Proposed Bill Gives Obama Power to Shut Down Internet

[Asymptote Angel]

Grrr, stupid alarmist shit like this is only supposed to happen during Republican administrations! This is violates so many Constitutional principles that it makes my brain hurt.

 

[Shapsters]

He can't shut down the whole world can he? If not, its good t be Canadian! We have this thing called FREEDOM!!! and free health care!

 

[Labyrinth]

I usually dislike one word post, but it's difficult to avoid just just quoting you and saying "This".

I must be better than I thought. You're the fourth person to say that.

Well, you said something that was entirely true, well put, and easy to understand.
U R WINNAR

Oh no! I failed to fulfil my pretentiousness quota for that post and include verbose commiserations to the American people. Curse my desire to be read and understood!

 

[Clashero]

I usually dislike one word post, but it's difficult to avoid just just quoting you and saying "This".

I must be better than I thought. You're the fourth person to say that.

Well, you said something that was entirely true, well put, and easy to understand.
U R WINNAR

Oh no! I failed to fulfil my pretentiousness quota for that post and include verbose commiserations to the American people. Curse my desire to be read and understood!

I... uh... didn't quite get that. Explain it to a fellow Escapist devoid of his brain-enhancing coffee, please?

 

[Labyrinth]

I... uh... didn't quite get that. Explain it to a fellow Escapist devoid of his brain-enhancing coffee, please?

It's a dig at both the supposed excessive pretentiousness on these forms and in particular my own.

 

[Clashero]

I... uh... didn't quite get that. Explain it to a fellow Escapist devoid of his brain-enhancing coffee, please?

It's a dig at both the supposed excessive pretentiousness on these forms and in particular my own.

I see, thanks for clearing that up. For a moment I thought you were labeling me as an American. That's what coffee abstinence does to me. The world is a swirl. I need coffee.

On a totally unrelated subject, "Tess LaCoil" is pure genius.

 

[T-Blade]

If Britain goes along with this, I will rage...

How many cameras in London again?

On this note, I described what's worth worrying in this bill here: Cybersecurity Act of 2009: The Facts [http://stonebytes.blogspot.com/2009/04/cybersecurity-act-of-2009-facts.html]

That's London not the internet, we need that many cameras because most of Britain are complete twats.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Don't we think we're overreacting a little? I'm not sure everyone here is thinking this through. This probably will never have anything to do with us, even if nothing in our internet behavior changes. If this was really so much of a threat to us, and we were afraid of our privacy getting stolen, that would mean the government is going to care about everyone's web crimes, which would be simply too much to even consider keeping track of. Furthermore, the government won't be allowed to reveal it unless it's a viable threat to the country, and even then it would need a whole lot of background to be taken seriously. All in all, the government pretty much already had this power, only now they're telling us instead of doing it in the shadows. Isn't that preferable? Does anyone think that, if this bill passes, someone in a black suit and sunglasses will come knocking on their door and ask them to come silently with them? Does anyone think that their private information is really that useful to the US government? I doubt it.

 

[IamQ]

Why the fuck would he wanna shut down the internet?

 

[edinflames]

What part of "Obama is a Socialist" doesn't america understand. NWO here we come comrade.

Socialism has nothing to do with NWO, if that NWO stuff does happen it certainly won't be run by socialist principals, it would be run by the rich on behalf of the rich. Obama is closer to fascist (like all your recent presidents) than socialist. Try learning what socialism is before you attack it.

And what exactly would give one man the right to shut down and take over something which is available to everyone? This is ridiculous. What kind of crisis requires complete control of the internet, anyway?

Any crisis the CIA can invent.

If Britain goes along with this, I will rage...

How many cameras in London again?

On this note, I described what's worth worrying in this bill here: Cybersecurity Act of 2009: The Facts [http://stonebytes.blogspot.com/2009/04/cybersecurity-act-of-2009-facts.html]

That's London not the internet, we need that many cameras because most of Britain are complete twats.

So what kind of crime do you think the cameras prevent? Really? Most prosecutions brought about by these cameras are to do with littering.

