Emergency Government Control of the Internet? 853
TheZid writes "A newly proposed bill would give Uncle Sam the power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a 'cyber security emergency.' As usual, our government is trying to take away our privacy by citing security. What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform? What counts as an emergency? Can political opponents be deemed a cyber-security emergency?"
Backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs emergency control to disconnect Uncle Sam from the internet.
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Funny)
I call it the 1337th Ammendment.
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
The 9th and 10th Amendments will suffice. We just need to surround the Supreme Court and force the judges to read them, rather than ignore them.
BTW is this the "change" you were looking for? ;-)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
They already have.
(Hint: our weapons are not our guns; try reading the PATRIOT act sometime)
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey! I went to school in Oklahoma, you insensitive cloud!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have" Gerald Ford
Fixed that [wikiquote.org] for you.
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
However the slimy hordes of "patriots" who cheered for extrajudicial surveillance, rendition, and torture; but are now screaming about secession because obama threatens their internet make me sick.
It isn't just on this issue, it crops up all over. Whenever Obama indulges in his (far too frequent) vice of endorsing Bush policies, only more eloquent, the howls go up from the hordes who were shouting down opponents of the very same policies, back when the were Bush's.
For fuck's sake, people, do we have political principles, or just political teams?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any succession by any state would be illegal, and it has been that way for more than a hundred years.
With respect to your signature, and it's pertinent: Five guys and a moving van are also strong enough to take everything you have.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Informative)
In order to secede, you'd have to get a constitutional amendment passed. The Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White [cornell.edu] laid out in no uncertain terms that the Constitution allows only joining the union, and does not allow for leaving it. From their decision (edited somewhat and emphasis added):
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
> The Supreme Court's decision... [blah blah]
I'm really getting tired of this notion of the Supreme Court trumping everything including basic reading comprehension. This isn't some bad Star Trek episode (The Omega Glory) where the 'sacred words' are only for a few, we are all supposed to read and be able to understand them.
Facts:
1. The original Articles of Confederation did include a perpetual union clause. Didn't stop the States from dropping out and reforming under the current Constitution.
2. The States are soverign, the USA is but a creation of them.
3. Nothing actually IN the constitution even implies states may not leave. Several attempts were made by the the very people who wrote the damned thing.
> In order to secede, you'd have to get a constitutional amendment passed.
No, that wouldn't stop em. The primary reason state are wanting out is because the Federal government has been wiping their arses on the Constitution for decades. If the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th Amendments are ALL dead letters it would be madness to believe a new one would be honored. No, there is only one way out if a State wishes to leave: Possession of one or more fusion bombs and a working delivery system. The current Federal Government is all about force, thus the credible threat of force is the only thing it would respect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The words of the Supreme Court justices are not sacred, as they can (and certainly do) change their views on things. However, doing so is not something undertaken lightly, especially when it has the opportunity to cause significant upheaval, and the secession of a state falls squarely into that category.
As to your "facts":
1. The Constitution altered the form of government. It did not dissolve the union. After the first nine states adopted it, it became the form of government for those nine. The remainin
Re:Texas (Score:5, Insightful)
Q: Can the the province of Gaul secede from the Roman Empire?
A: No the Roman Senate and Emperor determined they cannot, but they did it anyway circa 460 A.D.
Q: Can the American colonies secede from the British Empire?
A: No the British Parliament determined they cannot, but they did it anyway.
Q: Can members states like the UK secede from the European Union?
A: The EU probably would say no, but the outcome depends if the UK has a bigger army or not.
POINT:
Secession is not a matter of law, but a matter of force. He who has the most force determines the outcome. If the Southern states had been better organized and won, the U.S. Supreme Court could have issued all the verdicts they wanted, but it would not have changed anything. I recall at one point the U.S. Supremes said it was illegal to deport the Indians living in Alabama to Oklahoma, due to existing U.S. treaties, but the sitting president said, "They made their ruling; now let's see them enforce it," and he did it anyway. In cases like this force rules, not men in robes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>If the government was to regulate the Internet (above what they do presently), then the 9th or 10th ammendments won't come into play. State-level control of the Internet isn't an idea even worthy of laughing at. It's got to be controlled on the national level, if it's to be controlled at all.
