WH Control of the Internet

[finebead]

Do you actually believe that governmental overreach is hypothetical?
Have you heard of ObamaCare?

You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat.

I see a government that will do what it wishes, and that is the end of America.

"You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat."

You are wrong, and wrong, and wrong. You are making things up that I never said, and attributing the projection of your fears onto me, and that's just wrong.

Re: the cyber threat, it is not the case that it MIGHT me a threat, I have posted article after article of real damage, it IS a threat that has been successfully exercised against US industry, and probably our military also, they just won't talk about it much. It is real and actual, there is no MIGHT about it, so you are wrong.

And I never said the govt. has the right to do whatever it sees fit, you just made that up, and that's wrong.

Now, do I think the govt. needs a defense policy against a wide scale cyber attack on the US, both commercial and military sites, carried out by our enemies using the internet as the facility by which to attack our web sites, yes, I believe we need to defend ourselves against a cyber attack, such as we have carried out, and such as the Russian Mafia has carried out against our banking system, and which we believe the Chinese govt. has carried out against Google. These attacks are real, they have occurred and are documented. We need a real defense policy against them.

Wow...glad to see you gettin' ramped up, there, beady!

But did you see this in the OP:

"The proposal would codify much of the administration's memo from July 2010 expanding DHS's cyber responsibilities for civilian networks."

Do you know what that means?

Do you know exactly what that means?

Do you see any limitations suggested in same?


I'm going to guess that there are large numbers of folks like yourself who are less concerned with how Progressive machinations have changed our great nation from the Founders' views, than I am, and that is why we are saddled with the current administration.

But the sleeping giant is awakening. Progressives beware.

You tell me exactly what it means. I've been doing all the research so far.

 

[boedicca]

I guess you are not reading the whole thread. The internet is a communications medium, but it is also a strategic WEAPON in the hand of cyber warriors, and it has been used as a weapon by the US and others, notably the Russian mafia and Chinese govt. (against Google). Your view is simply naive.

For the rest of this post, see #30 on page 2.

I understand the nature of the internet. And there is NO REASON on earth for the government to be able to shut it down.

There are other ways to put security measures in place without SILENCING and CUTTING OFF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from access to information and communication.

 

[boedicca]

That is NOT simply a communication and information system, any more than an atomic bomb is "sort of like a nuclear reactor". Depending on how you use it, it can be benign, like a nuclear power plant, or it can be a weapon. It all depends what your intent and capabilities are.

BULL SHIT.


The BOMB the government is trying to diffuse by SHUTTING DOWN THE INTERNET is INFORMATION.

 

[finebead]

So therefore? They have NO PROBLEM with the abridgement of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

How would the first amendment be bridged? If you shut down the internet, you'd still have radio, TV, newpapers, magazines, local demonstrations, telephones.

The govt. stopped all air flight for a week after 9/11. Nobody complained an iota about that. It seemed prudent given the perceived level of the threat, although there was NO other attack planned, we had no way to know that at the time. We just halted stock market trading and air flight. Pretty drastic measures, but it was a drastic time. I don't see anyone criticizing Bush for those actions. Yes, I want my president to have the power necessary to deal with any situation that could come up. With cyber attack and cyber war, it is not a question of IF, we have been attacked in small scale, it is just a question of WHEN, HOW, and HOW WIDESPREAD.

In the event of a cyber warfare attack, I could see where it would be prudent to shut down the internet for a few hours or a day or a few days to ensure we understood the nature of the attack, and we had a plan to defend ourselves against the attack.

What's the difference?

When attacked, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Unless you'd rather go the Pearl Harbor route and "just be unprepared". Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...

The government fucks up everything it touches. That outta be easy enough for you to understand.

That statement is false. Whenever there is a big hack job, if it is made public (most are NOT because the companies are embarrassed and are afraid customers will not trust leaving their money with a company that has been hacked), you will see the customer called the FBI, or if its really bad, the NSA. The NSA are the kings in this game, I think they have the best capability. The military has planned and executed cyber war, not one corporation has to my knowledge. When it comes to cyber security, the govt. has the biggest collection of the top talent.

