backtop


Print 133 comment(s) - last by 91TTZ.. on Jun 28 at 10:43 AM


Should the U.S. President have the power to kill some or all of the internet? That's the power that a new bill would grant.  (Source: Flickr)

The new bill was sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

ISPs who did not comply with orders handed down through the Department of Homeland Security would face steep fines.  (Source: Treehugger)
Bill proposed by Republican/Democrat Joe Lieberman would have virtually no limitations

The U.S. Senate is debating an unprecedented measure that would give the U.S. President and a branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) power to kill part or all of the internet hosted by private companies in the U.S., all in the name of protecting the motherland.  The bill, proposed by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) who at times has been referred to as a Republican, Independent, or Democrat (much of his career was spent as a moderate Democrat) has few if any limitations.

The new bill is named Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.  The bill is similar to a different bill drafted by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) that proposed giving the government power to "order the disconnection" of private networks or websites. 

Both bills have received a measure of support among both parties in the House and Senate.  And both have experienced a great deal of opposition from activists.

Under the new bill, a new government office called the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) would be created under the umbrella of the DHS, and would be tasked with the responsibility to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people" -- a loosely worded definition which is thought would grant it the power to shut down virtually any network in the country. 

Under the measure it orders that networks "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed," including shutdown.  Failure to cooperate would result in steep fines.

The NCCC would force private companies to participate in what it calls "information sharing".  In exchange for their cooperation networking firms are handed a juicy nugget -- immunity from civil lawsuits.  The U.S. government would pick up the tab for any provable monetary damage that was created based on NCCC enforcement actions.

Virtually all private internet service providers would be mandated to cooperate with the bill.  Those who did not show evidence that they had a clear system in place to give the government control access would  meet punishment.  The NCCC could "issue an order" against such rebellious providers -- though the exact nature of the order is unknown.

Ultimately the bill creates a power structure with the U.S. President at the top.  The U.S. President could dictate enforcement actions to the DHS and by proxy NCCC, which would then be carried out.  Those enforcements could include everything from minor takedowns to pulling the plug on virtually the entire internet.

About the only limiting language in the bill is that it forbids the government from forcing ISPs to hand over traffic records without appropriate warrants.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-MA) praised the bill and is quoted by ZDNet as remarking, "We cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realises the importance of protecting our cyber resources."

Technology and civil rights groups, though, are less thrilled.  TechAmerica, probably the largest US technology lobby group was quite unhappy, stating that the bill could create "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and a dangerous "potential for absolute power".  The Center for Democracy and Technology agrees, commenting that giving the President the "authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems" was unacceptable.

Nonetheless, the measure enjoys substantial backing both from Senate Democrats and Republicans and may soon be on its way to the House after some debate.

The full densely worded bill can be found here [PDF].


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

stupid communist.
By Methal on 6/24/2010 3:49:02 PM , Rating: 5
Need to form my own bill. GYFHOMFB. Stands for Get Your Fucking Hands Off My Freedom Bitch.

The hell is wrong with that clown?!




RE: stupid communist.
By xler8r on 6/24/2010 4:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Werd


RE: stupid communist.
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2010 4:03:40 PM , Rating: 5
We already have it. It is called an Amendment. The second one, to be exact.


RE: stupid communist.
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 7:44:00 PM , Rating: 1
Remember when we used to have a fourth one?


RE: stupid communist.
By zonkie on 6/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: stupid communist.
By inperfectdarkness on 6/25/2010 8:53:42 AM , Rating: 2
i think vince desi put it best. right there in postal 2, grafitti'd on a wall, "god sees your lies lieberman".


RE: stupid communist.
By mcnabney on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: stupid communist.
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2010 4:08:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This bill is a good thing


There is NOTHING good about a bill that allows our Government to control our free flow and sharing of information. Nothing. What this does is give them a backdoor they can abuse.

I would be very wary of something like this being passed into law.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of good Network Administrators out there right now who are working hard to keep their networks secure. The idea that our President might know more about it than they do is appalling.


RE: stupid communist.
By mcnabney on 6/24/2010 4:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
You do of course understand that all the Feds have to do right now is claim National Security and they can do essentially anything. It has been that way since the civil war.

This bill doesn't give the Feds any new rights or abilities, but it does protect the businesses that Federal action might impact and reinforces that the contents of servers are still protected by warrant.


RE: stupid communist.
By rcc on 6/25/2010 11:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a mixed bag. Just as formation of a corporation removes liability from individuals, removal of liability from ISPs etc will keep them from scrutinizing requests and fighting back if they think there is a problem.

So, I understand the logic, but it really runs both ways.


RE: stupid communist.
By hyvonen on 6/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: stupid communist.
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/24/2010 4:09:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This bill is a good thing because right now it is generally understood that the government can order the shutdown of servers and networks for National Security reasons. This bill protects the finacial impacts if any steps needed to be taken and also protects the data contained within, which will still require a warrant as before. It sounds like a good bill that clearly identifies how these actions can be done and the rights and renumerations for those impacted.


I would argue its a mistake to pass vaguely worded measures that give the government the power to suspend or otherwise tamper with a major part of the public sector economy and the single largest sources of free information in the world. This might be a charming measure, if we lived in China.


RE: stupid communist.
By mcnabney on 6/24/2010 4:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think the Feds have the right to seal the Borders? To inspect imports? Being able to shut down the Internet (within the United States) has always been a Federal power. This bill only provides a framework for how it can happen and who pays for it.

The bill was probably crafted in the same way as a prior telecom bill that determined who would pay for what if the government needed to shut down wired and wireless networks for national security reasons.


RE: stupid communist.
By FITCamaro on 6/24/2010 10:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
So move to China if you want this shit.

The end to the longest cease fire in history seems to be closer to ending every time these fools open their mouths.


RE: stupid communist.
By integr8d on 6/26/2010 9:47:41 PM , Rating: 3
"...and who pays for it."

That's right. Us.


RE: stupid communist.
By gamerk2 on 6/24/2010 4:30:49 PM , Rating: 1
Funny, doesn't the Patriot Act do the same exact thing with civil liberties? For the love of god, Republicans argue that its OK to revoke a US citizins right to a trial if government declares them a terrorist!

Fact is, this is what you get when you have a deacade of fear mongering: Republicans want it, and Democrats are too scared of being seen as weak on defense to vote against it.


RE: stupid communist.
By mcnabney on 6/24/2010 4:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
I am against the Patriot Ace, but I don't have a problem with this. This is only designed to shut down systems, not to access their contents. It would be similar to shutting down a highway. You may not be able to go anywhere, but nobody is searching your car either.