>>>
That's not how it works for the phone system, which is very similar to the internet (connections of wires for transferring communications over many miles). The phone system is controlled by the
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Funny)
It sounds like they'd only shut off their access to the outside world in the hopes to cut off cyberthreats like North Korean hackers trying to access nukes.
LoL. Well I live in Canada. The US Government can do whatever they want with their internets. It'll suck because the Halo servers will be down, along with Steam, WoW, Battlefield... ... ... ...
*sigh*
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm forming the Steam Political Alliance to keep the government out of my Steam! I NEED my TF2. :shakes angry fist:
Actually, I'm suprised HAMs haven't created a resiliant point to point civilian network yet. When the physical backbone goes down, I guess there's sattelite, but it's hard to beat point to point optical networks for mobility and reliability and hard to jam "frequencies" (unless it rains, or is cloudy, or...).
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one solution. Another solution rather than act like rambo and kill a bunch of innocent Koreans..... is to take a measured response, realize the amount of counterfeit dollars is less than 1/100th of a percent, and then accept the fact that it's not really that bad. Nor are all problems solvable.
Besides what Korea is doing is no worse than what the non-government *private* Federal Reserve has been doing - printing bonds, giving these pieces of paper to companies, and then buying them back with dollars. In essence printing money. THAT'S going to cause far more harm (via devaluation of your savings by ~10% per year) than a few counterfeit notes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch, as outlined in your nearest US Constitution. The Fed is a central bank created by Congress. Congress was specifically granted the power to do this in the Constitution. Now, they also have the power to destroy that central bank or do just about anything else to it. That's why you should support HR 1207 and S 604, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, also known as Audit the Fed, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul [R-Tex]. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/ [ronpaul.com]
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
Ya know, Representative Ron Paul has a bill in Congress right now, which I do not recall the title, but it's basically the "Audit the Federal Reserve" bill to find-out where the 2+ trillion dollars went.
Even though it has the signatures of 3/4 of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the other Democratic leadership refuses to let it onto the floor for an aye or nay vote.
THAT'S our administration in action. They are protecting their corporate donators (the Fed, the Banks, et cetera) from audit, but finding ways to hassle the citizens. I feel like experiencing Bush Part 2.
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
Pelosi and co are not 'the administration'.
I'm just about as liberal as they come and I'd gladly jettison Pelosi and Reid for some competent leadership, but 'the administration' is Obama and the Whitehouse, not Congress.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Informative)
minor nit:
They are the same party, they meet inside the White House with Obama, and they coordinate with one another to craft bills. They are as much a part of the administration as the vice-president. Perhaps moreso.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Working together doesn't make them part of the administration. The administration is Obama and his appointees who he will take with him when he leaves.
Senators are not part of any administration. Administration members are not senators either.
If you need to lump them, call them lieberals or libtards. If you need to say they are blindly obedient, call them Obamabots or Obamatons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe you've mistaken the Democrats for an organized political party. It's a common mistake, but they are not. An organized political party could pass a heath care bill when they have massive supermajorities in both houses of Congress.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Informative)
Pelosi and Reid may not be the administration, but if you don't believe they have a significant pull over what Obama does (hint: nothing without their express blessing), you're kidding yourself. I'm not even so sure that the administration is fully aware of the power drain they have suffered with this congress...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically, many here believe that the blue party is more in line with civil (e.g. digital) liberties and that the previous admin.
This potential bill is further proof that politicians of either party aim to wrestle control of communications for their own power. Wiretapping? Who really cares? Seizing my Internet connection based on vague 'emergency' rationale has me very concerned. Enter socialism...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does this have to do with Socialism? Really? The ignorant hyperbole coming from the right wing is unbelievable. I mean, do any of you even know what Socialism is? Or do you just know that it was a term co opted by the ignorant, vile fools who called themselves the National Socialist (NAZI) Party?
I actually read someone who equated the position of conservatives in America right now to the Jews in Germany while the Nazis came to power. It's un-fucking-believable really. I've been to Au
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Were you delivering the same lecture to the (still!) foaming-at-the-mouth left wing talking heads, activists, and tantrum-having street screamers who couldn't go a week for eight years without calling the last president "BusHitler?" Were you?
