New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet
-
http://www.infowars.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet/[^] The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive. Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency. “The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh. The 197-page bill (PDF[^]) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
While I disagree with them, and you, saying it gives the President "absolute power" or whatever, it is a step in the wrong direction. Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority for an FCC, nevermind this kind of "regulation". But Ian is right; while I may be a minarchist, this is not granting absolute power of the internet to the Executive branch. But yes, this is pretty damaging in the end.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Your great conspiracy messiah is spinning the truth yet again.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet
False. The federal government would have the power to order the companies that make up the "critical infrastructure" to implement THEIR OWN emergency measures. The established government office would be able to "assess, evaluate," "encourage the development of, and recommend changes to" "cybersecurity standards and guidelines issued by private sector organizations, recognized international and domestic standards setting organizations, and Federal agencies." [247(b)(1-2)] -- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3480:[^] Basically, the companies work together with the new office to develop an action plan (Not a shutdown - More like a high security mode). It basically forces the companies to have a plan in place to guard against a "cyber" attack. All that said, I don't like the way this bill is set up... Sure, they can set whatever regulations they want for government offices and government networks, but I think their power over private sector companies should be limited to advising them on how to implement such a plan, and notifying them of an impending attack ("Now would probably be a good time to implement your plan"). Of course, if the government were to refuse to do contract to a company that wasn't up to their security standards, that's fine too.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Again, CSS proven wrong, when will he learn to do some research before saying anything?? Again CSS infowars is NOT the truth, infowars is NOT a trusted source of information... get your facts straight
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
Good job. He's like, "read the bill". Well, you did. Uber win. It's like a critical hit. (d20s are so awesome.)
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.It's an interesting issue, even if Alex Jones completely misinterprets it and tries to make it look like the end of the world. At least, it's better than the usual "You're all fascists/socialists/eugenicists!" or "Look! This guy said something stupid!"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
While I disagree with them, and you, saying it gives the President "absolute power" or whatever, it is a step in the wrong direction. Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority for an FCC, nevermind this kind of "regulation". But Ian is right; while I may be a minarchist, this is not granting absolute power of the internet to the Executive branch. But yes, this is pretty damaging in the end.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority for an FCC, nevermind this kind of "regulation".
I.8: Congress shall have power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; They also give national security justifications for its creation, but I think this one is more appropriate. Of course, while I agree with the need to have an organization that regulates spectrum usage (Otherwise it'd all be a mess of interference), I've always disagreed with their ability to censor broadcasts. That never should have existed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
At a first glance I'd have said so, but then I saw the headline of this website. Below there's written in small letters: "Phoenix Area..." Can't be his Truthbox then, since CaptainWeeParts lives in Columbus, Ohio, as far as I know.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
-
http://www.infowars.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet/[^] The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive. Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency. “The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh. The 197-page bill (PDF[^]) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
You are stupid. Obama can shut down the whole internet ? OR do you just not realise that Obama has no power over the rest of the world ? Or even what the 'rest of the world' is ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority for an FCC, nevermind this kind of "regulation".
I.8: Congress shall have power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; They also give national security justifications for its creation, but I think this one is more appropriate. Of course, while I agree with the need to have an organization that regulates spectrum usage (Otherwise it'd all be a mess of interference), I've always disagreed with their ability to censor broadcasts. That never should have existed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I think that's what I'm more about, I'm sorry. Yes, they can regulate commerce, but I think I mean to the extent that you are talking about. Because they are inhibiting free speech. Sorry. I really have to explain better sometimes.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I think that's what I'm more about, I'm sorry. Yes, they can regulate commerce, but I think I mean to the extent that you are talking about. Because they are inhibiting free speech. Sorry. I really have to explain better sometimes.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Free speech has to have limits. I'm not saying I agree with where they are (although I can't think of any example I disagree with too strongly), but it's still true, there have to be limits, it's not some great mantra that must always be obeyed.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
While I disagree with them, and you, saying it gives the President "absolute power" or whatever, it is a step in the wrong direction. Nowhere in the Constitution is there authority for an FCC, nevermind this kind of "regulation". But Ian is right; while I may be a minarchist, this is not granting absolute power of the internet to the Executive branch. But yes, this is pretty damaging in the end.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.It will give him power to command ISPs to shutdown service, or to block certain website deemed "dangerous".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Free speech has to have limits. I'm not saying I agree with where they are (although I can't think of any example I disagree with too strongly), but it's still true, there have to be limits, it's not some great mantra that must always be obeyed.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Then, really, I can't call you a liberal. I'd call you authoritarian. Look, the freedom of speech is precisely the one thing that made this country great. That, and as presented to me before, representation. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved. In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
It will give him power to command ISPs to shutdown service, or to block certain website deemed "dangerous".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
Right. For probably a limited amount of time, they would, to certain ISPs. But not the whole damned thing. I mean I know what you're saying, but the way it was spun is completely uncalled for. What I'm concerned about is the constant banning of certain channels on youtube... that's the start of it. And then this bill. So yes I'm in your court, but it's still incorrect. And yes, it will inhibit freedom. As usual. The purpose of the federal government was to protect liberty, not destroy it. And that's what we see. Correct?
