New CyberSecurity Bill Raises Privacy Questions 319
Nicolas Dawson points out coverage in Mother Jones of the early stages of a new cybersecurity bill that conveys sweeping powers on the President. Quoting: "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to 'declare a cybersecurity emergency' and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any 'critical' information network 'in the interest of national security.' The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president. The bill ... also grants the Secretary of Commerce 'access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.' This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws."
I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the... (Score:2, Insightful)
"in soviet america..." jokes
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, you listened to kremvax. [catb.org]
In Soviet America, nsavax listens to you.
Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. We wanted a government that listened to the people...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe now is an appropriate time to cue the "in soviet america..." jokes
If this bill is enacted, what keeps the president from permanently shutting down access to certain "harmful things" just like the great firewall of China?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing, anything can be deemed "critical" (kind of like "too big to fail") because there are no stipulations on the term critical.
Such as "We must shut down access to porn sites because it is critical to the morals of our society."
Not specifically saying he would do that (although future administrations might with this power) its just the first thing that came to mind.
(Yes, I said it, porn was the first thing to come to mind)
Who needs the constitution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who needs the constitution... (Score:4, Insightful)
access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.
In other words, it's not illegal when the Secretary of Commerce (a Presidentially appointed position) does it, of course. So they can lock YOU up for accessing data you're not supposed to have, but when the Secretary of Commerce does it, it's just hunky dory.
Yep. Who needs the Constitution? It's archaic!
Now I see why so many people become anarchists... ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, Presidential appointees don't seem to pay any taxes either and the last time I checked that was also illegal. More of the same 'do as I say, not as do.'
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA was written with exceptions for the government.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/08/air-force-cracks-software-carpet-bombs-dmca.ars
Re:Who needs the constitution... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, Presidential appointees don't seem to pay any taxes either and the last time I checked that was also illegal. More of the same 'do as I say, not as do.'
No, you missed the point. The only way to get these guys to pay their taxes is for the president to appoint them to office.
So far Obama has a 100% success record in collecting from these guys.
He's not "the uniter," nor is he "the decider," Obama is "the collector."
Re:Who needs the constitution... (Score:5, Interesting)
I read this very differently, and I think this is just the case of a VERY bad Slashdot summary and a terminology barrier between the government and the geek community. "Data" doesn't appear to indicate live bits streaming over networks, here. I think this is saying, "relevant data" and meaning "information relevant to understanding the topology of critical networks." That is, if you run a backbone in the US you have to tell the Feds about it and give them specs.
As the Net becomes more of a critical piece of US infrastructure, I don't think that's terribly unreasonable.
Now, if someone can demonstrate that this is being pushed as a way to snoop on packets without a warrant, I'll stand corrected, but it just doesn't read that way at all to me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I see why so many people become anarchists... ;)
Demanding that our government respect the principles of our nation is not anarchic. It is Constitutional conservatism. It is patriotism.
Cybersecurity emergency (Score:2)
Ok your seriously late now. April fools day was 2 days ago.
Mr President... (Score:5, Funny)
You can take my connection from my cold dead SANs!!!!
Or
All yer Pix is belong to U.S.
Or
HSRP - Homeland Security Routing Protocol
Or
TCP/IP - Total Control President/Internet Precedent
How do things like this even come up (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been fighting encrypting everything I do for a while now because I had hopes it wouldn't be necessary. Now I see that there is a chance it might be after all.
Re: (Score:2)
anti terror legislation advocates. Anyone in doubt as to what the feds would do with the W.O.T have their answer; expansion of power.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However, someone attacking the link between Youtube and the building where the congress's staffers have their offices can be handles with t
Re: (Score:2)
There is a need for something but this goes way too far and is way too vague. Someone needs to be able to shut down something like, say, a DDOS attack against the NYSE trading network - that's a national security issue. Likewise, if someone's hacking the newtworks that link our satellites to the Pentagon, someone needs to have the power to make that stop immediately.
And so the wording on the bill should reflect these few and constrained cases where it would be warranted, instead of leaving it open to anyone's interpretation.
