Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
i've got a for instance for you- what if bush had proposed this bill?
Bush didn't need to propose the bill, he had already assigned himself the power to do this.
The ability has always existed for the government to take over communications, radio, TV and internet is no different. I think what the objections are over is that the government wants to specify private companies as security risks and make them accountable for screening their employees. [or letting the government do it] Which I really don't have a problem with either.
This certainly would be prudent for utilities employees for instance; ie., electric companies, sewer and water installations especially.
Not to mention they'd have to write code that could successfully hit Linux/Unix servers ... yeah, that'll happen ... not. The government systems are only vulnerable because they're using Microsucks, but even then, they can be "disconnected" very quickly and easily without any bills, this bill isn't about protecting a damned thing, now if they took a few bucks (literally) from taxes and upgraded the OSes on their servers to Linux or a few hundred and go for Unix since they clearly need the tech support, that would be for protecting their systems and would be a smart move.
I would consider an interruption of service attack on key systems that the functioning of the government depends upon to be a "massive attack". I certainly wasn't suggesting a giant EMT, or anything of that nature.
Okay, a massive EMP would be a real threat, but not one that this bill would even come close to protecting against. Here's a bit of a clue for you, if all the government networks went down, no one else would even feel a blip. It would be like cutting one square out of a quilt, ugly until you fix it, but it's still a quilt. I give you too much credit, really I do.
LOL, yes EMP, my bad, typo.
well, of course it wouldn't shut down the internet, or anything of that nature.
I was assuming that a conventional attack or terrorist attack would come in combination with the cyber-attack. I don't think I made that clear. I apologize.
emergency control? For what reasons? what emergency could possibly justify regulation of the internet?
Not to mention they'd have to write code that could successfully hit Linux/Unix servers ... yeah, that'll happen ... not. The government systems are only vulnerable because they're using Microsucks, but even then, they can be "disconnected" very quickly and easily without any bills, this bill isn't about protecting a damned thing, now if they took a few bucks (literally) from taxes and upgraded the OSes on their servers to Linux or a few hundred and go for Unix since they clearly need the tech support, that would be for protecting their systems and would be a smart move.
All of that sounds sooooo tricky, but it isn't. This isn't about programming or O/Ss, it's about physics, like bandwidth. The government controls it. The digital conversion has made the bandwidths more efficient so we can pack in more stuff going back and forth. We only have a small piece of the pie. All of our hardware is designed to operate within this bandwidth. The issue is with transmission and reception, the basic elements of wireless and wired communication.
emergency control? For what reasons? what emergency could possibly justify regulation of the internet?
There are numerous national security reasons
1- if people are trashing Obama Hellcare
2- if a version of events circulating in the internet contradicts the "official" WH version
3- General suppression or censorship for "national security" (wink, wink) reason
BINGO!! Btw,this applies to both parties.
CaféAuLait;1463968 said:
So I guess it's unimportant to you people, who are at this moment communicating via computer, that in the event of a cyber threat that had the potential to shut down the entire global network, causing banks/markets/life support systems/etc., to simultaneously crash, is a baaaaaaad thing. Interesting.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf
That's just bad web and network design, not our fault their overpaid university graduated techies don't know how to set up a secure network system correctly.
Bush didn't need to propose the bill, he had already assigned himself the power to do this.
The ability has always existed for the government to take over communications, radio, TV and internet is no different. I think what the objections are over is that the government wants to specify private companies as security risks and make them accountable for screening their employees. [or letting the government do it] Which I really don't have a problem with either.
This certainly would be prudent for utilities employees for instance; ie., electric companies, sewer and water installations especially.
Um ... yeah, the internet is very different. They can only effect those with business licenses (which I am still against as well) and I would venture at least half the servers are privately owned and operated, therefore private property, and a lot of US sites are hosted offshore anyway (typically a country with fewer restrictions due to the lower cost of operation). Even China has a hard time controlling their users access, back doors are not difficult to find.
Not to mention they'd have to write code that could successfully hit Linux/Unix servers ... yeah, that'll happen ... not. The government systems are only vulnerable because they're using Microsucks, but even then, they can be "disconnected" very quickly and easily without any bills, this bill isn't about protecting a damned thing, now if they took a few bucks (literally) from taxes and upgraded the OSes on their servers to Linux or a few hundred and go for Unix since they clearly need the tech support, that would be for protecting their systems and would be a smart move.