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Then, really, I can't call you a liberal. I'd call you authoritarian. Look, the freedom of speech is precisely the one thing that made this country great. That, and as presented to me before, representation. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved. In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Then, really, I can't call you a liberal. I'd call you authoritarian.
Well, labels are always convenient, I guess.
josda1000 wrote:
. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved.
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ? To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ? To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
josda1000 wrote:
In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
This sort of black and white thinking is, in my opinion, the core reason for what I see as cognitive dissonance on your part.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It will give him power to command ISPs to shutdown service, or to block certain website deemed "dangerous".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
And as usual, you take the facts and let someone spin doctor them for you in to something they are not.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Free speech has to have limits. I'm not saying I agree with where they are (although I can't think of any example I disagree with too strongly), but it's still true, there have to be limits, it's not some great mantra that must always be obeyed.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Then, really, I can't call you a liberal. I'd call you authoritarian.
Well, labels are always convenient, I guess.
josda1000 wrote:
. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved.
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ? To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ? To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
josda1000 wrote:
In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
This sort of black and white thinking is, in my opinion, the core reason for what I see as cognitive dissonance on your part.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ? To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ? To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
Yes, I'll defend your freedom to say it. But the reasons as to why you can be arrested for such abuses: Yelling fire in a crowded room, if there is none existing, is a violation of other's freedom (property rights, fraud, perception). Telling people to rob houses because of race or political beliefs is still telling people to rob people, which is against the law. Guilt by association. But, logically speaking, being racist isn't a crime, and people are always hating on political beliefs. So that part is free, though racism is stupid, and I think we all agree there. To suggest that all people of a particular race should be killed is ok, but actually doing it is murder, and you must be prosecuted. Again, if you're going to defend freedom, you really have to defend it. Just because something's not PC doesn't mean that it's completely wrong.
Christian Graus wrote:
This sort of black and white thinking is, in my opinion, the core reason for what I see as cognitive dissonance on your part.
I know. You're not used to it. Neither am I, honestly. But I like it, it's opened up my mind.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Then, really, I can't call you a liberal. I'd call you authoritarian. Look, the freedom of speech is precisely the one thing that made this country great. That, and as presented to me before, representation. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved. In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.No, Free Speech doesn't work that way either. Lines have been drawn since the beginning of the country. You do NOT have the right to say something that can endanger someone. There is a line that everyone agrees on. I yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, I am in trouble. You don't have the right to drag someone's good name through the mud in an unfounded manner publically. It's a civil matter, but it is still well established. Either slander and libel are both in place to stop this. You CAN say you believe something, or think something is the case and mock someone, but you can't say it is a certainty when it is a lie. You have the right to speak, within reason. Some stuff is not allowed simply because it is dangerous to people's well being or reputation. (The second can still be done, as long as it is not misrepresenting things.) Time and place also matter. People can have a rally, assembly, whatever at a normal time. But if they are having your rally at 3 am in a residential neighborhood the cops can, will, and should come stop it. Their right to speak your mind to their buddies does not trump our right to sleep or be free of the rally.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ? To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ? To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
Yes, I'll defend your freedom to say it. But the reasons as to why you can be arrested for such abuses: Yelling fire in a crowded room, if there is none existing, is a violation of other's freedom (property rights, fraud, perception). Telling people to rob houses because of race or political beliefs is still telling people to rob people, which is against the law. Guilt by association. But, logically speaking, being racist isn't a crime, and people are always hating on political beliefs. So that part is free, though racism is stupid, and I think we all agree there. To suggest that all people of a particular race should be killed is ok, but actually doing it is murder, and you must be prosecuted. Again, if you're going to defend freedom, you really have to defend it. Just because something's not PC doesn't mean that it's completely wrong.
Christian Graus wrote:
This sort of black and white thinking is, in my opinion, the core reason for what I see as cognitive dissonance on your part.