Re:How do things like this even come up (Score:5, Insightful)
Emphasis and replacement mine. This is the EXACT same power they want to give to the treasury secretary to be able to unilaterally, on a whim, take over companies when some undocumented criteria are met.
Re:How do things like this even come up (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, how can we trust these people to take care of things that are this serious when they cant even get a ban on lead done right:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301764.html [washingtonpost.com]
They try to put a law in place to protect children from lead, and end up banning minibikes and used book sales, whose lead content is equal to about a glass of water.
They mess up a simple lead ban with shitty wording, and we expect them to deal with such things as our privacy laws and national security. We need to get rid of every single sitting senator and house rep next time around, no matter party affiliation, get rid of them all.
Re: (Score:2)
if you think it is a good idea, well fine, that's your right. but those of us who do not will continue to "raise questions" about what protections for our privacy are going to be built in to the legislation. the headline is factual, and refers to an actual discourse occurring. to me, this is an invitation to discuss the problems that need to be address
*big sigh* (Score:2, Insightful)
honestly, how much more are you willing to take before you walk away from oppression?
Why does bad news out number good news? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't; however there isn't a lot of money in showing people good news, or pointing out they are pretty much safe and nothing really relevant to them has happened.
Route Around Him (Score:5, Interesting)
This is precisely what the Internet was designed to defend against. Let us continue to work to insure that the Internet will view the President as damage, and route around him in the event of an emergency.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be hard to route around when he has the power to disable connections at whim.
Honestly, I'm reading through this and they manage to make comparisions about 9/11, except through a computer attack!
Really, just read through the sources they based this off of and it's no wonder why they think they need to have such off the handle powers.
Re: (Score:2)
... view the president as a route and damage him?
I think I speak for everyone (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I speak for everyone here on slashdot when I say
Fuck you!
Define the terms in the bill. List the checks and balances in this that will prevent a tyrant from encroaching on our constitutional rights. The supreme court really needs to start looking into this shit and start hacking apart these bills and laws that infringe on our freedoms. If not, they need to be replaced with people who will.
Re:I think I speak for everyone (Score:4, Interesting)
If not, they need to be replaced with people who will.
I'm a computer guy with only a basic understanding of government... but doesn't the President replace the judges? If he wants to wield that much power over peoples' rights, won't he just put more justices up there that support his power grabs?
Also, I'm pretty sure the only way they get replaced is if they step down or... you know... die. I highly doubt they'll care about "getting replaced" in either of those situations.
How lovely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The threat was enough and the SCOTUS rolled over shortly thereafter, allowing a single party Congress/Executive to force Unconstitutional legislation through, unabated by the checks of the SCOTUS. Not long afte
Re: (Score:2)
I think I speak for everyone here on slashdot when I say
Fuck you!
I do not use profanity, but I simply don't have any other adjectives which properly convey the contempt and abhorrence I have for this bill. So, let me echo my agreement with a simple yet resounding
Fuck this bill!
Don't fix it, don't define the terms, simply kill it - in committee, on the floor, with a veto - whatever is necessary.
This bill is unneeded, and a very liberal interpretation would leave this way more invasive than the patriot act i
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, share the script? (I'm actually more interested in where you're sending this, and the wording you're using, but the script Might be cool, too.)
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis added, where appropriate. Barack Obama — with the aide of his trusty Media [thepeoplescube.com] — has skillfully mesmerized a lot of people. To the point of simply "feeling good" about him, but unable to state, what exactly the like so much.
And as for bad things, he managed to neutralize them all too. When asked, the vast majority of his supporters proved rather ignorant [howobamagotelected.com] and, in particular, could not recognize some damaging facts as having to do
The United States doesn't own the Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shutting down the American network would hinder the whole world. Since a number of the backbones run through the states.
Further more the government just made the biggest argument against cloud computing I have ever read. Your data lives online the goverment say oh noes cyber attack and shuts every non critical system down for weeks? months? what happens to you google docs homework or business files.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now where'd I put that pitchfork and torch?
