Here was me thinking that after 60 years, the affects of McCarthyism might have worn off.Mcface said:
How wrong was I?
U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
How wrong was I?
Lieberman is basically the Kim Jong-Il of Congress. every once in a while he'll do something stupid and crazy just for attention and to remind people he's "independent".
He's reached Ted Stevens levels of stupidity now, though, especially since shutting down the entire internet is pretty much the best-case scenario of most cyber-attacks.
He's reached Ted Stevens levels of stupidity now, though, especially since shutting down the entire internet is pretty much the best-case scenario of most cyber-attacks.
Because it is clearly obvious that he, himself gets to call this, by himself, with nobody else getting a say. Yes that makes perfect sense.ma55ter_fett said:
It's not splitting hairs. That 0.1% of connections that are not through an ISP are exactly the connections that would be used by a foreign cyber-warfare unit that this bill is intended to defend against.danpascooch said:
EDIT:
Maybe those more critial websites could disconnect or filter themselves if neccessary, rather than relying on ISPs to forbid connecting to them?danpascooch said:
Filtering at the ISP level would be very easy to defeat using a proxy. And of course would only defend against domestic terrorists/criminals.
Freedom of speech is a ***** but still a freedom (at this point) and I can point my anger and aggression to anyone I feel it is deserved thank you, so again fuck O-B-A-M-A and fuck Y-O-U. =Ddanpascooch said:
P.S. I did not propose that Obama proposed or signed this bill into law, I just hate him as much as I do Lieberman.
Does anyone seriously think that this bill is some sort of government plot for power that was all agreed upon by the president and the rest of the senators? Because if you do then you are fucking stupid. This was just one crazy senator that everyone in our country hates in the first place. What if some representative in Britain pushed for a bill that orders everyone over two hundred pounds to go to a work camp? The blame wouldn't fall on the country, just the crazy assclown who proposed the bill.
Also, why do people cry about losing freedom when being able to propose such an absurd bill only shows how much freedom America gives and people take advantage of. Maybe most of you should have read the whole article and come up with something better than a kindergardeners interpretation of while the American government is full of shit.
Also, why do people cry about losing freedom when being able to propose such an absurd bill only shows how much freedom America gives and people take advantage of. Maybe most of you should have read the whole article and come up with something better than a kindergardeners interpretation of while the American government is full of shit.
I can: so that the government can control what we hear, see, and learn. A.K.A. propaganda!TheRightToArmBears said:
this is a little extreme. i need the internet. not even joking, i need it. i think it's funny though, how america started out as a country trying to liberate, and now the government is gaining so much control over everyone, we might as well move to another country, like canada, or mexico. their governments hardly have any real control at these kinds of levels. fuck it, as soon as i'm 18, amsterdam, here i come.
LOL, do you even know how many people were on the planet in the 1200's. The gross domestic product of the mongolian nation. Can you even fathom the craft it would take to occupy an actually inhabited Russia? Figurative map lines mean absolutely nothing if nobody lives there let alone if you've actually seen any of your borders... I believe I said in a later post that they conquered the bloody moon, and if you disagree with me on that feel free to go up there yourself and contest that. The Mongols, I mean really.chozo_hybrid said:
Free speech with moderation isn't free speech. That would be someone else telling you what you can and can't say and when you can or can't say it. This is imposing your will on others. The amount of fear mongering the US does to its own populated out of interest of "security" is a joke. Have you actually seen what you can't bring on a plane and then looked at what you can? It's bureaucracy is all it is. The blind leading the blind.Chris^^ said:
Name one disaster where this would be neccessary to protect the people. If anything, in a disaster you want more rapid communication, not less. I sense alterior motives hear and a side of BS.
-ShaqLevick said:
Well, if I understand this correctly, there are clear lines. It's for when we're facing a threat sufficient to cause the US to go on a full wartime footing.
Despite the terminology I'm reluctant to call what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" given the scale and how we're fighting. It's nothing like the previous world wars. While these conflicts have had a profound effect on those in goverment service (being sent to fight) the effects on the civilian population have been minimal. I mean there is no rationing, the goverment isn't trying to collect resources, no draft, and we haven't declared martial law or seen the goverment put emergency powers into effect.
