Posted on 04/21/2009 1:16:43 PM PDT by Joiseydude
A proposed bill that would give the president widespread power to shut down the Internet in the event of a cyberattack could have sweeping implications on civil liberties. The days of an open, largely unregulated Internet may soon come to an end.
A bill making its way through Congress proposes to give the U.S. government authority over all networks considered part of the nation's critical infrastructure. Under the proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, the president would have the authority to shut down Internet traffic to protect national security.
The government also would have access to digital data from a vast array of industries including banking, telecommunications and energy. A second bill, meanwhile, would create a national cybersecurity adviser -- commonly referred to as the cybersecurity czar -- within the White House to coordinate strategy with a wide range of federal agencies involved.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Because to s self-hating anti American “progressive”, every foreign terrorist is a misunderstood friend, while his conservative neighbor is worse than Satan himself.
How is my access to YouTube, Amazon, and FR a "threat to national security?"
A "threat to national security" would be if they hacked into a Pentagon database, or a Congressionial network, or the hard drives at Los Alamos labs, but I doubt that those are available from the internet.
And when did the internet become part of "the nation's critical infrastructure?"
All it will take is one internal CIA-led "attack" to give Obama the reason to shut down the internet. I'd be surprised if something as little as a FReep of a CNN online poll would be enough to call it an attack, if there was some viral news or video making the rounds that Obama wanted stopped.
-PJ
Seriously, a pigeon could carry quite a lot of data on a memory stick.
But... time to get into long-range Bluetooth and packet transmission by radio.
I notice that when something is bad, the press inserts the generic “government” or “president” words in place of Obama.
Folks this is just the beginning. They want to take our freedoms away as we know them. All this in the first 3 months. It is going to be a long 45 months.
And Olympia Snowe is one of the co-sponsors of the bill! THROW HER OUT OF THE PARTY NOW!!!!!!!
The ‘black market’ net will be along shortly...
The DUmmies are under the illusion that the Left represents freedom and freedom from government.
Wonder how they are viewing this?
.
The Critters (Rockefeller, Olympia Snowe, Bill Nelson (who I do not know) :
The bill would allow the government to create a detailed set of standards for cybersecurity, as well as take over the process of certifying IT technicians. But many in the technology sector say the government is simply ill-equipped to get involved at the technical level, said Franck Journoud, a policy analyst with the Business Software Alliance.
“Simply put, who has the expertise?” he said. “It’s the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard.”
A spokeswoman from Rockefeller’s office said neither he nor the two senators who co-sponsored the bill, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., will answer questions on cybersecurity at a later date.
Zeig heil! Mein Furher est Obama
Leftists always make excuses for the totalitarian moves of their leftist leadership. They believe in the “solution” that the leadership is working towards is achievable and without negative tradeoffs. They are willing to put up with a lot of bad stuff in order to achieve that utopian solution.
That’s not the only way.
Tenth amendment sovereignty would stop him.
Secession would stop him.
There will nothing left in 45 months. The move to King Obama and his thugs will have been complete before that.
There’s a real threat in the foreseeable future of massively destructive cyberwar. We do need some mechanism for the Commander-in-Chief to take emergency action, but we also need a strong mechanism to protect against abuse of that power. I’d propose requiring a majority vote of Supreme Court justices, with any or all of the evidence presented to them remaining confidential if a majority of them agree it needs to be for national security reasons, but with their individual votes being made public.
There’s no perfect solution, but at least the SC justices aren’t campaigning for office or in position to vote to bestow vast sums of taxpayer money on their cronies and campaign donors. And they are a small group, old enough to have perspective, and few enough to have a sense of collegiality. In a major emergency such as a serious cyberattack, I’d really prefer to have a Commander-in-Chief consulting with the 9 SC justices to get permission to shut down the Internet, than with the unruly mob of Congresspeople and Senators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.