Presidential ddos? (Score:5, Interesting)
2) President shuts down the national infrastructure
3) ???
4) Profit!
Sounds to me like you don't even need to code a worm that is capable of shutting down the internet, all you have to do is make someone believe you have already done so and the president will do all the heavy lifting for you.
Obama's "Change" finally explained... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we are finally seeing Obama's "Change" he was talking about his entire campaign. I give him credit for running his entire campaign on the word "Change" and not explaing what changes he would make...
Now America is paying for general stupidity. I find it interesting that the UK, France and Sweden all scorned Obama for all of this bailout money. By dumping all of this money into the economy he is undermining the basis of good business and capitalism.
With this Bill we find Obama giving more and more pow
Re: (Score:2)
they may have scorned him then, but he got a standing ovation from the press [theage.com.au] at the g20 summit. how quickly they've turned.
America! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ohh, once so proud, once so free.. Ruled by fear, nothing else.. I feel for the true American people.. if there are any left..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Real Americans exist, but everyone else is pretty much terrified of them. Rugged individualism and desire for self-determination are concepts that scare the average citizen, especially considering that the guarantors of these principles are scary guns.
Now this sounds familiar... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. But I am mild by nature, and do not wish to see the destruction of democracy. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated.
--Chancellor Palpatine
Re:Now this sounds familiar... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't he paraphrasing Caesar?
Re: (Score:2)
--Chancellor Palpatine
Wasn't he paraphrasing Caesar?
And Hitler
Where is all the screaming about privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
You folks were up in arms about the loss of Privacy when the Bush administration was trying to spy on Terrorists calling into the country? Here you have a Democrat congress and a Democrat President who are going to be snooping into EVERYONE's business - let's have a little more energy - or one might think all the previous belly-aching about privacy was really just partisan nonsense????
Re: (Score:2)
I've been seeing Slashdot posts "screaming" about this and other nasty things that've come about since Obama took office, as well as years ago when Clinton was in office. Hell, if you're gonna call the Slashdot crowd some kind of party follower, Libertarian is the obvious choice. Wait for the crickets to chirp when President Ron Paul III does something nasty in 2056. :-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
1) I think there will be an appropriate amount of screaming about this (that is pretty much what this article is about.
2) There is a huge difference between this and your example, and the levels of screaming will be different. That difference being this is a proposed bill that may pass and may be abused later (which still is bad) and Bush was actively abusing our rights. So while there will be outcry, it will be (and should be)less since this is still all theoretical at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is starting to sound better now... (Score:2)
There is generally a lot of talk here on Slashdot (and all over the Internet) about the lack of protection of privacy for citizens in European (and Asian, for that matter) countries. This puts the good 'ol USA on par with the rest of 'em...
When do I get my Web filter and CCTV camera? I need to be protected from terrorists! Who needs privacy.
It all really comes down to the same problem with things like gun control, drug laws, and DRM- this sort of shit really just hurts honest, hard working people- criminals
Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that (Score:5, Interesting)
Methinks \. caught a regurgitates April Fools blog entry a couple days late!
Re:Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that (Score:4, Informative)
Google News currently links to 43 related stories [google.co.uk].
Here's the WSJ [wsj.com]'s take.
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
Isn't this the type of sweeping executive power in times of emergency was gave ultimate power to Hitler and the Soviet Premiers?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is.
Yet it is also an old tactic, documented as far back as 656 A.D.[1]
More insane politics have probably happened by way of "waving the bloody shirt" [wikipedia.org] than any other tactic.
[1] From the above wiki link:
The term "bloody shirt" can be traced back to the aftermath of the murder of the third Caliph, Uthman in 656 AD, when a bloody shirt and some hair alleged to be from his beard were used in what is widely regarded as a cynical ploy to gain support for revenge against opponents.
"Confers", not "conveys" (Score:2)
'Nuff said.
A whole bunch of bad ideas (Score:3, Informative)
The headlined tyranny is only the start of the ugliness with this bill. The first part smells heavily of pig product, but it gets worse.