 

[The T]

That is NOT simply a communication and information system, any more than an atomic bomb is "sort of like a nuclear reactor". Depending on how you use it, it can be benign, like a nuclear power plant, or it can be a weapon. It all depends what your intent and capabilities are.

BULL SHIT.


The BOMB the government is trying to diffuse by SHUTTING DOWN THE INTERNET is INFORMATION.

Indeed.

 

[boedicca]

I get it. Finebead just watched "Live Free or Die Hard" and thinks Thomas Olyphant is a real evul mastermind hacker.

 

[The T]

How would the first amendment be bridged? If you shut down the internet, you'd still have radio, TV, newpapers, magazines, local demonstrations, telephones.

The govt. stopped all air flight for a week after 9/11. Nobody complained an iota about that. It seemed prudent given the perceived level of the threat, although there was NO other attack planned, we had no way to know that at the time. We just halted stock market trading and air flight. Pretty drastic measures, but it was a drastic time. I don't see anyone criticizing Bush for those actions. Yes, I want my president to have the power necessary to deal with any situation that could come up. With cyber attack and cyber war, it is not a question of IF, we have been attacked in small scale, it is just a question of WHEN, HOW, and HOW WIDESPREAD.

In the event of a cyber warfare attack, I could see where it would be prudent to shut down the internet for a few hours or a day or a few days to ensure we understood the nature of the attack, and we had a plan to defend ourselves against the attack.

What's the difference?

When attacked, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Unless you'd rather go the Pearl Harbor route and "just be unprepared". Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...

The government fucks up everything it touches. That outta be easy enough for you to understand.

Should the govt. have had the power to shut down air travel for a week after 9/11? I didn't hear ANYONE bitch about that one.

Shut down the stock market for a few days, again, NOBODY bitched about it.

Why not?

Should the govt. NOT have that power? If not, why didn't anyone bitch about it?

And if the govt can shut down all air travel, and shut down the stock market, then why should they not have the power to shut down the internet while we are being attacked by our enemies in cyber space?

Internet is a venue of speaking one's MIND...a 21st Century equivilent of standing on a street corner...

SORRY that YOU don't see the difference.

 

[The T]

How would the first amendment be bridged? If you shut down the internet, you'd still have radio, TV, newpapers, magazines, local demonstrations, telephones.

The govt. stopped all air flight for a week after 9/11. Nobody complained an iota about that. It seemed prudent given the perceived level of the threat, although there was NO other attack planned, we had no way to know that at the time. We just halted stock market trading and air flight. Pretty drastic measures, but it was a drastic time. I don't see anyone criticizing Bush for those actions. Yes, I want my president to have the power necessary to deal with any situation that could come up. With cyber attack and cyber war, it is not a question of IF, we have been attacked in small scale, it is just a question of WHEN, HOW, and HOW WIDESPREAD.

In the event of a cyber warfare attack, I could see where it would be prudent to shut down the internet for a few hours or a day or a few days to ensure we understood the nature of the attack, and we had a plan to defend ourselves against the attack.

What's the difference?

When attacked, you have to be ready to defend yourself. Unless you'd rather go the Pearl Harbor route and "just be unprepared". Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face...

The government fucks up everything it touches. That outta be easy enough for you to understand.

Should the govt. have had the power to shut down air travel for a week after 9/11? I didn't hear ANYONE bitch about that one.

Shut down the stock market for a few days, again, NOBODY bitched about it.

Why not?

Should the govt. NOT have that power? If not, why didn't anyone bitch about it?

And if the govt can shut down all air travel, and shut down the stock market, then why should they not have the power to shut down the internet while we are being attacked by our enemies in cyber space?

AIR TRAVEL is NOT an Enumerated *RIGHT* dipshit.

 

[The T]

Freedom of SPEECH *IS* an enumerated RIGHT...and does it matter the Vehicle?

*NO*.

 

[finebead]

I guess you are not reading the whole thread. The internet is a communications medium, but it is also a strategic WEAPON in the hand of cyber warriors, and it has been used as a weapon by the US and others, notably the Russian mafia and Chinese govt. (against Google). Your view is simply naive.