Re: (Score:3)
This is what you're supposed to believe, of course. These are individuals, and are not a single party working different ends of the spectrum towards a common goal. There is no such thing as good cop/bad cop, and there are two distinct political parties made up of individuals that never collaborate.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the "administration" is the sea of embedded bureaucrats who have held their position for 40 years or more.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
The last 2 years were DEM controlled sure, just as all the crap from the first 6 years came home to roost. Not exactly the fault of the DEM's that when the economy tanked, we'd ALREADY spent our way to 5 TRILLION in Debt unnecessarily. That made the NECESSARY spending for economic reasons tougher to deal with. Bush's last budget was 700 Billion deficit.
Wow, my head just exploded.
So let me follow your logic:
1) Bush's 700B deficit (which was manly due to spendulus)... was bad?
2) Obama's spending, which has doubled or tripled over Bush's record (also due to spendulus)... is good?
They both spent up a ton of money for the same reason, and both publicly expressed regret about doing so (who you choose to believe, of course, is left as an exercise for the reader).
A fair bit of the blame is due to the dems, especially Barney Frank. ("These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.) And the bill died in congress.
Educate yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Besides rearranging the deck chairs (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah. While the ship is going down, we can always count on Ron Paul to audit the ship's manifest. Someone might have stolen some cargo, after all.
Re:Besides rearranging the deck chairs (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect that finding those responsible and airing their crimes may just polarize America enough to take the action necessary to quickly recover from the crisis.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Funny)
I'd say about 2000 years ago, but that just wound up pissing off a bunch of Romans.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Clinton did the same stuff, FYI. So, you could just say that Obama is continuing Bush's continuation of Clinton's anti-privacy policies.
Yes, you can argue that it's really Congress that is doing this, but there is a lot of coordination, especially when you are talking about a Congress controlled by the same party.
And there isn't a single "right wing" or "left wing" view on this. What it boils down to is a statist view, and an anti-statist view.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you often deliberately lose arguments by undercutting yourself like this? Your paragraph means NOTHING next to actual statistics.
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
>>>People like you just piss me off. You read some right wing horse shit and go around spouting i
How are you any better? You are simply repeating the Obama and Democratic talking points ("50 million people uninsured") without ever bothering to examine if this number is the truth, or merely propaganda. Well I've done the research and here's the deal:
- The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid. The Congressional Budget Office says that any point-in-time 7% of Americans *temporarily* uninsured. In other words, between jobs. But they are not completely uninsured because they are protected by government unemployment benefits and COBRA.
- About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance. There are a number of reasons for this. Mine is that I think insurance is a scam and it's cheaper for me to simply pay my ~$200 a year doctor visit.
- About 3% are not citizens, so even under Obamacare, they still would not be covered. And then there's the many people that checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 20%.
BOTTOM LINE- There are only 8 million U.S. citizens who *want* insurance but are not covered by private or government plans.
8.
That's it.
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Informative)
- About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance. There are a number of reasons for this. Mine is that I think insurance is a scam and it's cheaper for me to simply pay my ~$200 a year doctor visit.
Man, it is your prerogative but I think you need to realize that insurance isn't about your $200 a year doctor visit.
Insurance is basically a lottery that you essentially do not want to win. To win means you have suffered an injury or illness well in excess of what you (or you and your company) have put into it. I don't know HOW wealthy you are but money can get chewed up really really fast if you suffer any kind of major medical issue. You just got cancer? After doctors visits, specialists visits, tests, scans, medications, chemo, surgery, rehab, hospital stays, and costs I am failing to mention....you are going to be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars.Maybe you are young, active, eat well, don't smoke, don't drink, and do everything right but that does not mean you are immune to cancer. Hell, even a good compound leg fracture is likely to cost you nearly $50,000.
Insurance companies make their money, no doubt. Most of the time you are essentially paying lots of money for other people to get treated and for the insurance companies to show a profit...but if you do happen to need it the ROI is extremely high.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Informative)
Well I've done the research and here's the deal:
The 50 million number comes a Census *mailin survey* which is completely unscientific and therefore invalid.
You've done the research? Care to provide a citation for your claims?