Some lowlights:
Section 5 introduces a 747-load of red tape related to "cybersecurity standards" for anyone doing business with the Federal Government.
Section 6 goes beyond that and introduces some requirements for "private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks". Which, if I'm reading it right, means the Feds get to dictate to e.g. Google (assuming someone classifies Google as critical) how they set up their networks and what software they run on it.
Section 7 introduces a federal license for a "provider of cybersecurity services". All contractors and employees providing "cybersecurity services" on any Federal or designated network would be required to have these. Want to install antivirus software on some "critical" network? Sorry dude, need a license. *shudder*
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the start. It's the continuance.
Every president accrues power to the office, and no president gives us the power of his predecessor, whatever side of the aisle they come from.
The longer it goes, the worse it will get. It's the nature of the beast.
Concerning (Score:2)
From TFA:
It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
No, what it says is that Sec Com could demand any information from any person anywhere in U.S. jurisdiction, so long as that information somehow "concerns" such networks.
Overreach much?
We need Internet 3 (Score:2)
Without all these corporate bastards and government authoritah wannabes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
King George III (Score:2)
speak up liberals... (Score:2)
cmon liberals. All you Bush bashers who hammered on this for 8 years. Speak up. Obama is now committing some of the same acts of privacy invasion as Bush was (rightly) accused of. Why isn't there more outcry here?
This bill gives ridiculous dictitorial powers to the President. I for one think it should not be passed. I have big problems with giving this kind of power to the federal government.
Not introduced to Senate [STAFF WORKING DRAFT] (Score:5, Informative)
Not to rain on anybody's paranoia parade (OK, yes I am) but this is a [STAFF WORKING DRAFT] and has not been introduced to the Senate. It doesn't even have any sponsors. You won't find it on THOMAS, nor in the list of active legislation posted to senate.gov.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind looking in Thomas, check out the Senate's Daily Digest for 1 April. Nothing there either.
Re: (Score:2)
OH shit Rockefeller is a bastard. Rockefeller was the driving force behind telecom immunity. If any one person can be said to be the driving force behind something that had so much support in the rest of the legislature.
Why would anyone in Congress want to expand executive power and cut itself out of the oversight? That doesn't even make self-interest sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The very fact that ANYONE is WORKING ON THIS AT ALL, is what frightens the hell out of me.
Why would such a document, even one in a draft status, exist?
A working draft... so far (Score:5, Insightful)
The patriot act was rammed through.
The Federal Reserve act of 1913 was rammed through during christmas break.
I don't know how we still on slashdot manage to squabble over whether there is a bigger agenda, or whether these are all a series of innocently misapplied laws... Once we come to agree, it will be because it's too late.
Just a bill (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope it's not worse than the bill (Score:2)
described in this story [slashdot.org]!!!!
Compare and Contrast (Score:2)
I don't know where to start with this, but I'd like to see the conversation happen: how is this similar or different from the power the government has to impose emergency control over radio and television? The Emergency Broadcast System, for example. Can someone with knowledge address this? Is there a precedent for this kind of control in other forms of media?
Bring it (Score:2)
I welcome this proposed capability to openly damage the internet.
Mesh networks and other decentralization will ensure ATT is no longer the gatekeeper.
Lying outright. (Score:2)
No, that is not what that says or means. It says data about networks, not data on or transversing the network. It says the Secretary of Commerce will have access to things like IP addresses; bandwidth and capacity
Well... (Score:2)
As long as the President, PERSONALLY, does all the viewing of data, I'm not too concerned.
Same goes for SecComm.
I am completely against them sharing their findings though.
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We trust him, right?
[fonzie]Come onnnnnnnnnnnn!!!![/fonzie]
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
What, like he's President Google or something?
Actually, if there's any organization that already has the power to "shut down the Internet," Google comes pretty close. It's not like they could seal off the tubes, but it's an interesting mental exercise to imagine just how much Internet traffic would be curtailed if Google suddenly ceased all of its operations.