For the rest of this post, see #30 on page 2.

I understand the nature of the internet. And there is NO REASON on earth for the government to be able to shut it down.

There are other ways to put security measures in place without SILENCING and CUTTING OFF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from access to information and communication.

There are many other ways for the people to get information if the internet is turned of for a day. They can watch TV, listen to radio, buy the newspaper, call their friends on the phone.

There is NO other way for a terrorist in Moscow, or Rio (he could be arab, russian, or chinese) to hack a Citibank computer and steal millions (which they have done already).

The internet can be used as the delivery vehicle for a weapon (program). You can't do that with TV, radio, newspapers, or phones.

The internet is different. Shutting it down would hinder part of our ability to communicate with each other, but it would not eliminate that ability altogether.

 

[finebead]

Freedom of SPEECH *IS* an enumerated RIGHT...and does it matter the Vehicle?

*NO*.

Freedom of speech is a right, and you would still have it.

Nobody is saying you can't go stand on a street corner and talk. Write a letter to your editor. Hell, call rush limbaugh.


Internet access is NOT a right, dipshit.

 

[The T]

Freedom of SPEECH *IS* an enumerated RIGHT...and does it matter the Vehicle?

*NO*.

Freedom of speech is a right, and you would still have it.

Nobody is saying you can't go stand on a street corner and talk. Write a letter to your editor. Hell, call rush limbaugh.


Internet access is NOT a right, dipshit.

NO SHIT.

It is a SERVICE that I pay for...and the Gubmint is gonna tell me HOW I can and can't USE it?

Tell me dipwad? WHY are YOU here? I see you are NOT a PAID member...

WHY not?

Are YOU a Leech?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I get it. Finebead just watched "Live Free or Die Hard" and thinks Thomas Olyphant is a real evul mastermind hacker.

Wait...didn't that movie have the JamesBond-villain Pelosi-galore?

 

[The T]

Freedom of SPEECH *IS* an enumerated RIGHT...and does it matter the Vehicle?

*NO*.

Freedom of speech is a right, and you would still have it.

Nobody is saying you can't go stand on a street corner and talk. Write a letter to your editor. Hell, call rush limbaugh.


Internet access is NOT a right, dipshit.

But the Internet is A VEHICLE of speech...you wanna control it? Wanna control Newspapers? Standing on a street corner?

*SON*? Don't trifle with me.

You will lose.

 

[finebead]

Freedom of SPEECH *IS* an enumerated RIGHT...and does it matter the Vehicle?

*NO*.

Freedom of speech is a right, and you would still have it.

Nobody is saying you can't go stand on a street corner and talk. Write a letter to your editor. Hell, call rush limbaugh.


Internet access is NOT a right, dipshit.

NO SHIT.

It is a SERVICE that I pay for...and the Gubmint is gonna tell me HOW I can and can't USE it?

Tell me dipwad? WHY are YOU here? I see you are NOT a PAID member...

WHY not?

Are YOU a Leech?

I'm trying it out and I left once. I will probably leave again.

That is because there are so many ignorant, rude pricks like you that post here, dipwad.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You see, you perceive a cyber threat that might be a danger to America, and a government that has the right to do whatever it sees fit, to obviate the threat."

You are wrong, and wrong, and wrong. You are making things up that I never said, and attributing the projection of your fears onto me, and that's just wrong.

Re: the cyber threat, it is not the case that it MIGHT me a threat, I have posted article after article of real damage, it IS a threat that has been successfully exercised against US industry, and probably our military also, they just won't talk about it much. It is real and actual, there is no MIGHT about it, so you are wrong.

And I never said the govt. has the right to do whatever it sees fit, you just made that up, and that's wrong.

Now, do I think the govt. needs a defense policy against a wide scale cyber attack on the US, both commercial and military sites, carried out by our enemies using the internet as the facility by which to attack our web sites, yes, I believe we need to defend ourselves against a cyber attack, such as we have carried out, and such as the Russian Mafia has carried out against our banking system, and which we believe the Chinese govt. has carried out against Google. These attacks are real, they have occurred and are documented. We need a real defense policy against them.