The 50 (sometimes 47) million number that is often quoted comes from SAHIE [census.gov]. A quick glance at the about [census.gov] page will show you that:
If you want to dig deaper then checkout the data inputs [census.gov] section.
BOTTOM LINE: it is not a "mailin" survey or anything of the sort. 47 million is the best, educated guess of the number of uninsured based on data from a wide variety of sources collected in 2005 and compiled by SAHIE; 50 million if you look at the 2006 data.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why be paranoid about laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I can not lay my hand on any part of the U.S. Constitution that allows a president or congress to declare martial law.
Nor should such a power ever exist. Time-and-time again the phrase "declared martial law" has prefaced the eventual takeover by dictators from the present-day, all the way back to the when Julius Caesar took-over Rome. The Declaration of War should be sufficient to indicate a state-of-heightened alertness. We don't need jackbooted thugs suspending the Constitution, and then quartering themselves in our homes, or other abuses of the citizens.
Just ask a japanese-American citizen circa 1944 how they felt.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Article I, Section 9, allows Congress to suspend habeas corpus "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it." It's not exactly martial law, but it would allow Congress to grant a great deal of power to government agencies to undertake actions normally not allowed. It will depend on how the Supreme Court interprets the "Rebellion or Invasion" phrasing. If it's a group of Americans undertaking an action that puts significant lives at risk (messing with SCADA networks, targeting
Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform? What counts as an emergency, can political opponents be deemed a cyber security emergency?"
Jesus christ man, leave something for the comments!
Re:Summary (Score:5, Funny)
Presidential Ban Button (Score:5, Funny)
Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies?
Perhaps he could have a big red button on his desk labelled "BAN", and could amuse himself by disconnecting people that make fun of him? The summary seems a little alarmist...
Re:Presidential Ban Button (Score:5, Insightful)
Sensitive facilities like power stations should not be directly connected to the internet in the first place!
Re:Presidential Ban Button (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems very alarmist. I don't see how dropping private computers off the net is an invasion of privacy either. This type of law is created for a "worst case" scenario. While people might not think it very possible, you DO need to plan for it - not unlike disaster recovery in IT. Say we get in a war with China and they attack our power stations in the US via a massive cyber attack - do you want there not to be guidelines at that time? There is a balance between freedom and national security, and the original poster seems to be much more of a sky-is-falling type in regards to this type of law.
Well, in your scenario, wouldn't it be easier, faster and less intrusive if they just took the power stations of the grid (Internet grid, not power grid... that'd just be stupid)?
If they were attacking banks, ask the banks to go offline (trust me, they'll do this gladly in a heartbeat) and/or take the Fed off line.
If an attack coming from China or wherever is attacking everything... then take down the routers at our borders.
If they are attacking the nuke silo's... well hell I hope those are not on the grid anyway!!!
and so on.
Seriously, I can think of no national emergency that would require the entire Web going off line that couldn't be solved by some simpler and much less drastic means. Well, except for something like the blogosphere and some unnamed news network with FOXxy reporters is saying bad things about the President. Something tells me that is the emergency that this bill is intended for.
Fooled again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fooled again? (Score:5, Insightful)
exactly - imagine the outrage and vitriol we would have seen had this occurred a year ago.
Re:Fooled again? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were GWB the left would be (Rightfully) screaming at the top of their lungs. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
Because we all know that GWB = Evil and BHO is just misguided but good hearted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this were GWB the left would be (Rightfully) screaming at the top of their lungs. I'm not going to hold my breath though.
If you'll bother to think back 10 years ago, you'd recall that the slashdot hivemind was just as outraged over Clinton's Echelon.
If you're not going to hold your breath, could you at least move over a bit, you're in the way of our screaming.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You would in fact find the left screaming about this, no matter where it came from.
And if you've ever read the real liberal media (I'm talking rags like Salon and The Nation, not so much the NY Times or NBC), you'd find that the left is criticizing the Obama administration rather heavily for continuing a lot of bad Bush administration policies regarding illegal wiretapping, "extraordinary rendition", and torture. One of the "weaknesses" of the left wing politics is an utter lack of loyalty to political lead
Racism (Score:3, Insightful)
Criticism of Obama makes you a racist, didn't you know?
Also, you're a racist if calling you a racist advances a leftist agenda. And if you defend yourself, you're just like a Klan member.