Then again, Microsoft could kill a lot of Internet activity if it suddenly activated whatever remote kill switch it might have in every legitimate Windows install. The only country largely unaffected would be China. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We trust him, right?
Completely besides the point. Even if we trust Obama, and I must admit I have doubts about him, this law will survive his term as president.
Can you trust EVERY FSCKING PRESIDENT that follows him?
I know I can't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Why is Obama once again getting blamed for something Congress is trying to do?
Because it's naive to think that the president has zero influence on the proposing of bills in Congress? Secondly, do you think that he's actually going to veto this? HAHAHAHAHA, yeah right.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Just from reading the summary, I'll say this.
I don't have any real problem with this, except for the non-defined nature of an emergency. I don't know how you would define an emergency (if you know what it is and when it's coming its not much of an emergency) but I would say something along the lines of "a situation which endangers vital communications links, including those needed for power generation, public safety, and military uses".
If a bot-net rises up that starts disrupting these communication links, extreme measures may be needed to ensure those links stay active. Temporarily closing down nonessential Internet traffic isn't much different from shutting down the freeway when road conditions make driving on it unsafe.
The problem, as usual, is the potential for abuse. I would give the president authority to shut down the Internet for not more than 48 hours, anything more than that should require congressional approval. Make abuse of this system a felony offense to punish any blatant abuses of the system. Of course, that is supposed to be how declaring war works too and that hasn't been followed since WWII.
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
anything more than that should require congressional approval.
Which will be about as worthless as the requirement that Congress is the only body that can declare war. They will just sign over any oversight they have to the president and be a bunch of rubber-stamping pantywaists.
Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)
That's why we should remove the oversight responsibility from Congress and assign it to the Union of Retired Postal Workers. Then we could have rubber-pantied stamp wasters.
It just sounds like a lot more fun to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just declare it a Cyberpolice Netaction. It's the handiest tool a president can have. Police actions over the past decades have kept America involved in dozens of countries fighting under warlike conditions without congressional approval at all. Usually, they'll roll over and provide the budget for it, too.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You know they would have defined Wednesday an emergency due to conficker, even though NOTHING HAPPENED.
I'm skeptical that the worm even exists.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
"...without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy..."??? This is NSA wiretapping all over again! Our new "Change we can believe in" president has only been in office for ~90 days, and he's already shaping up to be 'Dub' on steriods.
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure that the Commerce Sec. will side with the *IAA and declare an emergency quite often when they see too much P2P file sharing traffic.
Talk about a built in excuse to wield this power and pretty much any given moment.
I was joking the other day in another thread about how it had to 'kill' governments, including ours, that they were late to the party and had no real control of the internet.
I guess they read that...and came up with something like this.
I swear...this administration is punching so many scary things through congress I'm really afraid for what the country is gonna look like very soon, and if any of it can be undone??
Geez...the overboard spending (without actually doing anything about the main problem being the frozen credit in the banking system), the President talking about capping salaries even on companies that aren't taking bailout money, the Treas. Sec. talking about having the power to intervene in private companies (even those not on bailout money) and take them over in essence to 'save' them if they are looking 'troubled', the Atty General wanting to start up gun bans again, the head of DHS saying we need to crunch down on gun laws due to MX drug gang violence....and the list goes on.
Now...they was to legislate unlimited tapping of the internet and the ability to just turn off the spigot for very non-specific reasons? Ouch.
And I thought the previous administrations NSA taps were nefarious. This law has the potential to make that look completely insignificant.
Seriously....those that voted for "O" and were adament supporters. Is THIS the change you were wanting?
Re:wow (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously....those that voted for "O" and were adament supporters. Is THIS the change you were wanting?
Did you even read the article? The bill was introduced by a Democrat and a Republican. Obama was not involved.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
So, he's going to veto it then? Oh? No? Huh.
Well, I guess we really DO get change then. This time, it's going to be LEGAL when the president does it. That's a definite change!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ooo, please, godefroi, who wins the super bowl next year? you must be from the future, as you know the outcome of the bill... He's either going to veto it or not. We DO NOT know yet. Even if he doesn't, we don't know if he will (ab)use it. Stop doommongering.
