Text Size

No Holds Barred

Presidential control of the Internet?

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Presidential control of the Internet?

Unread postby RC » Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:21 pm

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

A bill is being proposed that would give the president emergency control of the internet in case of 'emergency'.

Quote from the article above:

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

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Who gets awarded these 'licenses'? What is considered an emergency? My mistrust for the government alarm is seriously going off here.

Thoughts?
User avatar
RC
Keepin' The Faith In Y-Town
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:22 am
Location: Girard, OH
Favorite Player: Kyrie Irving
Least Favorite Player: Chris Grant

Re: Presidential control of the Internet?

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:15 pm

RC wrote:http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

A bill is being proposed that would give the president emergency control of the internet in case of 'emergency'.

Quote from the article above:

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

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Who gets awarded these 'licenses'? What is considered an emergency? My mistrust for the government alarm is seriously going off here.

Thoughts?


Maybe criticism of the health care proposals would be considered an emergency and a reason to shut down dissent.

The internet has helped to drive protests since its inceptions and the blogosphere helps to keep people better informed than they've ever been (with a few kooky items thrown in).
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Re: Presidential control of the Internet?

Unread postby RC » Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm

This is a perfect example of how the mainstream media is biased as liberals mainly because if this was the Republicans pushing this the NBCs and CNNs of the world would be going nuts right now.

I haven't really heard a peep of an issue about this from them listening to radio all day.
User avatar
RC
Keepin' The Faith In Y-Town
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:22 am
Location: Girard, OH
Favorite Player: Kyrie Irving
Least Favorite Player: Chris Grant

Re: Presidential control of the Internet?

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:05 pm

RC wrote:This is a perfect example of how the mainstream media is biased as liberals mainly because if this was the Republicans pushing this the NBCs and CNNs of the world would be going nuts right now.

I haven't really heard a peep of an issue about this from them listening to radio all day.



:lmfao: This cracks me up, it really does. The ol' "Liberal Media Bias".....

For years people in this country and US citizens overseas (including Soldiers and Aid Workers) had their phones illegally tapped and were spied on without warrants. I didn't hear a peep about it from you.

And FTR, i'm against this bill, just like I was against the Patriot Act.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Presidential control of the Internet?

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:44 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:

:lmfao: This cracks me up, it really does. The ol' "Liberal Media Bias".....

For years people in this country and US citizens overseas (including Soldiers and Aid Workers) had their phones illegally tapped and were spied on without warrants. I didn't hear a peep about it from you.

And FTR, i'm against this bill, just like I was against the Patriot Act.


Prove it.

You'd hear a peep out of me if you could actually prove it instead of just being paranoid. All you ever bring up is books by anonymous people that tell you what you want to hear.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Re: Presidential control of the Internet?

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:21 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/spying ... topstories

The congressional oversight committees said Thursday that the Americans targeted included military officers in Iraq who called friends and family in the United States.

The allegations were made by two former military intercept operators on a television news report Thursday evening.

A terrorist surveillance program instituted by the Bush administration allows the intelligence community to monitor phone calls between the United States and overseas without a court order -- as long as one party to the call is a terror suspect.

Adrienne Kinne, a former U.S. Army Reserves Arab linguist, told ABC News the NSA was listening to the phone calls of U.S. military officers, journalists and aid workers overseas who were talking about "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."

David Murfee Faulk, a former U.S. Navy Arab linguist, said in the news report that he and his colleagues were listening to the conversations of military officers in Iraq who were talking with their spouses or girlfriends in the United States.

According to Faulk, they would often share the contents of some of the more salacious calls stored on their computers, listening to what he called "phone sex" and "pillow talk."

Both Kinne and Faulk worked at the NSA listening facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia. They told ABC that when linguists complained to supervisors about eavesdropping on personal conversations, they were ordered to continue transcribing the calls.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00021.html

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation ... id=1491889

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... -nsa_x.htm

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/21/att_nsa/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4534488.stm

http://www.sbindependent.org/node/834

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_pr ... 23845.html

Now Mac will try to discredit the sources, it's what they do. Bush broke the law by circumventing the FISA Courts. You have to get a warrant to spy on American Citizens, they did not. This is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

Bush admited this program exsited. So he proved it.

Bush added: "Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

They claim it was constitutional, which is a lie, that's what the FISA Courts are for, you show them the evidence linking an American citizen with an Al Qaeda, they grant you a warrant and you can spy on them all you like. They decided to go around FISA because they knew they didn't have the evidence to get a warrant. That's how the Bush Admin worked, when you can't follow the rules under the law, change the rules.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Presidential control of the Internet?

Unread postby RC » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:53 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
:lmfao: This cracks me up, it really does. The ol' "Liberal Media Bias".....

For years people in this country and US citizens overseas (including Soldiers and Aid Workers) had their phones illegally tapped and were spied on without warrants. I didn't hear a peep about it from you.

And FTR, i'm against this bill, just like I was against the Patriot Act.


Well, I wasn't really posting on this board when the whole Patriot Act mess was going on so I can't prove I was against the wiretapping. But I was. I don't like the govt (Repub and/or Dem) controlling communications nor different types of media since we can't trust either group to not abuse their powers.

That is why I have a problem with the internet bill that is being proposed.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Liberal Media Bias thing.
User avatar
RC
Keepin' The Faith In Y-Town
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:22 am
Location: Girard, OH
Favorite Player: Kyrie Irving
Least Favorite Player: Chris Grant

Re: Presidential control of the Internet?

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:43 pm

RC wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
:lmfao: This cracks me up, it really does. The ol' "Liberal Media Bias".....

For years people in this country and US citizens overseas (including Soldiers and Aid Workers) had their phones illegally tapped and were spied on without warrants. I didn't hear a peep about it from you.

And FTR, i'm against this bill, just like I was against the Patriot Act.


Well, I wasn't really posting on this board when the whole Patriot Act mess was going on so I can't prove I was against the wiretapping. But I was. I don't like the govt (Repub and/or Dem) controlling communications nor different types of media since we can't trust either group to not abuse their powers.
That is why I have a problem with the internet bill that is being proposed.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the Liberal Media Bias thing.


The bolded part we are in total agreement.

And like you, i'm totaly against this bill.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog


Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests