New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet
-
wait, people read that?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Well, I just had a quick look there ( :-O ) , whether he still posts there, and yes, he does. So: Crosspost.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
-
Obama's kill switch the internet will be dead where will I get porn?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Crosspost. You posted the same already in the Truthbox.
"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[^]
Thus at his felt approach and secret might, Site after Site goes out, and all is Night. Thy hand, great Barack! lets the curtain fall; And universal Darkness buries all. (Sorry, A.P.)
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
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) -
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.