Truthfully I'm actually a supporter of things like "The Patriot Act" and actually think it should be extended, because I feel that it represents a good compromise for situations like this where we are involved in an armed conflict, but not facing a threat of the sort that requires us to go on a full wartime footing.
The issues inherant in "The Patriot Act" are a bit differant from this kind of issue because when you get down to it, the basic problem is that our current code of morality was conceived without considering the potential existance of a threat like the one we're facing. Nobody expected a third world country to be able to launch a decapitation strike at our goverment like the 9/11 attacks, people thought it was impossible, and that no culture would be so far gone as to try something like that to begin with. Like it or not, we came 2" away from losing the US, people look at "The Twin Towers" as the reason for what is going on. That was bad, but the plane that hit the Pentagon was even worse... and we got REALLY lucky. What's more we had a third plane that went down that was heading for DC and was going to hit either The Capitol or White House. Look at the chaos losing the WTC caused globally since so much money went through there. Now imagine that on top of that we lost The Pentagon, which is an administrative hub for most of the western world's military (like UN forces, not to mention what services we provide for other countries), and also lost one of the three branches of the goverment (either the house of representitives, or the President). I'm not sure if the US could have recovered, and there would have been global chaos.
Now yes, some of the things in "The Patriot Act" are not nice, but people tend to look at this from one perspective. It's easy to get all outraged by things like spy courts, but when you look at the cost of NOT doing these things, not just for ourselves, but also for the rest of the world that depends on the US and it's manpower/economy you can just as easily ask yourself how can we NOT take these actions after that.
Of course I also tend to be one of those who feels that "The Patriot Act" is such a mess because we're trying to work around the obvious. One one of those people who feels we're involved in a cultural, as opposed to national war. Our laws and morality were conceived by those who felt this could never happen, but it did. I think 99% of the problems could be averted by simply singling out Muslims despite it being racist/bigoted to many people, rather than infringing on the rights of everyone because we happen to be in conflict with that culture. Simply put, realizing that we were proven wrong, and sometimes you are going to
have to profile people.
-
At any rate, if they were to suggest that the goverment have the abillity to "kill switch" the internet without putting the entire nation on an emergency footing... well I disagree with that, but that is not where I see this going. I do not think this is being proposed as a part of "the patriot act" or anything like that, where the goverment is going to run around yanking internet access whenever it wants to.
-
When it comes to the old USSR, understand that there was a differance in that the USSR was at peace when it did all of these things. It was doing this to preserve a specific social order and keep specific people in charge. We called it a "cold war" because while there was jockying for position, and a few minor armed conflicts going on (like Afghanistan) there was nothing like a massive mobilization.
The US for example did not impose emergency powers in that type of a conflict, which is one of the reasons why I trust our goverment. The last time we did it was "World War II" when it was nessicary.
Any development can be abused. My simple attitude is that just because it might be abused does not mean it shouldn't be developed. Given what's going on, and the serious potential for another massive global war, we have to keep developing our own tricks right alongside China. The question is simply "should this exist?" and the answer is "yes". It would be irresponsible for it NOT to exist given the current global climate.
China has demonstrated it has a cyberwarfare force. We also know that even if our own version was a hundred times better, we'd still wind up probably losing in a cyberwar exchange since we're simply put more technologically dependant and more heavily computerized. In a war the antiquidated technology of China through a lot of their country can actually be an advantage nowadays.
A self-replicating, hard-drive deleting, security bypassing virus that transmits itself autonomously over the internet.Savagezion said:
Easy.
Yes really, and your argument doesn't hold water. As it stands, even by current times, they had the second largest empire in history, America is at about... The tenth I believe, this includes population, just so you know.ShaqLevick said:
Oh, the moon. You can't really conquer a place when no one else is there. Not only that, but all they did was travel there, not lay claim and say "The moon now belongs to America." Not only that, but your statement about the moon contradicts itself a bit. You claim empty places and figurative lines don't mean anything, but the moon counts?