• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Proposal Could Put Heavy Restrictions on Internet Freedoms

TOJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
4,588
Reaction score
663
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The days of an open, largely unregulated Internet may soon come to an end.

A bill making its way through Congress proposes to give the U.S. government authority over all networks considered part of the nation's critical infrastructure. Under the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, the president would have the authority to shut down Internet traffic to protect national security.

Senate Proposal Could Put Heavy Restrictions on Internet Freedoms

Its going to be interesting to see how the partisans break on this one.

.
 
Personally, I don't think it'll go anywhere, but if it does pass, then so be it.

We'll see a huge technology boom. Wireless mobile sales will be off the charts and underground internet will be the modern version of the speak easy.

The rest of the world might succumb to oppression, but we Americans seem to get motivated by it when our government attempts it.
 
Personally, I don't think it'll go anywhere, but if it does pass, then so be it.

We'll see a huge technology boom. Wireless mobile sales will be off the charts and underground internet will be the modern version of the speak easy.

The rest of the world might succumb to oppression, but we Americans seem to get motivated by it when our government attempts it.
Not sure what you mean here. How does wireless mobile make any difference? :confused:

.
 
I deactivated my Facebook account.
I'm one step ahead of the Government.

Tomorrow I'll ride into Washington with my Luddite companions (we will not write, as alphabet is technology) on horseback (bareback, saddles are technology).

We will stand in front of the Senate and exclaim "Nay! You have no jurisdiction here. Impose your will of clogging the YouTubes and filtering "how to make homemade Nuke" from search-engines, but your legislation has no effect on us."

Then we will get tazed, or shot, depends on the circumstances.
 
Tomorrow I'll ride into Washington with my Luddite companions (we will not write, as alphabet is technology) on horseback (bareback, saddles are technology).

I thought all the liberal types were opposed to riding bareback.....:mrgreen:
 
What could possibly be going on the internet that would justify the president shutting down ALL traffic?

This is a terrible idea, because they would have to know in advance that an attack is on the way. You can tell these bills have been passed by technical idiots on subjects. Every senator and congressman should have to take a class to learn that yes the internet is not just a series of tubes and how it really works.

Hackers have bearly been able to find cracks in bank encription, let alone even come near to encripting military databases. Even if they did, the safety procedures in places more than makes up in compensation.
 
What could possibly be going on the internet that would justify the president shutting down ALL traffic?
A blogger probably posted evidence that Dear Leader did not write his books, and that the teleprompter really does write all his speeches.
 
What could possibly be going on the internet that would justify the president shutting down ALL traffic?

Because we're talking about him, and it's not nice...
 
There is no justifiable reason to shut down the internet as a free democracy. The worst harm a virus could ever do, would in fact be to destroy the internet.
This bill is like authorizing the government to blow up the twin towers to prevent terrorists from flying planes into it.

The reasons given are simply pathetic. If the government wants to keep its files safe, the only way is to never put them on computers with internet access. Shutting down the internet is useless as a solution, as you could only do it after the fact.

This is just a government power grab to intrude into the lives of its citizens for reasons that would make Orwell shudder.
 
Hey, this passage should put all of your concerns to rest. :doh

"I kind of view [the Rockefeller bill] as an opening shot," said Tien. "The concept is cybersecurity. There's this 60-day review underway, and some people wanted to get in there and make their mark on the White House policy development."

IT leaders hope the president will consider their argument that their business is not only incredibly complex and static, but that it also spreads over the entire globe.

If the United States was to set its own standard for cybersecurity, they say, it would create a host of logistical challenges for technology companies, virtually all of which operate internationally.

"Any standards have to be set at an international level and be industry led," said Dale Curtis, a spokesman for the Business Software Alliance. "This industry moves so fast, and government just doesn't move that fast."
 
FYI, it appears that Congress does not intend that S.773 authorize the President to shut down the entire Internet. Under Section 18, Provision 2, the Act the President "may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network..."

However, the bill's language is far too loose, in my view. It could permit a President to adopt an overly broad definition of critical infrastructure, not dissimilar to the much wider use of wiretapping without warrants that evolved during the 1950s into the early 1970s and then again following 9/11.

Section 23, Provision 3 offers the following definitions:

(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term `Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks' includes--

(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and

(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.


In short, strong safeguards need to be in place to assure that a future President would not adopt an overly broad interpretation of his or her authority under the legislation. Therefore, the legislation should establish specific concrete criteria for determining what constitutes "critical infrastructure" and also create a "firewall" around areas that would be excluded from the President's authority. Absent such language, I don't support the legislation given the potential for abuse that could arise given its broad language in Section 23.
 
That language could easily be interpreted to allow the President to shut down anything.
 
and here I was all convinced that all Texans were half-wits
So that qualfied as a hard question? Guess I shouldn't be surprised, coming from NC. :lol:


.
 
That language could easily be interpreted to allow the President to shut down anything.

And that's why I oppose it as it is currently written. When it comes to civil liberties, one should err on the side of caution (adding safeguards rather than relying on good faith) so as to maximize protection of such freedoms.
 
A blogger probably posted evidence that Dear Leader did not write his books, and that the teleprompter really does write all his speeches.

I have heard the whole Bill Ayers wrote Dreams from my Father blogposts, and tell you the truth I don't see it. Somethings these bloggers bring up like the fact that Dreams from my Father seems like the Novel version of "Why Organize", which was a small excerpt Obama wrote while President of the Harvard law club. They structure there arguments around the fact that Ayers used that excerpt and made a full blown novel out of it. If anything that just makes me think Obama just re-wrote material that was already floating around in his head, much like how most people write in the first place.

I don't agree with the themes of the book, but I really don't see the whole argument saying someone else wrote his books.
 
I have heard the whole Bill Ayers wrote Dreams from my Father blogposts, and tell you the truth I don't see it. Somethings these bloggers bring up like the fact that Dreams from my Father seems like the Novel version of "Why Organize", which was a small excerpt Obama wrote while President of the Harvard law club. They structure there arguments around the fact that Ayers used that excerpt and made a full blown novel out of it. If anything that just makes me think Obama just re-wrote material that was already floating around in his head, much like how most people write in the first place.

I don't agree with the themes of the book, but I really don't see the whole argument saying someone else wrote his books.
He had all the time in the world to write at Harvard and his writing output was a statistical zero.

Yet he knocks two books out of his sleeves?
No, writing good books is not an easy task ,especially for a novice.
My bet is he had a ghostwriter.
Like Hillary and most in their position.

.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
This thread is not about Obama's books or his ability to write them. Please stick to the topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom