• 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!

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET New

Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

There's no good reason. It's up there with the vast expansion of government power. Soon we'll all have nationalized, RFIDs we have to carry around so the government an keep track of us. They'll listen in to our phones, they'll put up more cameras. Don't question the authority, they know what they're doing.

One problem I always have with people who spout off things like this is there's always this touch of paranoia "oh noes! the government is going to control everything!!! It's going to be 1984!!!" without looking at how hard most of the slippery slope results would be, not to mention the use of civilian oversight. We all remember how bad bush got hammered. Do yourself a favor and take off the Tinfoil Hat.
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

I love how they lay off when we prove through actual words in the bill what this means. I haven't even presented all of the protections against attack on the private sector it mandates, including new mandatory qualifications necessary to set up a secure network.

The scared ones should read the bill for themselves before they start screaming dictatorship.

Bill
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET

Not as much. The internet is a much more powerful tool, in my opinion and far too many people and businesses rely on it. I don't think its unreasonable for people to be wary of this.

To me the problem is that yes, it's a much more powerful tool, and as such, a coordinated attack would be that much more devastating. We do need a plan to protect us from such an attack, which is what this seems to be. Whether it is a good plan, I am not qualified to say, but having a plan is to my mind important.
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET

To me this is an important control to have in place in case of emergency. And let's not make it a liberal vs conservative issue. This goes beyond the usual partisan divide.
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

I want Congress to pass a bill that allows me to give Obama electric shocks at his desk every time he does something I don't like. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

I want Congress to pass a bill that allows me to give Obama electric shocks at his desk every time he does something I don't like. :mrgreen:

Now what in the world would we do with a crispy fried President? :confused:
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Now what in the world would we do with a crispy fried President? :confused:

That is what I was thinking. Can you tell CL we need to hear his take on this. I think it would be interesting, and I can use a good challenge.
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

That is what I was thinking. Can you tell CL we need to hear his take on this. I think it would be interesting, and I can use a good challenge.

I'm talking to Him now about this creepy ass bill. It certainly does place His business at risk.
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET

DeeJay, no counterpoint to an idea like a measure against terrorist cyber attacks that's great for homeland security?

Its called a job :roll:

and I posted with the intent of gathering opinions. Doesn't sound as bad now, but still not a good bill, from what I have read so far
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

The only way this bill would allow any one to limit my internet access is in an emergency. You are being overly dramatic about all this.

While this alone may seem and may even be harmless enough its such forgiving attitudes that can allow a government to become a tyrannical power. Imagine if we allowed the government to pass emergency measures to include all aspects of our lives. At that point it would only require a few people in washington with the wrong intentions to essentially turn us into a communist state.
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

GovTrack: S. 773: Text of Legislation, Introduced in Senate

Only copy of the bill I could find.

SEC. 201. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.
The President—
(1) within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, shall develop and implement a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy, which shall include—
(A) a long-term vision of the Nation’s cybersecurity future; and
( a plan that encompasses all aspects of national security, including the participation of the private sector, including critical infrastructure operators and managers;
(2) in the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network—
(A) may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and
( may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network;
(3) shall, in coordination with various critical infrastructure industry sectors, develop detailed cyber emergency response and restoration plans for each critical infrastructure industry sector;
(4) shall, through the appropriate department or agency, review critical functions that would be needed after a cybersecurity attack and develop a strategy for the acquisition, storage, and periodic replacement of equipment to support those functions;
(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;
(6) shall, through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, direct an annual review of all Federal cyber technology research and development investments;
(7) may delegate original classification authority to the appropriate Federal official for the purposes of improving the Nation’s cybersecurity posture;
(8) shall, through the appropriate department or agency, promulgate rules for Federal professional responsibilities regarding cybersecurity, and shall provide to the Congress an annual report on Federal agency compliance with those rules;

Less sinister then one would be lead to believe...

I wish some items could be clarified, but honestly - who believes the gov can take down 4chan?
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

Being I have worked my entire adult life in IT, I happen to know what I am talking about. This bill would have nothing to do with monitoring individual internet access. Its a bill that would allow the government to shut off access to a datacenter in the event of an emergency. The reason why the government wants to do so is that the potential threat posed by a cyber attack on government infrastructure is a very significant one and could result in a huge economic cost.

Thus, the intentions behind it are good. The IT security industry has been lobbying for this for years. However, just because the intentions behind a bill are good, does not mean the bill is a good idea. The problem with giving the government the ability to shut down access to a data center is that you would have to give the government login access to provisioning at every major provider. The costs of doing so is probably greater than the costs of a potential cyber attack.

Moreover, I would point out that giving the government that kind of access would mean that ultimately a providers security is only as good as the governments and the government does not have that great of a record.

I'd say these Folks work in IT too,,,and they're NOT so quick to follow B.O. blindly.:lol:

I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

Realist, one comma at a time is enough for the purposes of avoiding a run-on sentence.
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

Realist, one comma at a time is enough for the purposes of avoiding a run-on sentence.

I like it for Emphasis,,, I hope you don't mind.:lol:
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

What does a 'emergency' constitute?
Is that clear in the bill?

it doesn't matter Sweetie because the government has already proven itself quite capable at creating emergencies such as 9/11
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

it doesn't matter Sweetie because the government has already proven itself quite capable at creating emergencies such as 9/11

I got your back Sport... I saw Bush PERSONALLY fly both of those planes into the W.T.C. And I'm willing to Testify to it.:lol:

You believe me,,,don't you?:roll:
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

I got your back Sport... I saw Bush PERSONALLY fly both of those planes into the W.T.C. And I'm willing to Testify to it.:lol:

You believe me,,,don't you?:roll:

yes i believe you. i believe you because i am stupid. i am stupid because you think i am stupid. you think i am stupid because you are projecting ...

we all hope your mother loves you :(
 
Last edited:
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET

The Dems better "have a talk" soon with the President....:roll:

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET News


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 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.



The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

I would think that if there really was a threat then the only thing the government would have to do is have some computer guys disconnect the internet access to government computers that are at risk. This idea of letting the president have control over the whole internet sounds like a scam.
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

So a bill that lets the president take emergency measures when an emergency happens is sinister how?

If only people realized how many "emergencies" have been planned so that the government can further regulate the market and our lives.
 
Re: B.O. wants "Control' of the Internet.

yes i believe you. i believe you because i am stupid. i am stupid because you think i am stupid. you think i am stupid because you are projecting ...

we all hope your mother loves you :(

I'm at a loss for words Sport. I had no idea you'd take my words of encouragement in your personal thoughts on the 911 Govt. Conspiracy, as an affront to your intelligence.:roll:

And after I told you I saw Mr. Bush "Personally flying both planes".:( I'm shattered.
 
Re: Bill would give president emergency control of Internet | Politics and Law - CNET

Well considering the Obama administrations diversity czar for the FCC is an anti-free speech Marxist scumbag who just loves what Chavez junta did with its media, I'm going call it like I see it as an overt attempt to end the freedom of the internet, but they're not stopping there they want complete control over all electronic media outlets country wide and the total silence of the opposition:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new "Chief Diversity Officer," communications attorney Mark Lloyd.

But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."

Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created "problem."

* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

These last two get perilously close to the use of "localism" to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations, about which we have been warning for quite some time.

.................................................. ...............................................

In a follow-up essay to the CAP report entitled "Forget the Fairness Doctrine," Lloyd specifically instructs liberal activists to do the latter - use the "localism" requirement to harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC. The FCC would then assess these stations fines, with the money going to (very liberal) public broadcasting.

Or worse - the FCC would rescind these stations' broadcast licenses. In other words, shut them up by shutting them down. Thus, as Lloyd says, no need for the mis-named "Fairness" Doctrine.

From Lloyd's piece:

To be fair, even some progressives are confused about the Fairness Doctrine. A recent news story reported that the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC for short, has asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine—even as the same article reports on a speech to LULAC by ABC News correspondent John Quinones, who spoke of his work bringing to audiences a hard-earned perspective to the long-running immigration debate.

Quinones told the LULAC audience that he got his start because a San Antonio community organization threatened that if the stations didn't hire more Latinos, the group would go to the FCC and challenge their licenses. "Thank God for them," Quinones said. "I wouldn't be here."

Equal opportunity employment policies. Local engagement. License challenges. Nothing in there about the Fairness Doctrine.

"Community organizations" (run one would think by community organizers) threatening the licenses of stations with whom they do not agree politically.

Or making them pay hefty fines, which would be added to the public monies already being given to liberal public broadcasting.

The other part of our proposal that gets the dittoheads (i.e. Rush Limbaugh fans, meant here by Lloyd to more broadly refer to fans of all conservative talk) upset is our suggestion that the commercial radio station owners either play by the rules or pay. In other words, if they don’t want to be subject to local criticism of how they are meeting their license obligations, they should pay to support public broadcasters who will operate on behalf of the local community.

New FCC 'Chief Diversity Officer' Co-Wrote Liberal Group's 'Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio' | Newsletters.org
 
Back
Top Bottom