Bill would give 0bama emergency control of Internet

Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Hmmm. What could possibly be considered an emergency or threat to this gov?

:idea:

This is a blatant attempt by the government to control all forms of communication. Imagine the outrage if GW proposed this.

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.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
Click to expand...
 
if we need an example of executive excess and lack of checks and balances, it ain't obamus we should be bitching about.

oh, did someone mention GW?
 
But Bush did it all to save your ass! Why do you hate 'Merica so damn much?!?

0bammy is a pinko commie fag that wants to put all good conservatives in the Gulag!
 
Mirlyn said:
Imagine the outrage.
Click to expand...

Even though the United States is a nonvoting member of the Council of Europe, it has pressed hard for the cybercrime treaty as a way to establish international criminal standards related to copyright infringement, online fraud, child pornography and network intrusions.
Click to expand...


Hmmm. And that is the same same how??

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.
Click to expand...
 
Cerise said:
Imagine the outrage if GW proposed this.
Click to expand...

You were doing well right up until that turd slipped out. Wake up Cerise. Bush was as dangerous a tyrant as Barry is ... just like their successor will be so long as you (insert personal attack of your choice here) insist that there's any difference between them. The only difference is the way they go about getting what they're after.
 
It's an international treaty that says we will investigate our people who break foreign laws, even if their actions are legal here, on behalf of the foreign partner nation. Vice versa, as well. Just like this one, it's all in the wording. The treaty was written with such broad language that it mimics what you are attacking as "an emergency or threat." Throw in some gimmicks like child porn, hackers, intrusion, and anything else that sounds like justice and you've got a golden ticket.

So where do you draw the line? We ratified a treaty that would allow us to monitor and control our citizens deemed "unlawful" by our "friends". Now we have the perfect alibi if we got squeezed. "It wasn't us, it was the {insert member of EU here}!" Don't forget the reverse.



Doesn't matter. (R)s can do no harm, right? Doesn't look like "O" was behind your bill, so maybe its the (D)'s agenda, right? Sorry buddy, (R)s and (D)s are pretty much the same to me. The gov and the sheeple will support anything in the name of national security.
 
Professur said:
You were doing well right up until that turd slipped out. Wake up Cerise. Bush was as dangerous a tyrant as Barry is ... just like their successor will be so long as you (insert personal attack of your choice here) insist that there's any difference between them. The only difference is the way they go about getting what they're after.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother!
Never trust a politician... any politician.

The bill mentioned in the opening post of this thread was introduced with bi-partisan blessings...
When Rockefeller (D-WV), the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
 
Banks....auto industry....healthcare.....internet.....Only a kook would think that the government would want to take freedoms away. After all, I can still watch NASCAR and drink beer, so this is still a free country, isn't it?


"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.
Click to expand...

Why is our water, electricity, and traffic lights connected to the internet in such a way that necessitates them to be protected?

This isn't about the infrastructure.....it’s about limiting communications among the people. This is all about silencing dissent. Nothing more.

If the Bush admin. proposed a bill such as this liberal heads would explode and eyes would bleed. The ACLU would be on it like a duck on a Junebug.

Cybersecurity Act 2009

(b) FUNCTIONS.—The Secretary of Commerce— (1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access
Click to expand...


So, what’s to complain about?
Don’t countries such as China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, and Iran do it?
 
Cerise said:
This isn't about the infrastructure.....it’s about limiting communications among the people. This is all about silencing dissent. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

I see how you just made up some crap there and then acted like it was actually true. Interesting.
 
obama will control how much fish food you can buy on a quarterly basis as well and all available amounts of denture adhesive. (the latter part has cerise particularly concerned.)

...and he will force mothers everywhere to use horrible, horrible, inconvenient cloth diapers.
 
Why is our water, electricity, and traffic lights connected to the internet *snip*
Click to expand...
You can stop there and come closest to the real problem instead of screaming foul on outlandish claims.
This isn't about the infrastructure.....it’s about limiting communications among the people. This is all about silencing dissent. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Comcast just won an appeals fight against the FCC over subscriber caps (Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992). The government was controlling the media even back on Bush v1.0's watch too, right?
If the Bush admin. proposed a bill such as this liberal heads would explode and eyes would bleed. The ACLU would be on it like a duck on a Junebug.
Click to expand...
Not sure about ducks, but the ACLU weren't happy about the senate's decision.
So, what’s to complain about?
Don’t countries such as China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, and Iran do it?
Click to expand...
Calling all photoshoppers....


UR INTERNETZ

I HAS THEM.
 
How does the 1992 Congress in trying to prevent a cable monopoly setting limits on how many customers cable TV operators could reach nationwide compare to the bill that would give 0bama the power to
shut down or control content on the Internet in case of "emergency?"


I suppose if the ACLU objects to the International Cybercrime Treaty they will protest the Cybersecurity Act 2009. :rolleyes:


Apparently no one cares what kind of power the PoTUS is allowed as long as it doesn't involve the word "Halliburton."
 
Better watch yer grandma! Obammy's comin' for her!

obama-the-demon-33963.jpg
 
Cerise said:
How does the 1992 Congress in trying to prevent a cable monopoly setting limits on how many customers cable TV operators could reach nationwide compare to the bill that would give 0bama the power to
shut down or control content on the Internet in case of "emergency?"
Click to expand...
This is a blatant attempt by the government to control all forms of communication.
Click to expand...
You linked the PoTUS' mysterious big red emergency disconnect button for the internet with the attempts of the government to control all forms of communication.

I simply gave you a few examples of "its all been done before." If you think this bill is vague and allows you to jump to such a conclusion, then I encourage you to read the wording of these other regulations. They're all just as bad. Did you know there's an entire branch of the government that defines what you can and can't say and do over the array of communication mediums?

Or did you mean something else by your introduction and summary?
 
Mirlyn said:
You linked the PoTUS' mysterious big red emergency disconnect button for the internet with the attempts of the government to control all forms of communication.

I simply gave you a few examples of "its all been done before." If you think this bill is vague and allows you to jump to such a conclusion, then I encourage you to read the wording of these other regulations. They're all just as bad. Did you know there's an entire branch of the government that defines what you can and can't say and do over the array of communication mediums?

Or did you mean something else by your introduction and summary?
Click to expand...

Mirlyn, repeat after me; 0bammy = BAD! Boooosh = GOOD! 0bammy = BAD! Boooosh = GOOD! 0bammy = BAD! Boooosh = GOOD!

Are you OK now? All staightened out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top