I can think of a lot of reasons that a network might need to be shut down at the source. Knowing that there is a kill switch and that somebody in charge will actually use it can be comforting, while the Patriot Ace allowed actual eavesdropping and data collection. Not even in the same league of play.


RE: stupid communist.
By seamonkey79 on 6/24/2010 5:43:16 PM , Rating: 5
I'm glad the government has never abused any powers that were given to them in a "this is a good idea" manner.

Phew, I'm certainly not worried about giving them more powers that they will surely not abuse.


RE: stupid communist.
By Quadrillity on 6/25/2010 8:04:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am against the Patriot Act...

I love to hear people say this. So, let me ask you... You are against a law that makes stopping terrorist plots easier? You do realize that "wire tapping" never invades your privacy for the simple fact that you have no privacy in public. Yes, you read that correctly. When you place a call/go on the internet you are using a PUBLIC network. Do you expect to have super secrete no girls allowed privacy in PUBLIC? You and your kind seem to always regurgitate what you are told by corrupt media rather than think for yourself.


RE: stupid communist.
By jthistle on 6/25/2010 12:40:39 PM , Rating: 3
I think you could consider a cell phone's broadcast through free space to the tower as being public space. However anything done on a fixed line is private. Networks in the US are owned by private companies and not the government.


RE: stupid communist.
By JediJeb on 6/25/2010 2:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
But most of those lines were paid for by government money, and are under the control of the FCC. Anything short of talking to someone in person or writing them a note and handing it off yourself would almost certainly fall under Public Domain in court.


RE: stupid communist.
By Quadrillity on 6/26/2010 3:14:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
However anything done on a fixed line is private.

So you own the lines and network that you use for phone and internet? No, the ISP owns it; and it is a public network.

So, we I go to the local mall which as build by private contractors with private money I am in a private place? I think most people that have issues with the Patriot Act don't even know the fundamental definition of a public place/network.

And it's obvious that you don't know anything about telcom industry because every one of the networks that involve internet/cellphone/landlines/satellite are public domains.


RE: stupid communist.
By cmdrdredd on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: stupid communist.
By Piiman on 6/26/2010 8:01:48 AM , Rating: 2
Think again. Remember this name?
Jose Padilla


RE: stupid communist.
By Noya on 6/24/2010 9:19:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fact is, this is what you get when you have a deacade of fear mongering: Republicans want it, and Democrats are too scared of being seen as weak on defense to vote against it.


Are you kidding me? Do you really think it's Republicans vs Democrats?

It's all a show for the masses to believe that they have a choice (party)or some say (vote) in what happens in this country.

It's setup to keep stupid people thinking it's an "us" vs "them" scenario, when in reality it's corporations/ultra-rich (Bilderberg) that make all the decisions.


RE: stupid communist.
By MojoMan on 6/25/2010 1:54:59 AM , Rating: 3
Noya is dead on... You guys should look up Bilderberg group. It used to be considered conspiracy theory, but an official list of participants is now released. People such as Eric Schmidt of Google attend. They are NOT nice people!

This whole left vs right is ridiculous. Here... This explains it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF6Dt7SS_yw


RE: stupid communist.
By 91TTZ on 6/28/2010 10:43:49 AM , Rating: 2
Lame conspiracy theory. It's no surprise that the influential people of the world have something in common and want to meet. This doesn't mean that they're running a secretive world government.

Wake up and stop believing that nonsense.


RE: stupid communist.
By YashBudini on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: stupid communist.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2010 6:36:51 PM , Rating: 4
You know I'm getting really tired of you and other liberal's on this site using this lame form of "Bush did it" moral relativism argument to explain away the Obama administrations blatant fascism. Moral relativism at it's worst I say.

You can bring up the past all you want, but I think it's sad that at the end of the day, you can't force yourself to simply accept the truth: that you were fooled into supporting a fascist because of some misguided ideology.

Obama is a fascist, sorry, the truth hurts. Start dealing with it, and stop the cycle of denial. Accept the facts, this really isn't that complicated.

This isn't about sides, this is about our country. And your side, honestly, is proving itself to be one huge fuckup. Deal with it and stop deflecting blame.


RE: stupid communist.
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 7:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't vote for Obama. I've said that before, how many more times before you hear it you brainless tool of the RNC.

Second, we will paying for W and the draft dodger's criminal acts for decades, so why stop complaining now? Bush & Co. took a dump on the Constitution. You complain all you want, nobody's cleaned up his mess yet. It'll still be around long after all that BP disappears.

There's a lot of irony in your post here, since you routinely blame the other side for all the problems and never listening, when that's exactly what your side has been doing for decades. Yes Mr Pot, Mr Kettle is black, but have you looked in the mirror lately?

Now be sure to go "recycle" your propaganda another 76 times.

Got hypocrisy? Really, how can you stand to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? And I'm gentle with you compared to some others who have posted (and made me LOL).


RE: stupid communist.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2010 7:57:29 PM , Rating: 3
Besides the Patriot Act, which only parts of it are arguably Unconstitutional, how exactly did Bush "dump on the Constitution" ??

Hey if you can play moral relevant, so can I!!! Obama has already shattered the Constitution in his first year of office. GM bailout , no brainier unconstitutional. Stimulus , unconstitutional. Health Care? This is a big one, they completely SHIT on the Constitution passing that. They used reconciliation for a NON budgetary bill, using a holder bill, to force and up and down vote and completely locking the Republicans out of it. That's grade A fascist horse shit right there son.

Other minor offenses include appointing Hillary Clinton to a position of higher pay while she was a Senator = Unconstitutional. Cap and Trade, NO BRAINER unconstitutional in SO many ways. I mean, the list goes on and on. How about firing (oh that's right, he "resigned") Mcquarters for exercising his First Amendment rights?

What about "Sweeping Financial Reform" ? Where in the Constitution does it say the government can decide how much a CEO gets paid, how bonuses are determined, and what a business can and can't do to make a profit legally?? Yeah, that's what I thought, asshole. Hostile government takeovers of businesses is most CERTAINLY against the Constitution!!

Can you imagine eight years of this? Talk about hypocrites, you guys come out of the woodwork when Republicans are in charge. But when you run the show, where is your moral outrage about freedoms and privacy rights? Dude get a clue, the things this administration are doing and trying to do would have been considered completely unheard of years ago.

Don't even reply, you lost and you know it.


RE: stupid communist.
By DigitalFreak on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: stupid communist.
By Quadrillity on 6/25/2010 12:09:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They both f'ked up the country

I'll agree that Bush wasn't perfect, but please enlighten us as to how to "f'ked up" the country. It may be your opinion, but I doubt you have any factual based evidence of this.


