Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
It's a pattern with Obama that he wants to control as many things as he can.

bbbuut BUSH!

no seriously, that you can even write the above in a non-sarcastic manner after the last 8 years is hysterical

They're fucking presidents, of course they want to control as much as they can. But one did so without regard for what the constitution said he could legally control.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eskimospy

This has nothing to do with Bush, this has to do with you. I'm sure your brain is furiously working right now trying to figure out how to square these two positions. I have great faith in you though Spidey, you've shown an amazing ability for doublethink in the past, I'm sure you'll work this one out too.

Recording or monitoring calls leaving the US = fine.

Intervening or taking control of the operation of a private company = not fine.

So you are okay with the government violating people's rights in one respect, but not another. Gotcha.

It's not a violation if it's leaving the country. Everybody knows this and the courts agree.

-edit-
And on top of that it seems like you're saying this move is A-OK?

Really? So my wife doesn't have any right to privacy when she calls her family in Germany? I can agree on the needing a court order, but not on the it's ok to wiretap if the calls are outbound.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
It's a pattern with Obama that he wants to control as many things as he can.

bbbuut BUSH!

no seriously, that you can even write the above in a non-sarcastic manner after the last 8 years is hysterical

They're fucking presidents, of course they want to control as much as they can. But one did so without regard for what the constitution said he could legally control.

What's hysterical is that all the libs who cried crocodile tears over Bush's potential to abuse privacy are now compliant with Obama's actual attempts to do so. Obama is a maniac. I am sure libs will cheer Obama's attempts to eradicate Limbaugh since I know lib commitment to free speech is a one way street. However they will have their rights taken away as well.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
It's a pattern with Obama that he wants to control as many things as he can.

bbbuut BUSH!

no seriously, that you can even write the above in a non-sarcastic manner after the last 8 years is hysterical

They're fucking presidents, of course they want to control as much as they can. But one did so without regard for what the constitution said he could legally control.

What's hysterical is that all the libs who cried crocodile tears over Bush's potential to abuse privacy are now compliant with Obama's actual attempts to do so. Obama is a maniac.

um, is this hypothetical "national emergency" which would allow the govt to usurp critical systems to defend us your primary example of Obama's "actual attempts" to intrude into our privacy? Yes, he's clearly a madman.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
It's a pattern with Obama that he wants to control as many things as he can.

bbbuut BUSH!

no seriously, that you can even write the above in a non-sarcastic manner after the last 8 years is hysterical

They're fucking presidents, of course they want to control as much as they can. But one did so without regard for what the constitution said he could legally control.

What's hysterical is that all the libs who cried crocodile tears over Bush's potential to abuse privacy are now compliant with Obama's actual attempts to do so. Obama is a maniac.

um, is this hypothetical "national emergency" which would allow the govt to usurp critical systems to defend us your primary example of Obama's "actual attempts" to intrude into our privacy? Yes, he's clearly a madman.

To misquote Barney Frank..
Jonk, you're arguing with a dining room table, good luck..

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
It's a pattern with Obama that he wants to control as many things as he can.

bbbuut BUSH!

no seriously, that you can even write the above in a non-sarcastic manner after the last 8 years is hysterical

They're fucking presidents, of course they want to control as much as they can. But one did so without regard for what the constitution said he could legally control.

What's hysterical is that all the libs who cried crocodile tears over Bush's potential to abuse privacy are now compliant with Obama's actual attempts to do so. Obama is a maniac.

um, is this hypothetical "national emergency" which would allow the govt to usurp critical systems to defend us your primary example of Obama's "actual attempts" to intrude into our privacy? Yes, he's clearly a madman.

We just had a "snitch list" being run off White House site (they took it down in temporary shame). Obama stole wealth from private investors and gave it to his union cronies. Obama wants the gov to control a persons health records - and merge it with tax records. Obama threatened Chrysler creditor agencies with public whipping from White House press corps. Obama hijacked census and put it in the White House. Obama has done a lot to trample private rights in the last few months - and still turkeys make excuses for him whil crying about Bush. It's quite pathetic really.

 

[RoloMather]

Got to stop Skynet somehow.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html


Nice to see the notion of PRIVATE PROPERTY still applies in this country.

Sounds kinda chevezy to me.

 

[JS80]

I wonder what the Obama knobsuckers would be saying if Bush had tried this.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80
I wonder what the Obama knobsuckers would be saying if Bush had tried this.

Interesting. I don't think we have to wonder at all about what you would have said.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: RoloMather
Got to stop Skynet somehow.