Wow...glad to see you gettin' ramped up, there, beady!

But did you see this in the OP:

"The proposal would codify much of the administration's memo from July 2010 expanding DHS's cyber responsibilities for civilian networks."

Do you know what that means?

Do you know exactly what that means?

Do you see any limitations suggested in same?


I'm going to guess that there are large numbers of folks like yourself who are less concerned with how Progressive machinations have changed our great nation from the Founders' views, than I am, and that is why we are saddled with the current administration.

But the sleeping giant is awakening. Progressives beware.

You tell me exactly what it means. I've been doing all the research so far.

It means the Left starts the boa-like constrictions of internet free speech....
and, if I may mix metaphors, it's the camel's nose under the tent.

"Free Press published a study advocating the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S.

Now the group is pushing a new organization, StopBigMedia.com, that advocates the downfall of “big media” and the creation of new media to “promote local ownership, amplify minority voices, support quality journalism, and bring local artists, voices and viewpoints to the airwaves.”

Free Press has ties to other members of the Obama administration.
Obama’s “Internet czar,” Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press’s May 14, 2009, “Changing Media” summit in Washington, D.C.

Crawford’s pet project, OneWebNow, lists as “participating organizations” Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition team’s Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George Soros-funded public interest group.

A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.

Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros’ Open Society Institute. "
Klein: Look who wants to quintuple funding for government media. State adviser, Marxist also want more FCC control of airwaves « RBO

If they get their way, the next step for us will be Samizdat!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did no one actually read the damn article?

The law places .gov websites under security control of DHS.

It doesn't give them any other power than that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Did no one actually read the damn article?

The law places .gov websites under security control of DHS.

It doesn't give them any other power than that.

From the article first sentence

Under a White House plan, the Homeland Security Department will have far-reaching oversight over all civilian agency computer networks.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did no one actually read the damn article?

The law places .gov websites under security control of DHS.

It doesn't give them any other power than that.

From the article first sentence

Under a White House plan, the Homeland Security Department will have far-reaching oversight over all civilian agency computer networks.

And this would be a perfect example of why you need to read more than just the first sentence.

 

[finebead]

Wow...glad to see you gettin' ramped up, there, beady!

But did you see this in the OP:

"The proposal would codify much of the administration's memo from July 2010 expanding DHS's cyber responsibilities for civilian networks."

Do you know what that means?

Do you know exactly what that means?

Do you see any limitations suggested in same?


I'm going to guess that there are large numbers of folks like yourself who are less concerned with how Progressive machinations have changed our great nation from the Founders' views, than I am, and that is why we are saddled with the current administration.

But the sleeping giant is awakening. Progressives beware.

You tell me exactly what it means. I've been doing all the research so far.

It means the Left starts the boa-like constrictions of internet free speech....
and, if I may mix metaphors, it's the camel's nose under the tent.

"Free Press published a study advocating the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S.

Now the group is pushing a new organization, StopBigMedia.com, that advocates the downfall of “big media” and the creation of new media to “promote local ownership, amplify minority voices, support quality journalism, and bring local artists, voices and viewpoints to the airwaves.”

Free Press has ties to other members of the Obama administration.
Obama’s “Internet czar,” Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press’s May 14, 2009, “Changing Media” summit in Washington, D.C.

Crawford’s pet project, OneWebNow, lists as “participating organizations” Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition team’s Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George Soros-funded public interest group.

A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.

Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros’ Open Society Institute. "
Klein: Look who wants to quintuple funding for government media. State adviser, Marxist also want more FCC control of airwaves « RBO

If they get their way, the next step for us will be Samizdat!

I read your whole article, and like poster above said, it appears the govt. wants to specify interoperability and management standards, so they can manage it if necessary. No tower of Babel.

When my company ships software overseas, we have to get an ECCN, Export Control number, and certify that if our products use encryption, we don't use a non-standard method of encryption that the CIA can't break, so the terrorists don't have weapons we can't watch. That has been in effect for a long time.

There are no provisions in the proposal to regulate content, or even to stop the internet.