RE: stupid communist.
By Targon on 6/25/2010 1:03:22 PM , Rating: 1
Considering Bush took us to war in Iraq under false pretenses, you could say that it seriously reduced the trust by citizens of the federal government.

No matter how you may feel about the situation in Iraq NOW, or if you agreed or disagreed with the need to go into Iraq, the REASON given was that Iraq was aiding the terrorists that were behind the attacks on 9/11. Do you honestly think that the US government would have signed off on war in Iraq without the FALSE connection between Iraq and Afghanistan being given by the White House at that time?

The economy also tanked toward the end of George W's term in office, and it could be said that a combination of the situation in the middle east(made worse by Iraq), gas prices(related to Iraq), and policies put in place over the 6-7 years by the George W. administration were at fault.

I am not defending what Obama is doing, since I am disgusted with health care taking top priority while several million people were out of work(and still are) due to the economy. And this mess....why not put in policies to cut China off from the Internet when spammers, scammers, and hackers from China are causing so many problems?

Basically, we are in trouble as a nation because the federal and many state governments don't have ANY people with basic common(or uncommon) sense when it comes to economics.


RE: stupid communist.
By F4iHorn on 6/25/2010 1:48:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the REASON given was that Iraq was aiding the terrorists that were behind the attacks on 9/11.


That is incorrect. Bush did state that Iraq supported terrorism. Which they did. Saddam gave money to families of palestinian suicide bombers. He also stated that they may have had ties to al qaeda because there was intelligence that their officials had meetings. He did not say that Iraq had supported 9/11 terrorist. That was read into by the media and others. The pretense for the war was Iraq seeking WMD's and not allowing inspections. And in the current climate along with their support of terrorism, allowing that regime to continue was not acceptable. Weather you agree with their policies or not, it's not right to misrepresent what politicians say or do.


RE: stupid communist.
By YashBudini on 6/25/2010 5:15:09 PM , Rating: 1
"it's not right to misrepresent what politicians say or do.
"

If you watch Faux it's as far to the right as it can get.


RE: stupid communist.
By integr8d on 6/26/2010 10:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
So did S.A. and Iran. Where was the action there? Oh yeah. Politics.

S.A. provides oil.

Iran would be seen as fighting Israel's war.

Our country only moves in one direction, no matter who is in charge. No repeal of Patriot Act. No end of the wars. Gov wiretapping on all citizens. Gov takeover of industries. Bailouts. Fed Reserve protection. Cap and Trade to dampen anything left of an economy. Codex Alimentarius on the horizon. 13 million illegals (and counting). Massive deficits. Disclose Act to stifle grassroots. More banksters in Obama cabinet positions that any president in history.

All thanks to Republicans and Democrats. It's the political version of WWF. All a facade. There is no difference.

Banks+Corporations=Elite=Winners

Us=Losers holding the bag


RE: stupid communist.
By Quadrillity on 6/26/2010 3:27:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Considering Bush took us to war in Iraq under false pretenses, you could say that it seriously reduced the trust by citizens of the federal government.

What loony left wing newpaper do you base this off of? We were attacked by a terrorist group, and we retaliated. Now we are running a campaign to free a nation that is basically enslaved. The majority of people in Iraq and Afghanistan want us to be there and fight for their freedom. That is a fact that you WILL NOT see in the news. You know nothing about the war over there unless you have been there, so shut your f'in mouth.

quote:
Do you honestly think that the US government would have signed off on war in Iraq without the FALSE connection between Iraq and Afghanistan being given by the White House at that time?

The two biggest terrorist nations on the planet... what do you expect?! We have destroyed a LOT of terrorist operations so far, do you have a problem with this sir? If so, I hope the FBI knocks on your door in a few days with a first class ticket to interrogation for you.
quote:
The economy also tanked toward the end of George W's term in office, and it could be said that a combination of the situation in the middle east(made worse by Iraq), gas prices(related to Iraq), and policies put in place over the 6-7 years by the George W. administration were at fault.

So it has nothing with the idiotic laws created by Clinton? The "everyone should own a home regardless if they can pay for it or not" policy was a really good idea. Just because Bush was president when it finally came back to bite us in the ass doesn't mean he was responsible for it.
quote:
I am not defending what Obama is doing, since I am disgusted with health care taking top priority while several million people were out of work(and still are) due to the economy.

I agree that the health care bill is extremely destructive to this country. However, I feel very little sympathy for the millions out of work because:
1. They don't want to work.
2. They didn't have good back up plans. I have SEVERAL options to fall back on if my job tanks; good paying jobs at that.
quote:
Basically, we are in trouble as a nation because the federal and many state governments don't have ANY people with basic common(or uncommon) sense when it comes to economics.

I agree.


RE: stupid communist.
By integr8d on 6/26/2010 10:25:11 PM , Rating: 3
" The majority of people in Iraq and Afghanistan want us to be there and fight for their freedom. That is a fact that you WILL NOT see in the news."

Like we did for the 800,000 that died in Rwanda? That little spec of genocide in Africa that occurred while everyone watched?

Get off it. This war is about profits and always has been. Pentagon just admitted to knowing about $1T in resources in Afg. Clear it out, install a friendly gov, give the people condos, then send in the heavy mining corps. We'll loot that place dry just like every other country.

Wanna know who's next? Google Africom.

"We were attacked by a terrorist group, and we retaliated."

Yes. And had Al Q cornered. Then pulled out for Iraq and let them go. Pure politics. Bush had an axe to grind. Hussein was a d-bag that we installed. But he had to go. No WMD's. No radicals, as S.H. had them under control. We came in, destabilized, terrorists flooded in.

"The two biggest terrorist nations on the planet... what do you expect?!"

You'll be saying this about Iran, when that one cranks up.

"So it has nothing with the idiotic laws created by Clinton?"

Both administrations are deeply responsible. The FBI warned the Bush admin of the credit swaps. Actual liabilities that the banks were holding = somewhere in the neighborhood of $64 quadrillion dollars (you read that right). The housing bubble was a minor hiccup, compared to what the banks were up to (and are still up to, if you can believe that). They're even using our bailout dollars to bet on Greece collapsing:)

But when you get right down to it, none of the presidents are ever really in charge. IMO, and I'm about as conservative as they come (even though I don't tow the party line and am rather disgusted that conservatives let the neo-cons take over), Kennedy was the last real president. That guy stood up to the elite, who were his buddies. Didn't last long though.

"They don't want to work."

