• 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!

Obama may get power to shut down Internet without court oversight

What did Obama do about the Patriot act?

Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act extension without change for two years when it expired in December 2009. Obama signed it without comment. The Patriot Act belongs to Obama and the Left now. But this was not ever about civil liberties. It was about power.
 
Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act extension without change for two years when it expired in December 2009. Obama signed it without comment. The Patriot Act belongs to Obama and the Left now. But this was not ever about civil liberties. It was about power.

So I guess Obama agreed with the Patriot act
 
So the argument has morphed from 'this bill gives Obama the authority to simply shut off the internet', to 'this bill doesn't specifically prevent Obama from shutting off the internet'.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that this bill gives the government the authority to close the internet, "in the interest of cyber security".
 
Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act extension without change for two years when it expired in December 2009. Obama signed it without comment. The Patriot Act belongs to Obama and the Left now. But this was not ever about civil liberties. It was about power.

You are correct... he also was on the wrong side of civil liberties on this one, and in general. I agree, it is about power and convenience. The President wants to get the job done and finds civil liberties a huge convenience to that end.
 
Whovian said:
So the argument has morphed from 'this bill gives Obama the authority to simply shut off the internet', to 'this bill doesn't specifically prevent Obama from shutting off the internet'.

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that this bill gives the government the authority to close the internet, "in the interest of cyber security".

apparently it does, and you aren't;)

You just finished saying that it wasn't about what the bill DID give Obama, it was that there was nothign in the bill 'preventing' him from shutting off the Internet... but now you're back to 'this bills gives the government...'

Make up your mind.

If you read the bill, you need to read it more carefully.
 
apparently it does, and you aren't;)

You just finished saying that it wasn't about what the bill DID give Obama, it was that there was nothign in the bill 'preventing' him from shutting off the Internet... but now you're back to 'this bills gives the government...'

Make up your mind.

If you read the bill, you need to read it more carefully.

Perhaps it is, you, sir that needs to read the bill more carefully.

SEC. 14. PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.


(a) DESIGNATION- The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal Government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

(b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce--


(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;

(2) shall manage the sharing of Federal Government and other critical infrastructure threat and vulnerability information between the Federal Government and the persons primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the networks concerned; and

(3) shall report regularly to the Congress on threat information held by the Federal Government that is not shared with the persons primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the networks concerned.
 
Perhaps it is, you, sir that needs to read the bill more carefully.

b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce--

(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;

How the hell do you get 'Obama can shut down the Internet' from that?

It says 'access to all relevant data'... not 'the ability to shut off the Internet whenever desired'.

Please... try again, if you must.
 
is there anything in the summary I just posted that indicates the President could just 'shut the Internet off'?

Not that I could find. It does say:

Authorizes the President to issue a declaration of a national cyber emergency to covered critical infrastructure.

I'm not sure just what that means. It sounds more like being able to declare an emergency should there be a cyber attack aimed at shutting down communications.
 
Not that I could find. It does say:



I'm not sure just what that means. It sounds more like being able to declare an emergency should there be a cyber attack aimed at shutting down communications.

Right. An internet "state of emergency" could occur but there's nothing in the bill that says this means total shutdown .
 
Not that this wouldn't seriously suck, based on my work usage from home... but how does it relate to the thread topic?

Complete control of the internet. That is what both do
 
Complete control of the internet. That is what both do

The bill does NOT give Obama any special power to simply shut off the internet,.

The Canadian thing has nothing to do with governmental powers over shuttign the internet, it has to do with charging through the nose for access.

Dude, I dislike Obama's policies more than you can imagine... but imagine is the correct word here.

You're imagining things.
 
The bill does NOT give Obama any special power to simply shut off the internet,.

The Canadian thing has nothing to do with governmental powers over shuttign the internet, it has to do with charging through the nose for access.

Dude, I dislike Obama's policies more than you can imagine... but imagine is the correct word here.

You're imagining things.

We shall see. If it works in Canada and the government gets money it will come here. Both are about control and we all know we have a control freak in the White House
 
We shall see. If it works in Canada and the government gets money it will come here. Both are about control and we all know we have a control freak in the White House

explain to me what about the Canada situation gives the President control over the Internet?

Answer... nothing... it gives ISP's control.
 
explain to me what about the Canada situation gives the President control over the Internet?

Answer... nothing... it gives ISP's control.


How many taxes will be involved
 
wtf does that have to do with it? Taxes suddenly give Obama the ability to shut down the internet?

He would control supply and be able to shut it down. Metered would be under government control. Otherwise why would the government care
 
He would control supply and be able to shut it down. Metered would be under government control. Otherwise why would the government care

How would metered internet be under government control, when the ISP's are privately held?

I'm beginning to think this thread belongs under Conspiracy Theory
 
How would metered internet be under government control, when the ISP's are privately held?

I'm beginning to think this thread belongs under Conspiracy Theory

It had to be approved by the government. From my link

But like it or not, the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved UBB for the incumbent carrier Bell Canada in September. Competitive ISPs, which connect to Canada's top telco for last-mile copper connections to customers, will also be metered by Bell. Even though the CRTC gave these ISPs a 15 percent discount this month (TekSavvy asked for 50 percent), it's still going to mean a real adjustment for consumers.
 
It had to be approved by the government. From my link

But like it or not, the Canadian Radio-Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) approved UBB for the incumbent carrier Bell Canada in September. Competitive ISPs, which connect to Canada's top telco for last-mile copper connections to customers, will also be metered by Bell. Even though the CRTC gave these ISPs a 15 percent discount this month (TekSavvy asked for 50 percent), it's still going to mean a real adjustment for consumers.

doesn't really answer my question. How would this give the government power to shut off the internet?
 
The Patriot Act and Internet Kill Switches: The Devil Is In The Extensions | Integrity Legal Blog

The question must be posed: is the controversy surrounding this bill legitimate or simply “misinformation”? Clearly under such a scheme, as stated above, the President would have some sort of “Emergency Powers” over the internet pursuant to the language of this bill. What is most ominous to this blogger is the notion that abridgment of freedom (both online and in the real world) is okay so long as it only occurs in 120 day spurts. Furthermore, at first blush, the provisions regarding restriction and Congressional extension would seem to mitigate the rather broad powers being granted to the President and the Federal government, but, in this blogger’s opinion, these measures are chimerical as can be seen by the Congressional actions which have consistently resulted in extension of the Patriot Act (a bill which also had sunset provisions, but provided Congress with the ability to make extensions). Does the American Constitution and Bill of Rights not clearly state that those enumerated powers not expressly granted to the Federal government are to remain with the States and the People respectively? If so, then why has the Federal government continued to usurp, or in the case of the “kill switch,” attempted to usurp; State and individual rights to liberty and the free access to information? In fact, it would seem that this bill is expressly intended to obstruct the free flow of information during a time of crisis, which some would argue, is the exact time when people would need such information the most. Perhaps the reasoning behind this bill cannot be fully discussed within the confines of this blog post, but readers can still ponder these questions while researching these issues.
 
You know, Bush tried the same thing when he was in office, and Liberals raised so much hell over it that the plan was dropped. Where is the Liberal outrage now? The idea is just as repugnant now as it was then, but should a "D" after one's name give him a pass? Hell no!

Bush? Yup, Bush did it! Bush was a real bastard, that one.
 
Back
Top Bottom