Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Discussion in 'Politics' started by faceking, Aug 28, 2009.

  1. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,445
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
  2. mynameisnobody

    mynameisnobody New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT, USA
    In what sense? I don't recall the slightest hint of moves in such a direction during the Bush admin.
     
  3. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    It's as if Glenn Beck all of a sudden knew how to shoot sperm on a mirror and became a regular poster on LPSG...
     
  4. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,445
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    via control of communication channels, and oversight of what should be free reign amongst citizens. course, they can wiretap my calls, bank accounts, etc... not doing nothin' wrong.

    i think it's great that someone/somewhere can shut down the internet if/when needed... but being a bit of a UUNET expert... not sure how they can ACTUALLY achieve it... it's more an "authoritative statement" vs an achievable actuality.

    if one really wanted to... perhaps you could utilize Satellite via Hughes.net or a WildBlue or Russian/French provider, and hub out...

    then again, there's always HAM Radio...

    /QSL KBOX-1602.
     
  5. B_Hung Jon

    B_Hung Jon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    5,008
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California


    I'm all for this. I just hope Obama curtails the right-wing "news" machine, including Faux, Limbaugh and Savage. I'm all for censorship if it involves conservative TV/radio & the internet.:smile:
     
  6. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,505
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    722
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    Who's Bill? (sorry) :p
     
  7. mynameisnobody

    mynameisnobody New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT, USA
    You're still being cryptic. How are these general statements even slightly characteristic of the Bush regime?
     
  8. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    538
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    "When Rockefeller (D-W.Virginia), the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said."

    hmmm... can't help wondering if the OP read the complete article, or just left out a few bits of vital info to make another dig at Obama.

    The bill is a draft being written in the Senate, not the White House, and is co-sponsered by a Republican.
     
  9. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    "I'm all for this. I just hope Obama curtails the right-wing "news" machine, including Faux, Limbaugh and Savage. I'm all for censorship if it involves conservative TV/radio & the internet"............................. where is the fun in that?............ you may not like what they say but they can still say it, little thing called the constitution. W. did'nt like and skirted it was it suited her.
     
  10. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,445
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    26
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Don't mean to be cryptic... I meant that a la the Bush wiretapping and "control" over vehicles those assume to be private and libertarian.

    I like that Obama can shut down the Internet at a moment's notice... but again it's more of a legal right, vs an "actuality". Not sure if we have any disciples of Tim Berners-Lee here on LPSG... but am I off base on "controlling the internet". I've been on the 'net for 18 years now, and know that a big red button cannot bring down a myriad of nodes.
     
  11. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX

    actually goes way beyond Bush II ... more along the lines of Stalin, Castro, or Mao Tse-Tung
     
  12. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    546
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    One of my favourite authors forsaw this. Read the third quote for a hint.

    You people deserve collars.
     
  13. Rikter8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,488
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MI
    Governmental Control over anything is a Very Bad Thing.

    They started this with the Cars for Clunkers website allowing the governmental entities to take control of your computer.

    Next, you'll allow them to easily access all of your files, data, personal information and anything else.

    Big Brother here we come.
     
  14. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Practically speaking, the government will use it by threat. You can imagine what happens to, say, Qwest Communications if they couldn't provide broadband service. Everything comes over those wires, phone, Internet, cell service. So, the gov will just show up at their door and demand that they comply under these new rules.

    How does that play out? Well, the threat of an organized hacker group attacking infrastructure has already been realized. If the terrorists had the ability to do damage this way then they would have. So, this new government power is being used to regulate something else. They are calling it 'national emergency'. What isn't a national emergency? File Sharing? Organizing people? Terror? On and on.

    So, going back to the first paragraph: the government doesn't actually need to have it's hand on the switch, they just need leverage against the guy that does. They will shut off specific areas, people, and organizations. Things that pose a 'security threat'.

    It won't be long after they pass this bill that we hear the age old 'undermining the sanctity of the law' rhetoric to justify using that leverage in ways nobody ever imagined. It could be anything or everything, internet gambling, copyright infringement, forums of suspected terrorism or threats against the president, ect ect. Why would the US government leave up access to known al-qaeda websites?

    This regulation is the pre-pubescent version of what China has.
     
  15. B_RemainInLight

    B_RemainInLight New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2009
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Fuck this. Our president is not into people's rights or privacy that is for sure!
     
  16. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Recent government takeovers:

    1)AIG
    2)Bank of America (was also forced to acquire Merril)
    3)Citigroup
    4)GM

    Takeovers in process:

    1)Health insurance industry
    2)Internet?



    wtf?
     
  17. Zeuhl34

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,104
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    These weren't takeovers. Just massive loans/bailouts.

    As it stands, there is no proposal for the gov't to take over healthcare. That would necessitate a single-payer system. And as far as the interent goes, I'd hoe the bill wouldn't get much, if any, traction
     
  18. fxc1100

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    425
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    494
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Santa Rosa (CA, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Wow, simply amazing. It seems that you guys in your haste to dig up dirt on Obama forgot to read the most import part of the article.


    The idea of each agency having to make a plan to measure their security vulnerabilities (the Dashboard) does not strike me as a bad one - although they give one year for implementation, not six months as the article claims (though only 90 days to have a plan). The matter of taking a year for legal review strikes me as apples and oranges though - it's like saying you have to make fire evacuation plans for each building within 90 days, followed up by a review of OSHA standards within a year.
     
  19. fxc1100

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    425
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    494
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Santa Rosa (CA, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    By the way, this is nothing close to wire tapping or any such thing. Your blatantly misleading the public and trying to stir up fear of Obama and this administration. Again, all this is doing is assembling an agency that would test present weakness' of the nations computer infraustructure. Also, the President already has power over the internet during wartime since it's considered a communication network. This is just clarifying exactly what he can and can't do.
     
  20. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but me thinks you're a little out of your league on this one. Ownership of a publicly traded company consists of owning 51% or more of the companies stock...the government owns these companies as of now. Why do you think they wanted to convert their preferred shares to common? Rick Wagoner didn't just "leave" GM, the government took over the company, and said piss off to Wagoner, period. Same goes for their actions with BofA, Citigroup, and AIG. What about the "pay czar" installed to limit salaries? One case of a man who made Citi $3 billion who was to be paid $100 million in compensation. Seems like a reasonable reward for the value he brought to a struggling company, a company that the government is currently demanding it boost its capital reserves as much as possible. Just one example of many...

    As for the health insurance takeover, if you had actually read any of HR 3200, you would have seen within the first 210 sections, that private insurers are not allowed to enroll any new customers as of day 1 of Y1 of implentation of the bill. What this means is that if you have health private insurance now, you'll still be covered. However, after the bill goes into effect, if you don't currently have private insurance, you will not be able to enroll for coverage under a private plan, and your only "option" will be a plan ran through your employer. This is not an option...it's a takeover of the health insurance industry. Do yourself a favor and read the bill
     
Draft saved Draft deleted