No one actually WANTS to work. That's why it's called work. But saying that 10 million people (far higher, if you count people that have given up looking for jobs and people working part-time, menial jobs, which the gov doesn't) don't want to work is a bit disingenuous.

" I have SEVERAL options to fall back on if my job tanks; good paying jobs at that."

Until you don't.


RE: stupid communist.
By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 6/24/2010 8:39:23 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with you Reclaimer77. It is clear that Obama has never read the Constitution.

Also calling THE greatest document Ever written, (Constitution) "Fundamentally Flawed" is down right Anti-American.


RE: stupid communist.
By straycat74 on 6/24/2010 9:17:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is clear that Obama has never read the Constitution.

I would argue the opposite. He knows it so well he feels he can act around it.


RE: stupid communist.
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 11:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
"I would argue the opposite. He knows it so well he feels he can act around it."

Unfortunately the current master at work.


RE: stupid communist.
By BailoutBenny on 6/25/2010 4:02:03 PM , Rating: 4
The Constitution IS fatally flawed. The Articles of Confederation before it did much much more to limit the scope and size of government. The Constitution was devised by Hamilton and the other Federalists, really mercantilists, to create a centralized government that could implement protectionist and totalitarian policies. They knew that it would devolve into the mess we have today and that is exactly what they wanted. Jefferson absolutely hated the document and had superior insight into just what would happen when the Constitution was ratified. In reality, the Constitution is a dead letter unenforced by the people it was meant to protect and rendered meaningless by the SCOTUS, a wing of the government, through its constant interpretation of what should be a static set of laws. It doesn't even apply to anyone living today. NONE of us signed the damn thing! Implied consent can't even be used as a reason because none of us had a choice, we have birthright binding citizenship!


RE: stupid communist.
By straycat74 on 6/25/2010 7:26:53 PM , Rating: 2
idiot.


RE: stupid communist.
By BailoutBenny on 6/25/2010 10:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
Can you point out why I am an idiot? Perhaps highlight why you think the Constitution isn't fundamentally flawed? See I think it is in part because of three particular clauses that have historically been used to justify every governmental power grab. Those are the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, and the general welfare clause. With just these three parts, only 2 or 3 lines each, the government has managed to skirt just about every restriction placed on it.

When it feels like it, the government just ignores the document outright. Telecom immunity, that thing that happened after it was brought to light that the telephone companies were just giving your information to the government without a warrant, for instance. The Constitution specifically forbids ex post facto laws, and telecom immunity is an ex post facto law. It pardons behavior that happened in the past, or "after the fact".

Congress was granted the power to issue debt backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Look where we are now economically. Look at what happened to our money system with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the arrival of Bretton Woods, which ultimately led to us defaulting on our debt when Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.

Congress, and Congress alone, has the power to wage war. Yet look at our American empire, started through Manifest Destiny and the Spanish American War and continuing today. Our military is spread so thin any country with the desire to do so could waltz right onto our shores. Do we even declare wars anymore or do we just send troops wherever the president says they should go and kill people? Hell, the government has already put forth the position that anyone they merely declare a terrorist loses all protections granted to a normal citizen. They even stated the case that on the president's say so they can assassinate U.S. citizens. I'm sure the due process clause would have something to say about that but the government wouldn't care or listen or would find something in the document that could justify it through the legal gymnastics of the SCOTUS.

There is much more but I think you might get the picture.

Study history and learning from it. Look at where we are today and learn from that. So much is wrong here, so much justified by that document you hold so dear.


RE: stupid communist.
By knutjb on 6/27/2010 2:19:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Can you point out why I am an idiot? Perhaps highlight why you think the Constitution isn't fundamentally flawed?
It contains a process to correct it if needed. How is that "fundamentally flawed?"
quote:
the government has managed to skirt just about every restriction placed on it.
Because the voters have allowed our representatives to behave in such a manner.
quote:
When it feels like it, the government just ignores the document outright.
Then we are supposed to vote the bums out, that is our responsibility.
quote:
Congress was granted the power to issue debt backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Look where we are now economically. Look at what happened to our money system with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the arrival of Bretton Woods, which ultimately led to us defaulting on our debt when Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.
Because they didn't want to control spending, if they had we wouldn't be in this current fiasco. Also look up the 17th Amendment http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am17, that change removed one of the checks in the system. Do you think the States would continue to return someone who keeps creating unfunded mandates for which the States must fund?
quote:
Our military is spread so thin any country with the desire to do so could waltz right onto our shores.
You're "fundamentally flawed" with that argument; the executive branch is failing to control the boarders like maybe stopping construction on the fence... Obama and other Progressives & Liberals measure success in resources used, not by outcome.
quote:
They even stated the case that on the president's say so they can assassinate U.S. citizens.
You can loose your citizenship once you take up arms against the US.
quote:
There is much more but I think you might get the picture. Study history and learning from it. Look at where we are today and learn from that. So much is wrong here, so much justified by that document you hold so dear.
You seem to be missing a big part of history, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and the Progressive Movement. They have thwarted the Constitution by backdooring it through laws, that while wrong, are allowed to continue because both parties are infected with Progressives. Neither party is willing to repeal the other party's bad legislation.

Progressives changed law school from Constitutional Law to Case Study Law. So instead of looking at a law based on direct Constitutionality they look at other cases to justify the outcome. Progressive's follow a Social, Racial, Worker, etc... Justice Ideology that parallels Marxism, Socialism, Communism, et al in objectives and outcome. It's all about power and control just like the poorly conceived bill above.


RE: stupid communist.
By chunkymonster on 6/25/2010 11:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure which America you are living in, but the the United Stated of America, the Constitution is even more relevant and meaningful today as it was to at the time it was written.

To imply that the Founding Fathers intentionally created this Republic so that it would eventually fail and fall into ruin is beyond ridiculous. Your views in Jefferson are contrary to his own writings and known history.

Fact is, I find so many things wrong with your statement that it makes me question whether you actually are an American citizen. And, if you are an American citizen, then your understanding of what the Constitution means to the American citizen has becomes warped beyond reasonable discussion.


RE: stupid communist.
By BailoutBenny on 6/27/2010 10:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
The Constitution is not relevant to anyone unless it fits their agenda, period. It has been used to justify massive governmental power grabs or it has been ignored outright with no consequence. As Lysander Spooner said, "The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." Due to the power set forth in the Constitution for Congress to establish a court system, and combined with the Judicial branch's powers, the government gets to determine the legitimacy and legality of its own laws, can you not see the conflict of interest there?