Geee....
if someone put a contract in front of you, where basically your consideration in the contract was to "use what we give you at your leisure" and theirs was "giving you unlimited power", would you not sign it? If not, I'd call you stupid.
And as much as I can't stand Barack "hOpe" Hussein, I'm almost entirely sure he's not stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone honestly believe this bill would have been vetoed by the other guy?
No, but this guy ran on a platform consisting almost entirely of "I'm different from the other guy", so those who voted for this guy might be a little let down by stuff like this.
Hey, don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
Censorship? (Score:2)
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The internet won't be routing around anything when the President orders your ISP to sever your shit.
Re:Preparations for the third Bush administration (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm more worried (and you should too) about our current president that could have these "extended powers" very soon than some crazy left-wing fear/theory of another member of the Bush family becoming president four years from now. Democrats and Republicans will both fuck you over and continue to steer this country into irrelevancy. Wake up dammit!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironically this was a case of a Democrat and a Republican who usually votes with Democrats submitting the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm worried about any president holding such powers, not just the current or future one.
It's a slippery slope. Today, they censor the internet. Tomorrow, they censor the phones. Then it's mail. Then our speech.
It's a Democrat Bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop invoking a Bush boogeyman. Everyone is Washington is bad. Bush's alleged abuses are kid's stuff compared to what some previous administrations have pulled off, and probably will be sorely missed after we get through what's coming down the pipe...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're a funny guy! I may agree with your first statement, but your second is just Republican "But We Were SUPPOSED To Rule Forever Without Opposition Or Restraint" sour grapes. C'mon. You're just mad that it's Democrats taking away rights instead of Republicans - after all, that's supposed to be YOUR schtick!
Re: (Score:2)
Neither does using bold type! And lots of exclamation points!!!!
Oh lord, for the blink tag.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you even read what you post? From your own wikipedia link: "Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all."
Re:LMAO @ "Liberal Fascists" (Score:4, Insightful)
It gives the power to the electoral college to do so.
A President could have every single vote from the people and the electoral college could elect some other schlub. The only thing preventing this is the fact that the electors are appointed by the very people who want to get elected.
There are rules about the electoral college and the assignment of votes in state constitutions, as well. The point is, the power to elect the president is NOT constitutionally placed with the people, not does it realistically rest with them.
Votes are bought, elections are gamed, and people like you fail to see that Republican and Democrat politicians are the same fucking liars, the same fucking morons, with the same bullshit year after year.
But by all means - trot out that "political spectrum" chart you learned about in highschool, and say "fascism is on the RIGHT! It's a FACT!".
From your OWN shitipedia link:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology"
Some would call Obama's jackknifing of the economy radical, his constant "cooperation" with congress and his remarks on dissent ("Look, we won.") authoritariana, and of course Obama is trying to improve America's standing politically and economically.
"that aims to create a single-party state"
Which party controls the House? The Senate? The White House? All that's left is for a couple of justices to die off.
"with a government led by a dictator"
Obama says it and it happens. He's not crushing anyone under an iron fist, but what he says goes. His popularity is his main weapon. Hell, he just kicked out the CEO of a private company.
"who seeks national unity"
Yes we can? It's all about "we". And "change". And "working together". The man has won over the hearts and minds of tons of people. They follow him like groupies follow rock bands.
"and development"
I keep hearing about "new jobs" (without the mention that you can't create jobs without creating physical demand, instead, you can only shift jobs/money/debt around), and our "infrastructure". I have no doubt though that this is all bullshit that will never come to fruition because he won't be able to actually create jobs, and because the infrastructure requires real work and we have a serious lack of real workers (we've got a lot of politicians, lawyers, marketers, and other white collar "workers" that we could put to use).
"by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or race."
This one's too easy.
By the criteria listed in your own "evidence", many people could justifiably consider Obama a fascist. Whether or not you agree with them on a whole, or on specific points, is a matter of opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)