Yes it could endanger our right to free speech, but I'm not entirely sure that this issue warrants such an uproar. After all we don't know all the details, and it does seem like a failsafe which is very unlikely to ever be implemented. The right to free speech is like all other rights anyway, and that's to a certain degree.

No. It's a right that should know no boundary. Only education and proper living standards will detract people from bigotry.
But from the moment you start being partial in the freedom of speech, you're starting to kill it and you're being the danger that freedom of speech is capable of revealing.

It always has been and the security measures encroach upon our privacy in various ways already.

It is getting worse, but there is no valid reason for accepting this to happen.
But people let it happen nonetheless, because it's done slowly, step by step, with laws passed by a Congress that doesn't read them, or doesn't have time to do so, or during a time when the Congress numbers less people than usual, and above all, it often happens in the wake of large emotional events.

Now, it takes very little to argue that these large emotional events have been staged by the same who want to pass those restrictive laws, which are the arms, fingers and nails of larger ideologies.
The "best" example being the Reichstag fire [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire].
Of course, it's very easy, and even encouraged, to talk about this false flag event at length, notably because of the inflated manichean vision of the conflict. And also because it's part of official history.

It's already harder to consider such ideas in contemporary days, notably because people are prideful. They live in an age of data and wold wide communication, and like to think they could not be fooled.

I very much doubt this will effectively change anything. Much like the nuclear capabilities which are there, but are unlikely to be used.

Everything it changes. It costs very little to the planet to suppress liberties. Nuking it, on the other hand...

Spot on my friend. If Obama gets the power to pull the world's plug on the internet then he can f*ck off and die please, because he's just a shameless frontman for the corporatocracy that runs the USA.

Europe needs to create its own internet centre so that our freedom can be preserved while the USA strangles its citizens' access.

 

[T-Blade]

If Britain goes along with this, I will rage...

How many cameras in London again?

On this note, I described what's worth worrying in this bill here: Cybersecurity Act of 2009: The Facts [http://stonebytes.blogspot.com/2009/04/cybersecurity-act-of-2009-facts.html]

That's London not the internet, we need that many cameras because most of Britain are complete twats.

So what kind of crime do you think the cameras prevent? Really? Most prosecutions brought about by these cameras are to do with littering.

Oh really? UK isn't that hard on people who litter little things, but like bin bags full, Yes I would complain about that and Camera's help
Plus, This year 3000+ knifing/shooting incidents have been caught on the camera's.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Spot on my friend. If Obama gets the power to pull the world's plug on the internet then he can f*ck off and die please, because he's just a shameless frontman for the corporatocracy that runs the USA.

I think a more accurate statement would be, "if Obama gets the power to pull the world's plug on the internet, he probably still would never use it."
Obama's been trying to tone down the whole fear sentiment (though Fox News will always try to keep the needless fear alive), and driving attention away from what the Bush administration used to scare us as justification.

 

[Jerious1154]

I think the biggest problem with this thread is that the title is misleading.
Firstly, the bill isn't about shutting down the internet, it's about shutting down certain government servers that deal mostly with infrastructure.
Secondly, Obama did not propose the bill. He has had nothing to do with the bill. I would not be overly surprised if he has not even heard of the bill. The bill was proposed by two Senators, one centrist Republican and one centrist Democrat. It has not yet been debated. You can't blame Obama for this, and you can't blame the US government for this, only two people.
Thirdly, the bill does not give any power to Obama. I'm spacing right now on who actually gets the power to shut stuff down, but I saw it on one of the previous pages of this thread. Point is, it's not Obama.
People need to calm down-- I personally think this bill is pointless, but it's definitely not an example of Obama moving us toward socialism or of the government taking away free speech, which seem to be the two most common ideas that people have.

 

[shmaller]

What part of "Obama is a Socialist" doesn't america understand. NWO here we come comrade.

What part of "Read the article you ignorant twat, this wasn't Obama's idea and hasn't been approved" doesn't Jman1236 understand?

 

[Christemo]

oh noes, obama dont. only in an utmost emergency.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Come on, Bush is gone, do we really still need to do retarded shit in congress.