The "Founding Fathers" (I hate that reverential crap) as a whole did not intentionally create a republic so that it would fall apart. Some, Hamilton in particular, were mercantilists and monarchists, and wanted a system that would devolve into totalitarian power that could protect their economic interests and wield authority over all the states. The Articles of Confederation placed huge limitations on the scope and power of a central government. This was usurped by the Constitution, which has led to the devolution into a massive centralized state with near unlimited power, just as the anti-federalists warned and the federalists promised wouldn't happen.


RE: stupid communist.
By BailoutBenny on 6/27/2010 10:43:28 AM , Rating: 3
The ideas behind the founding of the United States are what should be important to the average citizen. Freedom and the equality of man with other man, not elevated status conditioned upon the circumstances of one's birth. Equality here does not mean the egalitarian ideal of fairness, only that each person is born with the ability to make their own choices.

There is nothing wrong with being critical of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with wanting to change the form of government. This desire to change government is what brought about the U.S. in the first place! It is written into our Declaration of Independence that not only do we have the right, but it is our DUTY, to change the government if it no longer suits our purpose or if it leads to massive injustices among men.

I don't understand the reverence the Constitution garners. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but not because of his belief in the Constitution, but because of his belief in freedom and prosperity and because he is not owned by corporate America.


RE: stupid communist.
By thurston on 6/24/2010 10:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides the Patriot Act, which only parts of it are arguably Unconstitutional, how exactly did Bush "dump on the Constitution" ??


Why does the Patriot Act not count?


RE: stupid communist.
By Quadrillity on 6/25/2010 8:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does the Patriot Act not count?

Because it does not infringe on your rights of privacy. You can expect privacy in public places.


RE: stupid communist.
By Quadrillity on 6/25/2010 9:04:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You can't* expect privacy in public places.


RE: stupid communist.
By knutjb on 6/27/2010 2:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
FYI the Patriot Act requires renewal of authorization so it can be allowed to sunset. Do get worried if your reps remove the sunset provisions. The Health Care violation on the other hand must be repealed which is very hard to accomplish.


RE: stupid communist.
By YashBudini on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: stupid communist.
By rdawise on 6/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: stupid communist.
By F4iHorn on 6/25/2010 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 3
I don't want to turn this into a healthcare debate but it drives me nuts when people compare the healthcare bill with states requiring car insurance.

1) States require LIABILITY insurance not comprehensive. You know, it covers the other guy you hit not you.

2) You are required to have liability insurance to drive on the road. They are not forcing you to have car insurance. You don't have to drive. With the healthcare bill EVERYONE is forced to buy health insurance regardless if you want it or need it. This will be the first time that I am aware of that everyone in the United States is required to buy something regardless of circumstances.

3) Mandating car insurance is at the state level, not the federal level. And while all states currently do it, any of them can stop doing it at any time. We won't have that choice with the healthcare bill (sorry, healthcare law). If the scheme sucks, and I'm sure it will, we ALL deal with the consequences.


RE: stupid communist.
By wempa on 6/25/2010 12:40:54 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Driving is a privilege , not a right. So, it is certainly acceptable to require liability insurance. Comparing the requirement to have liability with the requirement to have health insurance is asinine.


RE: stupid communist.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/25/2010 4:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stimulus- Were you asleep when Bush gave his Stimulus? I guess it was ok then.


That wasn't a Stimulus, it was a tax rebate. That was our OWN money being given to US. It wasn't the Government taking out a huge loan, and putting in a slush fund where IT decided where to spend it.

Bush put the money in the hands of the people. Obama put the peoples money in the hands of the Government. See the difference?

quote:
Bailout - The process was began by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. It was only when Obama took office that Repubs spoke out.


Everyone was against the bailout. But Obama did it. End of story. Nothing Bush did made an impact on what happened after he left office. And Bush would have handled it radically different. Just like the TARP, he did NOT seek to take control of businesses.

quote:
Health Care - Arguable here, but I would say that this was the same as some states mandating you have car insurance.


WHAT !!?? I see the other poster already educated you on how f'ing stupid this statement was.


RE: stupid communist.
By bigdawg1988 on 6/25/2010 9:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
According to Wiki Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.

Now how does President Obama fit that definition? Besides, I don't see his name on the bill, both sides of the aisle are in on this. Sounds like you've been listening to Limbaugh too much.


RE: stupid communist.
By Piiman on 6/26/2010 8:07:54 AM , Rating: 3
Do you even know what Fascist is?

"Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.[15] They claim that culture is created by collective national society and its state, that cultural ideas are what give individuals identity, and thus rejects individualism.[15] In viewing the nation as an integrated collective community, they see pluralism as a dysfunctional aspect of society, and justify a totalitarian state as a means to represent the nation in its entirety.[16][17] They advocate the creation of a single-party state.[18] Fascists reject and resist autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated.[19] They consider attempts to create such autonomy as an affront and threat to the nation.[19] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.[20] They identify violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[21]"

Oddly this sounds more like the Bush Cheney group than Obama.


RE: stupid communist.
By YashBudini on 6/26/2010 1:08:34 PM , Rating: 1
You can't reason with people who don't think for themselves. These guys are all sheeple.


RE: stupid communist.
By knutjb on 6/27/2010 6:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
Fascism really has little to do with conservatives or capitalism and much to do with socialism, liberalism, marxism, and communism.

Look back at Fascist regimes; total government control, nationalized industry, control of the media, micromanagement of society... None of those are conservative or capitalist ideals. Only, to use your word, sheeple would accept the connection as factual.

You might want to look at history, the actual ideologies, and where they share similarities or you can continue being a sheeple.


RE: stupid communist.
By straycat74 on 6/26/2010 2:17:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Oddly this sounds more like the Bush Cheney group than Obama.

I thought you were talking about the rush of Obama into office by the cult of personality. If you don't think and do things their way, you are in the opposition of progress and reform. Bush had a congress controlled by the other party. What do we have now?
It's odd that your opinion is parroted across shows like the Daily Show and most major news organizations. You really are the definition of "free thinker".


RE: stupid communist.
By probedb on 6/25/2010 4:21:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah because only US companies have hosting in the US, there are definitely no other countries using the US for hosting....at all...nope definitely not.


RE: stupid communist.
By gorehound on 6/24/2010 5:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
this is a bad idea.the government should not have the power to do this to us.take down the internet my arse.i am really getting fed up with this government and i mean all demnocrats and republicans.i voted for obama and wish i voted for someone else like a different party.
we need the pirate party or a new party to protect rights not take them away.


RE: stupid communist.
By lightfoot on 6/24/2010 5:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...we need the pirate party...

But they will never get anything done with the Ninja Party constantly obstructing things.


RE: stupid communist.
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 11:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
"we need the pirate party"

We already have 2 of these.