Re:Fooled again? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, if when you say "boss", you mean "US Senate", where this bill was introduced.
In any case, supporting that sentiment that elected officials of opposing parties are not significantly distinguishable, note that this bill in its original form [loc.gov] was a bipartisan bill, as one of the co-sponsors, Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME], is a member of the GOP.
Re:Fooled again? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm actually aiming this at pretty much all of the sibling posts so far.....
So, since she doesn't walk in perfect lock-step with the "core" of the Republican party, she's not really a Republican? Apparently the GOP disagrees, since she's y'know, a member of the party.
This kind of thinking drives me crazy. If the only point of a politician was to enforce their party's goals with no room for disagreement, then why bother having more than three people in each house of Congress? We could just assign one member of each party to be "The (party affiliation here) Senator" or "The (party affiliation here) Representative", and have an election to see which party picks up the extra person to give their party the majority. Then they could just function as a mouthpiece for the party, and do away with all that independent thinking stuff. In the event of a tie, the third chair stays empty.
Honestly, we need more congress-people who pay less attention to party directives and think for themselves, not less.
Not So Fast (Score:4, Informative)
was a bipartisan bill, as one of the co-sponsors, Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME], is a member of the GOP.
Olympia Snowe votes with Democrats more than Republicans. She was one of the only three Republicans in the Senate and House that voted on the $787 billion spending bill. One of those "Republicans," Arlen Specter, is now a Democrat.
Here is a visualization [oreilly.com] which performs an energy minimization mapping to group politicians by their voting record.
You can clearly see where Olympia Snowe votes in relation to the two parties. Saying this bill is bi-partisan is a more than a bit of a stretch.
don't underestimate our politicitian (Score:5, Informative)
What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform? What counts as an emergency, can political opponents be deemed a cyber security emergency?
Politicians in this country are all PR/marketing super-talents. Do you think they will or need to do something this unpolished?
Re:don't underestimate our politicitian (Score:4, Funny)
Surely you appreciate that the only thing keeping Ron Paul and the libertarians from taking over and fixing the country's problems is that The Man spies on every red-blooded American citizen and silences their political dissent by sending them off to Guantanamo.
With Gitmo being closed, The Man needs another means of keeping silent the influential bloggers that could otherwise oust them from power.
What's surprising is that Big Brother actually let information about this new plan slip out to the sheeple, rather than keeping it under wraps (just like Area 51 and Apollo).
Do it and watch the economy come to a stand-still (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single industry left that doesn't rely heavily on the Internet. Shutting down the Internet is the same as shutting down the economy.
Let's not over-react. (Score:5, Informative)
2. From the actual Bill:
(2) 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;
(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) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security"....
This meaning that basically any government related network such as national power grids, water plants. (Things that don't need to be accessible from the internet to begin with) will be under the control of the president during a time of an emergency.
This doesn't affect the (Internet) as a whole. The internet is not a central computer that sits in a government warehouse with an On/Off button. The internet is a protocol, not an object. Basically it is the collection of various servers and networking devices from all over the world.
You simple can't just "Turn it off" which is what many people are fearing.
So in short, if we the united states was under some kind of Cyber attack, the President could not turn off (Slashdot.org, digg.com, weather.com) but they could control the networks of those that are government related.
I still haven't read through the entire bill yet, but that seems to be the basic summary.
Re:Let's not over-react. (Score:4, Insightful)
I love the suggestion that this would be used to strangle public blogging against the plan to kill our grandmothers by forcing down their throats the unborn children of the last of our unsterilized white teen girls.
How perfectly nutty. And by "perfect" I mean overwhelmingly beautiful.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's not over-react. (Score:4, Interesting)
You obviously don't know the US government.
While I agree that what you have posted of the bill looks pretty harmless this could be the beginning of a new slippery slope. This could lead to additions to ISP that would allow the government to lock all private user accounts, throttle bandwidth and/or throw domestic web servers off the grid.
We've seen legislation passed with open ended restrictions and it's a scary to think what can happen from administration to administration with no more than a decree from one man. And with both the legislative and executive branch being under the control of one party it makes it all the worse.
While I don't think it will pass I don't want to find out the hard way.
Re:Let's not over-react. (Score:5, Informative)
Some big complaints I gleaned from other news sources seem to include the fact that if you're deemed a "critical" enough place, then
-- CNET [cnet.com]
The EFF further complains "The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
So, random government intrusion in random places which are "critical". Blargh. "Be more specific please" is the complaint.
Re:Let's not over-react. (Score:4, Insightful)
A) Who defines a "critical system"? Whoever that is would be wielding some serious power.
B) Is the Internet itself (i.e. the backbones which carry most traffic) considered a "critical infrastructure information system"?
C) If so, they he would have the kill switch to Mae East, Mae West, etc.... That is for all effects and purposes the ability to shut down US access to the Internet.
UN must control root DNS servers (Score:4, Funny)
The eternal September 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform?
I think people who believe this level of stupidity deserve to be disconnected from the Internet. They are fucking damage, and I'm getting tired of routing around them.
Re:The eternal September 11 (Score:4, Funny)
Dems already call people who disagree with the healthcare reform plan terrorists
False. Shutting down town hall meetings != disagreeing with the healthcare reform plan.
It's still hyperbole to call them "terrorists", but don't pretend the people Congressman Hill was referring to were merely expressing an opposing viewpoint -- their mission is to stifle debate and intimidate their opponents, just like the folks who've been brandishing guns outside the events.
Re:The eternal September 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Dems already call people who disagree with the healthcare reform plan terrorists
False. Shutting down town hall meetings != disagreeing with the healthcare reform plan.
It's still hyperbole to call them "terrorists", but don't pretend the people Congressman Hill was referring to were merely expressing an opposing viewpoint -- their mission is to stifle debate and intimidate their opponents, just like the folks who've been brandishing guns outside the events.
I totally agree. Calling Union thugs and ACORN workers, whom are bussed in to local town halls to fill up all the available seats and boo/shout down/intimidate/physically assault local residents whom ask critical questions of their representative, aren't really terrorists. I can't think of a better word for what to call them off the top of my head. Perhaps we can look into recent history to where such behavior has occurred before [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These are men who've chosen to use the implicit threat of violence against their political opponents.
As opposed to the members of the New Black Panther Party who stood outside a polling place and threatened violence against those they perceived as likely to vote against their preferred candidate?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You may not be aware, but Obama's appointees dropped the charges against the Panthers being referred to here. Look into it a bit, but I think you'll agree that what those men did was far more threatening than the men carrying guns to prove a point. The fact that you didn't draw the inference right away also speaks to the difference in media coverage between the two events.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She probably did that for a particular purpose, however. She did, before pointing out the carrying, say they were Astroturfing. Gore did the same thing, with the same 'brownshirt' label back in 2004.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/08/nancys_nazi_shock_did_she_forget_the_bush_years_97812.html [realclearpolitics.com]
Both sides do it whenever they feel like at and both sides are always appalled when it happens year after year.
(The careful observer will note the charade...)
Holy awful summary, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Abuse of government powers in violation of free speech for political gain, etc, shouldn't be included. Those issues have already been addressed... the federal government already has the ability to step in and limit free speech in private channels if there is clear and present danger. The potential for abuse is already there, and has been there all along. This bill in no way affects that.
Your ridiculous leading questions detract from the real issues, which are outlined in TFA (for people that oppose a bill like this).
IMO, instead of "ZOMGWTF Totalitarian State Abusing Government Powers for Political Gain!", the real issue here is that critical infrastructure is in the hands of private for-profit corporations. These companies have the ability to hamstring the US economically through unilateral action (or even by accident). Critical infrastructure should be nationalized, in my opinion, or at the very least very closely supervised to ensure it is secure.
But I imagine that my views are contrary to the majority of slashdotters, and I expect to be modded into oblivion. No one wants the goobermint in their internets, even when oversight is necessary to maintain the integrity of our economy (such as it is), especially in the face of a directed and concerted attack on that infrastructure.
Oh shit, they can take away my porn? (Score:5, Funny)
Privacy? Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
While it's quite a lot of things, being disconnected from the Internet is NOT a breach of my privacy. I hadn't heard that Echelon was dismantled, so I'm pretty sure that anything I send out unencrypted is being parsed (and anything encrypted stored for future reference) even without this particular emergency order. My stuff on my computer is still on my computer.