I know. You're not used to it. Neither am I, honestly. But I like it, it's opened up my mind.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
But the reasons as to why you can be arrested for such abuses:
Ah, so I am free to say it, but not free to not be arrested ? Well, that's what I believe, too. I think, for example, that neo Nazis should be given the light of day, so they can be openly mocked, in the dark, their views fester. But, some people think free speech means being able to say whatever you like, with no consequences.
josda1000 wrote:
To suggest that all people of a particular race should be killed is ok, but actually doing it is murder, and you must be prosecuted.
So you can say it, so long as you don't mean it ? I disagree, here. My freedom should never impinge on the freedom of others. That's really the simple concept. I am free to not be interfered with, but so are you.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, if you're going to defend freedom, you really have to defend it. Just because something's not PC doesn't mean that it's completely wrong.
That much is true. But, there are things that it is unreasonable for anyone to suggest are not wrong.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Then, really, I can't call you a liberal. I'd call you authoritarian.
Well, labels are always convenient, I guess.
josda1000 wrote:
. So really, if you draw the line somewhere, then that line will continually be moved.
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ? To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ? To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
josda1000 wrote:
In the end it comes down to the fact that either you're free, or you're not. Either you have the right to speak, or you don't. Your choice.
This sort of black and white thinking is, in my opinion, the core reason for what I see as cognitive dissonance on your part.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ?
I covered this, it is against the law and not covered by free speech if done in a public place where it can be assumed people would be injured by the subsequent panic. I can yell "FIRE!" in a public park and be perfectly fine if it would not cause a stampede.
Christian Graus wrote:
To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ?
You can tell them that all you want. There's no law against it unless it incites a riot, and that's for inciting the action. I could tell everyone here where you live and your phone number and that they should threaten you in an ominous manner, doesn't mean jack.
Christian Graus wrote:
To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
People do that in America all the time. Fully protected speech. No law against it. Now if these things were being done in front of a person's house, at 2 am with a lawn ornament on fire, that would be against the law since they would never have been given a permit to hold a public demonstration, and the fire would be considered an actual threat to the person's life. In the case of free speech, the context of where and when matters.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
josda1000 wrote:
But the reasons as to why you can be arrested for such abuses:
Ah, so I am free to say it, but not free to not be arrested ? Well, that's what I believe, too. I think, for example, that neo Nazis should be given the light of day, so they can be openly mocked, in the dark, their views fester. But, some people think free speech means being able to say whatever you like, with no consequences.
josda1000 wrote:
To suggest that all people of a particular race should be killed is ok, but actually doing it is murder, and you must be prosecuted.
So you can say it, so long as you don't mean it ? I disagree, here. My freedom should never impinge on the freedom of others. That's really the simple concept. I am free to not be interfered with, but so are you.
josda1000 wrote:
Again, if you're going to defend freedom, you really have to defend it. Just because something's not PC doesn't mean that it's completely wrong.
That much is true. But, there are things that it is unreasonable for anyone to suggest are not wrong.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So you can say it, so long as you don't mean it ? I disagree, here. My freedom should never impinge on the freedom of others.
Technically, speaking it doesn't impinge on theirs, here. Here, you have to be caught in the act, or acted on it already. There is such a thing as conspiring to commit the act, which is an act of aggression anyway, and that's why conspiring in this case is a crime. But saying it, in the open, will get you public distrust anyway, and is immoral too. So obviously I don't think you'll see anyone running around the streets saying they're going to kill people, but I think you should be free to do so. With freedom comes responsibility. You have to use freedom with your own caution, but feel free to act in any manner you choose. In this case, though, I think we can safely agree it's a matter of property rights.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Christian Graus wrote:
So, you'd defend my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded room ?
I covered this, it is against the law and not covered by free speech if done in a public place where it can be assumed people would be injured by the subsequent panic. I can yell "FIRE!" in a public park and be perfectly fine if it would not cause a stampede.
Christian Graus wrote:
To tell people that they should rob your house because your political beliefs or race or hair color take away your rights to property ?
You can tell them that all you want. There's no law against it unless it incites a riot, and that's for inciting the action. I could tell everyone here where you live and your phone number and that they should threaten you in an ominous manner, doesn't mean jack.
Christian Graus wrote:
To suggest that all people of any particular race should be killed for the good of society ?
People do that in America all the time. Fully protected speech. No law against it. Now if these things were being done in front of a person's house, at 2 am with a lawn ornament on fire, that would be against the law since they would never have been given a permit to hold a public demonstration, and the fire would be considered an actual threat to the person's life. In the case of free speech, the context of where and when matters.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
I could tell everyone here where you live and your phone number and that they should threaten you in an ominous manner, doesn't mean jack.
CSS tried to threaten me with that already :P But, if it can be shown that someone did rob me because you encouraged and pushed them to do it, have you not committed a crime at that point ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.