The Second Amendment...
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2010 3:58:10 PM , Rating: 5
I'm glad we have it. It becomes very convenient in times like these.




RE: The Second Amendment...
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/24/2010 4:03:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'm glad we have it. It becomes very convenient in times like these.


You forget, that requires a judge who actually is interested in defending the Constitution, which seems likely to become increasingly rare as time goes on, given the direction both of our nation's parties are headed in...


RE: The Second Amendment...
By MrBlastman on 6/24/2010 4:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sad, isn't it?

The levels of extremity on both sides of the isle are tearing our country apart. It is like the voice of reason left the isles a long time ago.


RE: The Second Amendment...
By ClownPuncher on 6/24/2010 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
That is why some of us are sitting on the carpet between the aisles . Two party politics become increasingly damaging every 4 years as the pendulum seems to swing wider with each pass.


RE: The Second Amendment...
By lightfoot on 6/24/2010 5:46:20 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That is why some of us are sitting on the carpet between the aisles .

Like it or not, that is the very cause of the problem.

That is because moderates are fed up with the process and have stopped contributing to either of the two parties. They can't vote in the primaries (in most cases) and they act suprised when there are two extremists running in the general election.

If you truly care about the country you have to pick a side; it doesn't matter which one. Moderates are the only people who can bring reason back to politics, and both sides desperately need it.

Creating a new party like the Tea Party or Green Party will never work. The system, as it is currently designed, heavily favors the two largest parties.


RE: The Second Amendment...
By straycat74 on 6/24/2010 9:22:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They can't vote in the primaries (in most cases) and they act suprised when there are two extremists running in the general election.

McCain, not very extremist, he was middle of the road. Guess what happened? LOST.

Bush? Ask any conservative if he was a a 'right winger'. He is and acted as a moderate. Across the isle. That is what got him into trouble with conservatives. TOO MUCH SPENDING. He thought it would buy him points working with the other side. WRONG. They just use you and then let the venom fly.


RE: The Second Amendment...
By ebakke on 6/24/2010 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 1
The voices of reason said "Fuck it, I'm out. I'm surrounded by crazy people."


RE: The Second Amendment...
By YashBudini on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Second Amendment...
By sviola on 6/24/2010 5:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
Then, it is probably time for America to start thinking about dividing the isle in more pieces...Maybe having a third way that can counter balance this kind of c***. Heck, you can even call it Good Sense Party. Imagine it:

Candidate X is Democrat, Cadidate Y is Republican and Candidate Z is (has) Good Sense...


RE: The Second Amendment...
By lightfoot on 6/24/2010 5:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
And "Good Sense" would pull more votes from either the Democrats or the Republicans (who ever is more similar from an ideological stand point,) causing the election to be won by the side with the most divergent ideals (the side that lost the fewest voters.)

Third parties don't work because the two party system has had two centuries to firmly entrench its self.


RE: The Second Amendment...
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 7:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
"Third parties don't work because the two party system has had two centuries to firmly entrench its self. "

You just stated why sooner or later this is the end. The sheeple far outweigh the thinking people. The Darwin Awards are too few in number.


RE: The Second Amendment...
By straycat74 on 6/24/2010 9:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
Third parties don't work because of the division. The idea, however, is fundamentally flawed. If people want the third party ideals, why don't they get more votes?

The two party system works. The parties just change ideals. In the sixties the Democrats were fighting AGAINST equal rights, but now they are looked to as the party which defends them(lie. They took minorities and turned them back into slaves of the government (welfare), but they don't have to work in the fields, they just have to show up and vote.)

Change the party from within. That is what I am hoping for with the Tea party movement. I hope we get more people like Chris Criste(not that he was part of the tea party)


RE: The Second Amendment...
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 11:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
"Third parties don't work because of the division."

Who said anything about a 3rd party? How about 2 new parties and a new maximum security prison?


RE: The Second Amendment...
By bigdawg1988 on 6/25/2010 10:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
In the sixties the Democrats were fighting AGAINST equal rights, but now they are looked to as the party which defends them(lie. They took minorities and turned them back into slaves of the government (welfare), but they don't have to work in the fields, they just have to show up and vote.)

Those were conservative democrats (dixiecrats). And they were overcome by the liberal democrats. I guess maybe the black people should have voted republican and stayed in the fields.

The ever increasing size of the black middle-class since the sixties says STFU! We don't need no stinking welfare! And what about white people on welfare? Who do they vote for?


RE: The Second Amendment...
By straycat74 on 6/27/2010 6:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess maybe the black people should have voted republican and stayed in the fields.


The REPUBLICANS were the driving force in the passage of the 1964 civil rights bill. Fact. Deal with it.


RE: The Second Amendment...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Second Amendment...
By YashBudini on 6/25/2010 5:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
"The Republican party has such little power in Congress that it might as well not even exist. They don't have the votes to stop, or start, ANYTHING. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37904586/ns/politics-c...

Duh!


RE: The Second Amendment...
By omnicronx on 6/24/2010 4:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think there should be provisions, but I'm getting the feeling that you guys think its purpose is to be used as a censoring tool..

Seems to me like its an ultimate shutdown button for say.. a Giant cyber attack from China?

From the wording it does not seem like they don't have the ability to censor content such as specific websites(unlike the earler bill).. Correct me if I am wrong on this one though..


RE: The Second Amendment...
By sviola on 6/24/2010 5:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it opens the precedent for "You do as I say or I'll shut you down and declare it was National Security" kind of action by who is in charge.


RE: The Second Amendment...
By DigitalFreak on 6/24/2010 8:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
It's not like that hasn't happened before. ;0)


RE: The Second Amendment...
By raumkrieger on 6/24/2010 5:40:52 PM , Rating: 4
What would China attack? The only targets that could cause a "cyber 9/11" are on closed networks, for good reason.

Anyone, nay, everyone who supports this bill is in the pocket of Big Media.


I feel sorry for the American people...
By Daniel8uk on 6/24/2010 4:07:45 PM , Rating: 1
The guy who purposed this used an example, he said something along the lines of 'Well China can do this, so why can't we?'

In case anyone has been living under a rock for the last few decades he just cited a country which has an rather disturbing record when it comes to blocking free speech, among so many other things.

I'm not sure what the American politicians are on, or who is paying them, or perhaps they are egging each other on to do the most stupidest and daring things right in the face of the American public, but one is certain this isn't about 'protecting' America from the evil enemies. It's about controlling free speech.

If anyone remembers the whole issue with North/ South Korea, there was a lot, and I mean a lot of opposition to the war the whole investigation, and a lot of South Koreans were able to read up about the research being done and they opposed the actions of their own government and the United States. That is what the US government is trying to protect itself from, the power that people wield with free speech and global communication's.