And I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but frankly it's about time that this kind of thing was talked about and put into law. The bits of the Internet that are on sovereign US territory are most certainly vital national infrastructure by now, and the law needs to be updated. It's long past time that the US government, and the US population woke up to the threat vectors presented by the Internet, and deal with the hard questions surrounding what to do when the "cyber war" eventually happens, whether it's concerted non-state entities mounting an attack against Internet connected infrastructure or government/military Internet areas, or state entities. If we have finally decided, or are close to deciding, what level of "attack" through networks constitutes a declaration of war (and if we haven't, we damn well should be doing THAT too), then the POTUS as Commander In Chief needs to be able to do the kind of crap you do in an attack on your country. And putting into law is a LOT better than letting whomever is the President at the time make up his powers in that situation from the ether like the Bush Administration did. This particular bill may or may not be the correct answer, I haven't read it. Something like this, however, is going to and should be put in place. I'm all for using the political process to make it the best possible bill, but acting like the government shouldn't ever be able to do this kind of thing is fantasy.
Thank God Slashdot commenters always RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't be absurd, it's completely within the realm of possibility to take those twelve pixels, enlarge them, and get a clear picture of a face. I saw it in the movies.
Re:It's times like these... (Score:5, Funny)
Judging from the appearance of some criminals, it doesn't seem likely that's always the camera's fault.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One more nail in the coffin.... (Score:5, Insightful)
not only of our basic freedoms that we FOUGHT and DIED for
Then how are you posting?
Re:One more nail in the coffin.... (Score:5, Insightful)
not only of our basic freedoms that we FOUGHT and DIED for, but also to our country as a whole. Look back in history and see how 'Empires' in their death throes squeeze more and more, tighten controls more and more to hold onto what is obviously disintegrating.
You know, after the Roman Republic turned into the Empire (with the attendant loss of freedoms), it survived for over 400 years. And we're nowhere near that point - no US presidents are ex-generals who conquered Washington, D.C. with their troops.
This is not the end.
Re:One more nail in the coffin.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup... It won't be "the end" until the government stops abiding by the election results (or starts fixing the elections). After that point, there's really no going back sans violence.
I keep having this crazy idea that I should run for president in '12. It would be the "Kick the Politicians Out of Washington" campaign. I keep wondering if enough people are fed up enough with the establishment that a movement to kick them all out and replace them with "normal" people would actually work.
My agenda:
- Constitutional amendment: single-issue bills only. (reduce pork and make reps accountable for everything they vote on instead of being able to hide behind a "must pass" bill)
- Constitutional amendment: 10 year sunset clause on ALL federal laws. (create an upper bound on the number of laws that the federal gov't can maintain)
- Move elections to an instant-run-off system so voters don't feel they have to try to game the system
- Move election day to July 4th. More people vote because they're off work. Can celebrate *getting* freedom and *keeping* it.
That should get us some REAL change!
Re:One more nail in the coffin.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they didn't have to worry about getting reelected, what incentive would they have to do what their constituents want?
Re:One more nail in the coffin.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This and a bunch of posts above it that basically say the same thing are a big part of the problems we are having today. WE are Americans and, yes, WE fought and died for the right to be free.
"WE the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The people who wrote that are as dead as the people who fought and died to make it happen. Nonetheless, they are us and WE are them. When you disconnect from that you lose sight of how important it is to maintain the freedoms afforded to us. The OP hasn't lost sight of that. Neither have I. WE are Americans. WE died for you and continue to do so whenever the situation merits.
The rest of the OP's post, which you may or may not have read, was concerned with the chipping away of our freedoms. That's what he/she meant by "one more nail in the coffin". You're rights won't be taken in a chunk. They'll be stripped away layer by layer. That way you won't notice.
And yes, sending packets and net access is one of those freedoms. To think that the only freedoms our consititution allows are for things that existed when it was written is a bit short sighted to say the least. Give the government this right and it will be abused. The Feds already have control over all their networks and systems and they have the ability to pull those plugs any time they feel threatened. No bill or law needed. A bill like this would give them power to unplug you, your company, your group, your town, your state, your country. WE fought and died so that our government could never have that type of control over our lives. If the Feds feel threatened, they don't need a bill, walk over to the router and unplug the fiber, but don't tread on my packets.