All of that sounds sooooo tricky, but it isn't. This isn't about programming or O/Ss, it's about physics, like bandwidth. The government controls it. The digital conversion has made the bandwidths more efficient so we can pack in more stuff going back and forth. We only have a small piece of the pie. All of our hardware is designed to operate within this bandwidth. The issue is with transmission and reception, the basic elements of wireless and wired communication.
Bandwidth isn't a physical limitation anymore, it's a cost measurement now, nothing more. The government doesn't control bandwidth, the hosts do as a way to measure how much you use their server. The digital broadcast however did not make it more efficient, which I explained a long time ago, and is a completely different topic. Sat links don't use the standard frequencies, most use a completely different form of communication. You computer doesn't know bandwidth from dirt, and any provider that still measures bandwidth needs to catch up to the 21st century.
The bill however doesn't do anything about bandwidth, which again makes no difference in any such attack anyway. It targets servers, granting the government access to all US servers, which not only gives them too much power but also monopolizes their contract with Microsucks.
So I guess it's unimportant to you people, who are at this moment communicating via computer, that in the event of a cyber threat that had the potential to shut down the entire global network, causing banks/markets/life support systems/etc., to simultaneously crash, is a baaaaaaad thing. Interesting.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04321.pdf
That's just bad web and network design, not our fault their overpaid university graduated techies don't know how to set up a secure network system correctly.
Something tells me you don't know EVERYTHING about computer programming, Kit. If you did, you wouldn't be worrying about how to pay for your prescription drugs, you'd be a seven-figure computer tech engineer trying to figure out how to stop some basement hacker from disabling the power grid that serves New York City.
CaféAuLait;1463968 said:
I will go an verify before i say much more but.
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!! If you cant control the message control the medium?
That's the power this new version will give, pretty much. Makes me more glad that my personal server is in the UK.
The ability has always existed for the government to take over communications, radio, TV and internet is no different. I think what the objections are over is that the government wants to specify private companies as security risks and make them accountable for screening their employees. [or letting the government do it] Which I really don't have a problem with either.
This certainly would be prudent for utilities employees for instance; ie., electric companies, sewer and water installations especially.
Um ... yeah, the internet is very different. They can only effect those with business licenses (which I am still against as well) and I would venture at least half the servers are privately owned and operated, therefore private property, and a lot of US sites are hosted offshore anyway (typically a country with fewer restrictions due to the lower cost of operation). Even China has a hard time controlling their users access, back doors are not difficult to find.
If they wanted to shut down internet communications on a large-scale, they could shut down the NAPs at various points. They could also force ISPs to shut down individual user access for users that are acesssing a specific IP or IP range.
Sure someone could then find a backdoor, but most of the "bot" computers in the situation I described could be effectively cut off rather easily.
I will go an verify before i say much more but.
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!! If you cant control the message control the medium?
That's the power this new version will give, pretty much. Makes me more glad that my personal server is in the UK.
Really? Maybe those Brits ARE more talented.
UK: Pentagon hacker should serve any jail time in Britain - CNN.com
You do underestimate the current level of security ISP's have.
I will go an verify before i say much more but.
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!! If you cant control the message control the medium?
That's the power this new version will give, pretty much. Makes me more glad that my personal server is in the UK.
Really? Maybe those Brits ARE more talented.
UK: Pentagon hacker should serve any jail time in Britain - CNN.com
Goober alert! Goober alert! Do any of you know who developed the Internet? No, no, Kevin and Terry, put down your hands: it was not Al Gore. The Department of Defense!
Even Terry will get this one -- the government will shut down the Net anytime it wants.
Actually, no, not possible. The government does not control most of the servers, otherwise they'd all be that shitty Windoze server OS. To "shut down the internet" you have to shut down all the servers or all the providers, that's simply impossible, unless this bill passes.
The ironic thing is that when Bush tried this kind of action everyone whined about it, now it's Obama and his blind supporters are justifying it.
You do underestimate the current level of security ISP's have.
During the Bush administration, most of the major ISPs were working with Bush to monitor internet communications, and take action when there was a suspected incident, thus the whole "warrantless wiretap" issue.
Why would that not include shutting down indvidual machines or groups of machines when needed?
CaféAuLaitt said:It amazes me, it truly does -- the sheer robot like quality of some of his supporters.
^^Some of us try to keep it honest. What is amazing to us is the sheer volume of criticism no matter what this administration attempts to do.
CaféAuLaitt said:It amazes me, it truly does -- the sheer robot like quality of some of his supporters.