Now I eagerly await the replies that will try to spin this as a 'good thing' for the American people.




By Wulf145 on 6/24/2010 4:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not sure what the American politicians are on, or who is paying them,...


Just look at what the results of their Domestic and Foreign policy are and you can make pretty accurate guess. ;-)

quote:
...or perhaps they are egging each other on to do the most stupidest and daring things right in the face of the American public, but one is certain this isn't about 'protecting' America from the evil enemies. It's about controlling free speech.


I think that you have hit the nail on the head.


RE: I feel sorry for the American people...
By JediJeb on 6/24/2010 5:10:07 PM , Rating: 5
I posted this elsewhere but it seems very appropriate for this topic also.

I am starting a study on what happens to large centralized governments and so far it doesn't look good. Go back into history to the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, then England, France and Spain during their Colonial times and others. Once the power became centralized instead of spread out (like the Greek City States or the state and local US governments) and tribute or taxes were raised to allow the centralized government take care of the citizens instead of the burden being spread out in a decentralized manner, problems began. Governments become corrupted while taxes are increased to cover the perceived needs of the citizens to keep them happy and the rulers in power. Eventually every one of these "Empires" crumbled. Usually it comes as a mixture of dissent from within and attacks from the outside. The Founding Fathers of the US realized this and it why they set up our government as a tiered division of power to be distributed to Federal, State, and Local governments.

Today in the US we are beginning to see this taken away as the leaders are trying to bring us more and more into a heavily centralized government that controls every aspect of our lives. The question is will the US soon follow the path of all other governments of this type in the past? History says the odds are good the same will happen. Can anyone show an example of a large centralized government that has survived without collapsing? If so I would like to study that civilization to see where we might be able to improve ours today.

This is just one more tool to gather the power into the central government and take it away from the individual citizen. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, this type of thing is not a good idea. As stated in another thread on this topic, if a attack were to occur, no "off switch" would be fast enough unless it is in the hands of the people actually running the servers and nodes. By the time the president can be made aware of what is happening, and a decision made to shut things down, then the orders carried out, the damage would already have been done and this would be like using boards to prop up a house against aftershocks after the big quake has already happened. Imagine routing all 911 calls through the White House. How fast would the ambulance get to you if that were done? Some things are better left to the local people to take care of with oversight from the centralized government not direct control from them.


By sviola on 6/24/2010 5:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
yeah...maybe we just hit the turn point or maybe the downfall has already started (the symtomps are there - wars being fought far from home consuming resources, internal economical issues, unpayable debt, etc -, but there is always time to survive if things are dealt swiftly).


By F4iHorn on 6/25/2010 12:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can anyone show an example of a large centralized government that has survived without collapsing?


Nope.

Thank you for your sympathy. We still have a ways to go until total meltdown. But we're trying to get there as soon as possible. Unfortunately we will have to experience real actual pain until we do anything about it. And the tragedy is, where do all the people that refuse to be controlled go if America ceases to be their sanctuary? I'm not saying this necessarily because of Obama. Obama and his policies are just a symptom. If more of us were like you and actually studied and absorbed world history with an open mind instead of just accepting platitudes from elitist, well, we wouldn't be on this path.


By Just Tom on 6/27/2010 2:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
Of course none of the historically decentralized societies lasted either. Maybe it is just that every society comes with an expiration date.


lol
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/24/2010 6:34:56 PM , Rating: 1
I want to see the government go ahead and try to shut down the internet.

Seriously I want the government to do it. Why? lol here's why.

scenario 1:
Obama shuts off the internet.
Company A can't process it's data to sister company B
Company A sues the government for loss of business

scenario 2:
Obama shuts off the internet.
Citizen A cannot express his belief violating amendment 1
Citizen A sues government and will win

In each scenario the bill is unconstitutional and fails the checks and balances.

Yay for the constitution of what is left of it anyway.




RE: lol
By Belard on 6/24/2010 7:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
This is NOT Obama... is that idiot Liberman.

And of course this Bill is a BAD idea.


RE: lol
By Reclaimer77 on 6/24/2010 7:23:01 PM , Rating: 1
If this bill made it to Obama's desk, he WOULD sign it. Without question.


RE: lol
By rdawise on 6/25/2010 2:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
So you use a bill that wasn't even proposed by Obama (or a democrat) to attack Obama. That makes sense to you?

What is even funnier, is that the guy proposing the Bill was against Obama.

This is not about Obama, it's about the President. The bill doesn't say Obama will shutdown the internet (kudos to the author for correctly naming the title this time).

Reclaimer, you are in another class of partisan idiots (right and left).


RE: lol
By YashBudini on 6/25/2010 5:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
"If this bill made it to Obama's desk, he WOULD sign it. Without question. "

And W wouldn't if he was in office? Oh please enough with the one side propaganda.


RE: lol
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/24/2010 7:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well the Bill gives Obama the shut off switch to the internet. Which Violates the first amendment and it also impacts ever business on the planet and they will all sue the government.

it's not just a Bad idea it's basically a brain fart.


RE: lol
By Belard on 6/25/2010 5:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
No, the Bill doesn't give Obama a kill switch.... PAY ATTENTION.

It gives the Govt/President the the right to make & use a kill switch.

So where were you with Bush's "There ought to be limits to Freedom"?


Cyber 9/11???
By bighairycamel on 6/24/2010 4:02:03 PM , Rating: 5
What the hell does cyber 9/11 mean? The only real national threat I see with cyberspace is within the national defense itself. Protecting that information is top priority but ultimately up to them. The same should be the case for any private company as well.

Once an attack happens it happens. Stopping it before the act (proper security measures) is much more important than after the fact. If Visa's network was comprimised it should be THEIR job to pull the plug, not uncle sam. There is nothing I can think of that would constitute a "cyber 9/11" that would need government intervention. The potential for abuse is much greater than for protection.




RE: Cyber 9/11???
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/24/2010 4:06:56 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What the hell does cyber 9/11 mean?


A: "Cyber 9/11" is a fictitious event that has not occurred and is unlikely to occur, but is being used by both parties as a tool for increasing government surveillance, extending regulatory powers over a free enterprise (ISPs), and quite possibly committing infringement of civil liberties on a massive scale.


RE: Cyber 9/11???
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 11:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
It's really bad but with less asbestos and mercury.


For some reason my first thought
By Smartless on 6/24/2010 4:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
Was that Southpark episode when the internet goes down and Stan goes and unplugs the Universal router then plugs it back in again.