Re:Such Hysteria - Take A Chill Pill And A Nap (Score:4, Insightful)
What you mean is, how did this stupid idea make it into the U.S. Senate?
Re:Where Were You? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what I do want to know right now is where were you the past 8 years?
What the FUCK are you talking about? I would think you're a troll but your persistence makes that a little bit less likely.
Enlighten me on what sort of criticism free ride bush had during his 8 years? Excluding the few months after 9/11. And it's especially weird posting that on slashdot.
Where were you for 8 years? If you weren't submitting those stories or too busy stopping them to post, then go back under whatever rock you came from. The rest of us are trying to clean up that mess, and you're tracking it all over the floors.
You're trying to clean up the mess by giving the government more control or something? Because so far all I see is pretty much Bush 2.0, only Obama is better looking and charming and gives better speeches, which are pretty superficial reasons to like a guy, especially as our president. Let's go down a few points shall well?
- Iraq war policy? the same as Bush's
- Afghanistan? pretty identical to me. Wait, now we need more troops?
- Enemy combatants, can still be held indefinitely, but hey, we're closing down Gitmo!!! which changes nothing and is just a political maneuver.
- Money to big corporations? Well, I don't think this is hard to follow.
- Civil Liberties? The writing was on the wall before Obama was in office, he voted for that FISA bill or whatever the hell it was.
- Torture? Obama has left enough loop holes for plenty of this.
My question is, why hasn't Obama received the kind of criticism Bush did? But, to be fair, I think he's starting to get it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume this was mostly rhetorical
Because Obama hasn't actually done the same things that Bush did, and has tried to reverse most of the damage. Getting out of Iraq was really started before he took office and he saw no real reason to accelerate it more than was safe. Yeah you may be right about Afghanistan but time will tell. and you are actually right he is receiving criticism at an accelerating pace.
Re:Hands off! (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is how is it possible for there to be a "cyber-security emergency"? Not being able to reach youtube or google or slashdot or microsoft via the internet for a day or two isn't an emergency. If the counter example is not being able to reach a nuclear power plant's cooling control system or some other utility, then I have to wonder who put such a critical systems on an unsecured, unreliable network and why aren't those people in jail for being a bunch of incompetent twats?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This move is horribly transparent.
The evident reason is so that, in the event of social dissent or uprising, they can cut off the communication of those dissenting. See: Iran just a month ago.
"Oh, it's been legal for years. Why would anyone care when they started to do it now if they didn't care when the law was passed?"
Surely, though, the Democrats will not abuse this. Surely. We have nothing to worry about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Leave that up to the private sector. The private sector can react faster to an event than the government with all of it's bureaucratic mess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hands off! (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously (or strangely) he yelled back that why would they put redundancy in a civilian network? That's right, apparently there's a kill switch for the "civilian internet" that allows you to take down at least 3 states with just 1 fiber cut. Seeing how they are a monopoly, I consider them the internet for these 3 states.
I'm still a bit pissed off by it, only because I hold the belief that the internet was made to prevent censorship and damage.
Re:More government corruption (Score:4, Insightful)
The U.S. government is very, very corrupt. Someone plans to use emergency powers to make money, probably.
How the hell did that get rated troll?
If you're a Democrat moderator, think about Evil Bush and Evil Chaney and their ability to listen in on phone calls or start wars for Haliburton.
If you're a Republican moderator, think about Axelrod and having the White House give his advertising company money to make the healthcare commercials / propaganda--some of which ended up back in Axelrod's pockets.
If you're a Libertarian moderator, is it really wise to be moderating Slashdot while trying to sight in your scope?
Re:Let them do it (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as they aren't disconnecting me from the internet then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't smoke, then fine.
... they're one and the same, and if we don't take care of each other in this regard, we all suffer.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't drink, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't vote, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me anything, then fine.
Problem is, with that attitude it's guaranteed that sooner or later they're going to tell you can't do something that isn't fine with you. That's the nature of government, and the "fuck you, Jack, I"m all right" approach just doesn't work in the long run. You see, your rights don't end where mine begin