 

[LewsTherin]

How, pray tell, would one shut down a global network? There ARE parts of the great expanse of tubes that operate outside of America's jurisdiction. In fact, I believe a good portion of it does.

 

[Arbre]

I think the biggest problem with this thread is that the title is misleading.
Firstly, the bill isn't about shutting down the internet, it's about shutting down certain government servers that deal mostly with infrastructure.

Not really. As written in the bill, Federal and US infrastructures are concerned. US infrastructures means, obviously, any stuff on the US ground, including US civilian networks and US companies related to Internet. If this was not enough, the bill clearly targets all levels of systems and networks: State, local and even non governmental.
It also de facto included the participation of the private sector, which, you know, is very vast, and the large bulk of Internet you get today flows through the hands of large ISP companies, no matter your country.

Setting up a small private network has very little chances to remain independent btw.

Secondly, Obama did not propose the bill. He has had nothing to do with the bill. I would not be overly surprised if he has not even heard of the bill. The bill was proposed by two Senators, one centrist Republican and one centrist Democrat. It has not yet been debated. You can't blame Obama for this, and you can't blame the US government for this, only two people.

Read the news. It doesn't say Obama proposed that bill. It only says what Obama could do if it had passed.

Thirdly, the bill does not give any power to Obama. I'm spacing right now on who actually gets the power to shut stuff down, but I saw it on one of the previous pages of this thread. Point is, it's not Obama.

This is Wrong [http://stonebytes.blogspot.com/2009/04/cybersecurity-act-of-2009-facts.html].
There is absolutely nothing cryptic about it.

The single other entity to have powers is the Secretary of Commerce, one single person put there by... the President.
Like you really believe he's going to tell the President "go fuck yourself."

People need to calm down-- I personally think this bill is pointless, but it's definitely not an example of Obama moving us toward socialism or of the government taking away free speech, which seem to be the two most common ideas that people have.

People are talking about socialism like it's the next great evil. That's a tad narrow minded, don't you think?
The point is, all systems, capitalism, communism, socalism, etc.-ism have ugly sides, and although it's not necessarily a direct consequence of their respective tenets, up to this day, ALL of them have failed to give people the real power and sovereignty they deserve (notably control of the money they use, instead of being controlled by some elites living on Mount Olympos).

 

[Wicky_42]

TO REITERATE:
READ THE BILL
IT DOES NOTHING LIKE WHAT YOU PEOPLE THINK IT DOES
READ MY PREVIOUS POST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REALLY INVOLVED HERE

Ok, you people need to calm down. This is what happens when you don't read through articles yourselvesa and don't fact-check. The Cybersecurity Adviser position, not the president himself, would have the power only to disconnect Federal Infrastructure Networks, if he felt the threat was imminent I.E. any government department, which processes the data of every citizen in the united states, could be disconnected if a vulnerability ws found that put said data at risk, or if the network controlled something which could be damageed by a cyber attack. That is all this bill does in the way of "shutting down the internet". Also, learn your own governmental system, for god's sake. The President does not propose bills, It hasn't even passed by congress yet, and you are all here accusing Obama of trying to stifle your freedoms.

@ssgt splatter: 1984 is a distopian book written by George Orwell which featured a soviet style government with total control of their people, right down to constant monitoring and "though-crimes"

Edit: Sorry for the rant, but it irks me when people begin trumping up rumors and panicking because they lack the common sense to go look for themselves.

Again people. Please, read what the fuck you're shouting about, otherwise you all look like a bunch of complete opinionated, closed-minded paranoid morons. which I'm sure you aren't. Well, probably not the majority of you...

 

[Arbre]

If Britain goes along with this, I will rage...

How many cameras in London again?

On this note, I described what's worth worrying in this bill here: Cybersecurity Act of 2009: The Facts [http://stonebytes.blogspot.com/2009/04/cybersecurity-act-of-2009-facts.html]

That's London not the internet, we need that many cameras because most of Britain are complete twats.

Then perhaps we should put cameras in your house?

Now, you want to know how you can hack a camera?

Here's the solution [http://scavenging.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/balaclava004.jpg].

Of course, since you're trying to hide something, you're probably a terrorist.