of an active political process - even across party lines (e.g. fiscal cliff) - the problem is not with the president - but apparently with the proposal.
Not saying that Hagel is such an outliner, but it is easy to nominate a fringe candidate of the other party and then pointing fingers when his own party does not support his views. Of cause something as sneaky as that would be unimaginable in real-world politics, and I am probably just watching too much House of Cards.
"IN GENERAL.βThe Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."
In case it's vague which direction the sharing is allowed (it's both):
"[Private sector may] share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government."
Sharing is secret:
"shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code"
No recourse for sharing:
"No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self- protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith"
Also, quotes by everyone opposed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_...
Edit: to reply to your next comment, you frame this as centered on "attacks" but it's more generally characterized as "threats" and also includes any intellectual property theft (which broadens this by several orders of magnitude). And it also includes efforts to degrade a network. Pretty sure my cell phone provider thinks I've made efforts to degrade their network and steal IP since Android was released.
You think private companies should be enjoined from sharing attack information with the government?
You thought maybe attack information for ongoing investigations should be shared with the public?
Exactly what was it that you thought was happening when banks called in the FBI after compromises?
I read the article that Berners-Lee's quote appears on and I stand by my previous statement. I think it is reasonable to ask whether he read the bill, or whether he got it summarized for him by EFF. I do not think EFF was intellectually honest about CISPA. That's a problem, because EFF opposition to a bill is a quick way to generate opposing quotes from a laundry list of Internet luminaries.
Believe it or not, I am probably just as opposed to Internet power grabs by the government as you are. I just I think I'm required to read and think carefully about measures before I stridently condemn them; I did that here and came to different conclusions than you did.
There was a cybersecurity order on the table last year (it wasn't enacted). HN got up in arms about it. Some of us read it. Guess what? It concerned itself almost entirely with the operational security of the federal government itself (which operates the world's largest IT departments). The places where it stepped past instructing DOE how to secure their networks were to create educational programs to get more people doing information security. It contained no provisions at all that would have given the government access to private entities networks.
I haven't read this executive order, but if I was going to place a bet about it, it would be that everyone hyperventilating about "king complexes" on HN is being played.