Pretty much this.

If a huge DoS attack or something is initiated from private networks/computers within the States something has to be done before everything goes to sheet.

If some sicko worked hard enough at it they could map significant infrastructure and overload it. The ping is a powerful tool.

It's a fine line that has to be walked - I'd like to see any other ideas that folks might have to stop stoopid sheet like this..

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: RoloMather
Got to stop Skynet somehow.

Pretty much this.

If a huge DoS attack or something is initiated from private networks/computers within the States something has to be done before everything goes to sheet.

If some sicko worked hard enough at it they could map significant infrastructure and overload it. The ping is a powerful tool.

It's a fine line that has to be walked - I'd like to see any other ideas that folks might have to stop stoopid sheet like this..

Bullshit. I hate having to constantly explain how the internet works.

huge DDoS attacks have been launched from private networks before and really are the main source of them, you just cut them off at The Internet. There are already mitigation techniques readily available withing the private networks and their entrance to the public Internet. Any decent provider knows how to combat them, we came up with the mitigation techniques and features back in 2001.

I have more faith in ISPs than I do in the gubment. Like I said earlier, collaboration and cooperation are a lot better than control. You guys should be pissed about this measure as it puts gubment control on your precious intarweb.

The Internet is a self regulated entity with regards to security and administration. If gubment says we've got intel or an attack going on I'd do what they ask, as long as I agreed with it in terms of their approach.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: RoloMather
Got to stop Skynet somehow.

Pretty much this.

If a huge DoS attack or something is initiated from private networks/computers within the States something has to be done before everything goes to sheet.

If some sicko worked hard enough at it they could map significant infrastructure and overload it. The ping is a powerful tool.

It's a fine line that has to be walked - I'd like to see any other ideas that folks might have to stop stoopid sheet like this..

Bullshit. I hate having to constantly explain how the internet works.

huge DDoS attacks have been launched from private networks before and really are the main source of them, you just cut them off at The Internet. There are already mitigation techniques readily available withing the private networks and their entrance to the public Internet. Any decent provider knows how to combat them, we came up with the mitigation techniques and features back in 2001.

I have more faith in ISPs than I do in the gubment. Like I said earlier, collaboration and cooperation are a lot better than control. You guys should be pissed about this measure as it puts gubment control on your precious intarweb.

The Internet is a self regulated entity with regards to security and administration. If gubment says we've got intel or an attack going on I'd do what they ask, as long as I agreed with it in terms of their approach.

I, for one, feel really good that you are our first line of defense.

 

[vhx]

If they wanted to stop the internet they would have to pull the plug on all of the ISPs. Shutting down one ISP shouldn't really do anything other than slow or disconnect certain areas that may or may not be attacking. That by itself would unbelievably screw many businesses and consumers, imagine a national shutdown. How long is 'temporary'? As long as they deem fit? If an attack on these vital and key systems would cripple us, why the hell are they on the internet in the first place? Sounds like a clever ploy.
1) Put things that shouldn't be on the internet, on it.
2) Have someone attempt to hack said servers, multiple times.
3) Spread doom and gloom. (Next terrorist attack will be cybersecurity, as big as 9/11! /hears screams. NO, BIGGER THAN 9/11! /mass panic)
4) Gives your rights and internets, kthx.
5) Profit.

As with the bill being as vague as it is, it won't be long before we start seeing the abuse. I'm shocked it took them this long to go after the last bastion of national/global free speech, I suspect it won't be the last. However, I'm not the least bit surprised someone named Rockefeller was the one to draft this piece of toilet paper.

 

[Vic]

FEAR!! :Q

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
While your link is bad, I assume that the bill has to do with some sort of 'national emergency' or whatever. In that case, the government has had the authority to seize private property in an emergency for a long.... long time. I can understand being mad about it, but if you're somehow thinking that it's new with Obama you're sorely mistaken.

so, what you're saying is that Obama's no different than any other president. Hope and Change was a farce, yes?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Patranus

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html


Nice to see the notion of PRIVATE PROPERTY still applies in this country.

I can understand why. not sure if they are going about it right.


But the notion of PRIVATE PROPERTY went out years ago with the courts saying its ok to take private property and give it to private business if it increases the tax revenue of the state/county/city.


pretty much said we are just renting the property until a business wants it.

And if I recall correctly, we were all up in arms about that. So, why is it now okay?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BriGy86

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

In my opinion the Government should not be relying on outside organizations for anything.

Yes, because the Government is soooooooooo good at doing things on their own. How many examples do I need to show the falacy of my statement?