In any case, I don't see how this helps cybersecurity a whole lot. I mean wouldn't major attacks come from outside and by the time it hits wouldn't it be too late?




By raumkrieger on 6/24/2010 5:37:56 PM , Rating: 3
It doesn't help cybersecurity much, if at all. This is just a thinly veiled anti-piracy law, put into motion by the real power behind the government.

Giving absolute power over ANYTHING to any part of the government is a horrid idea. The government shouldn't be put in charge of a light switch, let alone every US ISP.


Counterproductive
By rs1 on 6/24/2010 5:03:28 PM , Rating: 3
Moral and ethical concerns set aside for a moment, putting an Internet kill-switch in place is counterproductive. The Internet was originally created because the government wanted a communications routing network that would be resilient in the event of attack. Essentially, they wanted something that had no single point of failure that could be targeted to bring the whole system down.

Adding any kind of feature that can turn the entire system off completely defeats the purpose. No matter how the switch is implemented, it becomes a single, obvious point of failure, and makes the network vulnerable to any number of malicious attacks. People might attempt to break into the "switch" computer itself and trigger a shutdown, or to simply spoof packets to ISP's to trick them into shutting down.

A far-fetched but possible scenario might even see ISP's using this to wage a kind of corporate warfare against each other. What better way to convince people that your competitor's network is unreliable than to give some hacker the technical specs for how the switching mechanism works, and then pay him to intermittently switch off the competing network(s)?

This kill-switch proposal is an entirely bad idea.




RE: Counterproductive
By sviola on 6/24/2010 5:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. I think you put it very well.


Face palm?
By DigitalFreak on 6/24/2010 8:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
That Lieberman picture would make a good /facepalm.




RE: Face palm?
By DigitalFreak on 6/24/2010 8:32:47 PM , Rating: 1
Or "Oi! What the fuck have I done?"


RE: Face palm?
By YashBudini on 6/24/2010 11:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
More like one of those farting pillows.


Question
By F4iHorn on 6/25/2010 11:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
For those of you that support this, I'm curious. I would like to know if you would also support the administration being able to shut down all TV broadcast. Not just this administration, but every administration in the future as well. How about all radio broadcast? What about cell towers/ phone lines? What's the difference really? I won't judge you buy your answer. I'm just curious where everyone is at and what level of control they are willing to let the government have.




RE: Question
By JediJeb on 6/25/2010 3:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like it, but the government already has the authority to do that in a time of national emergency. If in the instance of a national emergency the government can seize any and all telecommunications for the use of the government or to protect national security. It more or less requires a state of martial law to do, but it is possible.


Interesting
By kennethHaldane on 6/26/2010 5:50:24 AM , Rating: 2
As we move into the future we keep going back to 1984.




RE: Interesting
By derricker on 6/27/2010 2:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
Words of wisdom.


Why do we really need this?
By Klober on 6/24/2010 5:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Because someone has been watching too much Terminator.




commie liberals
By Chiisuchianu on 6/24/2010 6:05:40 PM , Rating: 2
And liberals still want to give the government more power to keep the internet safe from "evil corporations," to make everyone "equal," and to make things fair and balanced for everyone, lmao.

I'm really starting to believe the people who support this hogwash ideology are learning disabled or something.




1934 Communications Act
By fhornmikey on 6/24/2010 8:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
According to the 1934 Communications Act (which is still in effect today), the President already has the power to shut down any and all telecommunications systems in situations he or she deems necessary for national security.

Do some research next time or pay someone who knows anything about the legal field to do it for you.




Karma is a bi tch.
By chick0n on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Karma is a bi tch.
By Quadrillity on 6/25/2010 9:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
awee... is someone jealous that we actually fight for our hard earned freedom?

What crap country do you live in?


wtf
By muhahaaha on 6/25/2010 12:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
Can someone tell me what country actually respects the rights of its citizens, because I am ready to move out of this f*<ked up country that was founded by people that believed in liberty and justice (AKA the United States) and has become so corrupt that it sickens me.




By zombiexl on 6/25/2010 9:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
First let me question this lovely piece of work..

quote:
Bill proposed by Republican/Democrat Joe Lieberman would have virtually no limitations


Lieberman is a liberal plain and simple. He has only sided with republicans on liberal bills and ideas.

I have a small private blog where i write down my thoughts for my friends and family to read. I blogged about this on May 20th this is old news. I am glad someone who's blogs are actually viewed finally found out about it. Why does it take you guys so damn long?




Which state?
By deltadeltadelta on 6/25/2010 9:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-MA)...


I believe you mean "Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)--unless Massachusetts has elected ANOTHER Republican Senator, subsequently tearing an even bigger hole in the universe.

Please resume flame war.




but but but...
By shin0bi272 on 6/25/2010 12:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
The people on Daily Tech told me I was stupid for saying that net neutrality would lead to the president having control over the internet so this story must be wrong...

Incompetent commies... freedom is for capitalists!




This is all small stuff
By YashBudini on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
FREEDOM OF SPEACH
By FaceMaster on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: FREEDOM OF SPEACH
By invidious on 6/24/2010 3:58:46 PM , Rating: 3
So now that the kids are out of school they are all coming to DT to spam stupidity on our threads?

quiet cleaver? amereca? propostrus? RANDOM CAPS? !!!!!!!!?


RE: FREEDOM OF SPEACH
By mcnabney on 6/24/2010 4:07:07 PM , Rating: 3
you forgot 'speach'.

Maybe pulling the plug isn't that bad of an idea after all....


RE: FREEDOM OF SPEACH
By Belard on 6/24/2010 7:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
This is NOT Obama... is that idiot Liberman.

And of course this Bill is a BAD idea.


RE: FREEDOM OF SPEACH
By *kjm on 6/24/2010 8:04:11 PM , Rating: 1
BS!!!!!!
"This is NOT Obama... is that idiot Liberman."

It's the whole new group we have to deal with and if you don't see it you need to wake up!


RE: FREEDOM OF SPEACH
By BF04 on 6/25/2010 7:28:00 AM , Rating: 2
You all are missing the point.

Scenario A

1. Obama shuts down the Internet
2. All the WoW players unite and storm DC yelling For tha Horde!!

:)


RE: FREEDOM OF SPEACH
By FaceMaster on 6/25/2010 8:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
1. Obama shuts down the Internet
2. All the WoW players unite and storm DC yelling For tha Horde!!
3. ???
4. Profit!


RE: FREEDOM OF SPEACH
By YashBudini on 6/25/2010 4:22:21 PM , Rating: 1
"PROPOSTRUS!"

Look look! Obama has already turned off Spell Checker!


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki