Poll: Sentate Committee passed "Internet Kill switch" Bill

[pantsoffdanceoff]

As for full body scans. My penis is magnificent, iy would be a crime against humanity not to let them see it.

I haven't told you that you're my hero lately have I?

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

Is it just me or is the whole world slowly getting more and more fascist?

No, just more stupid. Read the article, and you'll understand this is a massive overreaction.

Ah.
I'm really not sure which would be worse =/

 

[spartan231490]

I can understand the thinking behind a lot of things that are outright wrong. I intellectually understand why Hitler thought the holocaust was a good idea, that doesnt make it right, or even justifiable. This bill is an attack against american rights and just like we did with the patriot act, we will not object to an unconstitutional bill just because we are too lazy to say anything, and too afraid of some unspecified doom that the government says is coming. Why would a forign power install remote kill switches in our infrastructure, and then not only fail to use them, but delay so long that we found them in what was probably a simple system sweep? It doesn't make any sense. "those who sacrifice liberty for a little security deseve neither" Ben Franklin.

First off, read the bill and what it does, before you start spouting insane theories regarding the Government overstepping it's authority. It has nothing to do with you being too lazy to say anything about it, it has everything to do with America in general, Government, Public or Private Sectors, all being too lazy to have kept up on electronic security. Just like the music/video/software industry is playing catch-up. So is the government in securing services we take for granted, but are very susceptible to attack.

Why would a foreign power put a system in place to cripple us, and not do so? Um, maybe leverage? Maybe simply a precautionary measure? As for why they wouldn't trigger it, and let it get found? I dunno, maybe triggering it would lead us right back to who did it, if we're paying attention at the time. Maybe there's even worse already in place. Who's to say really?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123914805204099085.html

That's the article from the Wall Street Journal, discussing the cyber attacks I'm talking about. As I said, read a little bit before you go off the deep end. The bill limits the President's authority over communications, which revises a bill from 1934 which gave the President overwhelming authority to do whatever they pleased. Read the freekin article you linked, and the bill that accompanies it. Christ.

I'm not off the deep end, it violates three of our ammendment rights, just cuz they say it's necessary to protect us deosnt mean i accept it. There are ways to protect the infrastructure without violating the constitution, have you ever read that?

 

[Angry Caterpillar]

Fuck them.
No government has any right to mess with the internet in any way, only what goes on and comes off of it. Once it's on there, fair game. Too bad. You can try to take down servers or the people running them, beyond that fuck you. It seems to me they have no idea what they're doing and they'd better fix this shit before they get put on my list between Disney and Stephenie Meyer.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU[/B]

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, at least they didn't implement the weapon of mass coercion.
I can't wait until we get a "Ministry of Corrective Thought" though.

 

[Ekonk]

Wow, Americans are fucked.


I'm possibly as well.

 

[Vigilantis]

Can we vote Obama out now?

(No I'm not blaming him for this Bill I just want him gone ^_^)

 

[spartan231490]

I'm not off the deep end, it violates three of our ammendment rights, just cuz they say it's necessary to protect us deosnt mean i accept it. There are ways to protect the infrastructure without violating the constitution, have you ever read that?

Yes, I have, several times. Which 3 amendment rights are you referring to, that weren't already in jeopardy, as a result of the sweeping communications law (created in 1934 prior to the Internet), that already gave the President overwhelming authority over such things. The internet falls under communications, this bill basically amended that bill, to remove much of the power the President was authorized to wield, and give it to an agency being created, whose sole focus is protecting the Private Sector (businesses) and utilities (power, water, etc..)

So it's alright just because those rights are already in jeopardy? How does that make sense, at least now it's a presidential authority, an entire agency will have much more time to devote to it. And the patriot act essentially destroys all the rights of anyone the government says is suspected of being a terrorist, so it's really a mute point isn't it.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

"Escapist, this is Obama. You are live on Channel 4, Please do not Swear."

Calumon: Wait, is he going to monitor people everywhere?

Spoiler: He's betraying...

 

[RJ Dalton]

The article is bullshit. What they're really going for here is the right to shut down the internet in case of public outcry against government actions on the fear that people will use the internet to coordinate rebellion.
No matter who is in command, roughly half the country is going to be disapproving of our leaders because of party infighting. What this shows us is that the US government is afraid of its citizens. They have good reason to be, given that it's spent the last twenty years working its citizens into a frothy-mouthed frenzy of Democrat Vs. Republican. You watch, sometime in the near future, there's going to be an event where lots of people are just taking part in an ordinary, peaceful demonstration and the president in charge is going to kill the internet, saying that the demonstration represents a national emergency.
Under no circumstances should the President of any country be allowed to shut down the internet. Even the fiasco they keep pointing to as an excuse has much more reasonable ways to solve, provided the people managing your country's major networks isn't a retarded monkey with cheese instead of brains. This bill is giving the government way too much power, no matter what they say about limiting the President's power.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm not off the deep end, it violates three of our ammendment rights, just cuz they say it's necessary to protect us deosnt mean i accept it. There are ways to protect the infrastructure without violating the constitution, have you ever read that?

Yes, I have, several times. Which 3 amendment rights are you referring to, that weren't already in jeopardy, as a result of the sweeping communications law (created in 1934 prior to the Internet), that already gave the President overwhelming authority over such things. The internet falls under communications, this bill basically amended that bill, to remove much of the power the President was authorized to wield, and give it to an agency being created, whose sole focus is protecting the Private Sector (businesses) and utilities (power, water, etc..)

So it's alright just because those rights are already in jeopardy? How does that make sense, at least now it's a presidential authority, an entire agency will have much more time to devote to it. And the patriot act essentially destroys all the rights of anyone the government says is suspected of being a terrorist, so it's really a mute point isn't it.

Are YOU actively watching the utilities grid for foreign intrusion? Is anyone on this site? Are you secretly trying to create some sort of doomsday virus? Seriously, how exactly does the inception of a Cybersecurity agency, impact YOU? Having an agency whose sole purpose to build safety protocols around current infrastructure is just plain smart thinking. Having the President wield unquestionable power over something he/she knows little about, is a terrible thing and making a change was a very very smart idea. The fact that all branches of the governments civil/military authority will have one place to go to for questions/data etc... is great. Having everything scattered everywhere, or in the hands of someone not trained in such things, is far less efficient.

As for the Patriot Act, that's different legislation and if you had a problem with that, you should've made more of a stink then. It's a bit late now.

I did make a stink then, a lot of people did, the smart ones. I made a stink when it came back up to be re-implimented or re-passed or whatever it was too. And i never said it was a good idea for our rights to be violated solely by the president, i said that if someone is going to be able to violate my rights, it's better one person than an agency. The bill should be modified so that our rights are protected, just because you don't think an agency will use it's ability to take someone's rights away against you, doesn't mean that they won't and it doesn't mean that it's right even if they do. We have rights protected by the constitution for a reason, and if we let this slide it's just one more step towards a land where we have no rights. You can close your eyes and whistle your way to the grave if you want, but I will go the grave with a clean concience, knowing that i did everything within my meager power to prevent the degradation of our rights. Not that it matters, the price of liberty is vigilance, and I don't see a whole lot of people paying, I just wish that those of us who are paying won't lose our freedom when the rest do. "Take what you want, but pay for it," and we, as a nation, just aren't paying.

 

[Unesh52]

This is like the third thread I've seen in this forum that I'm pretty sure is supposed to be in the Religion and Politics forum. Am I missing something? I don't care about this right now! It's my birthday and I want to talk about frivolous nonsense!

Liberte! Equalite! Frivolite!

 

[Agayek]

Well, it's good that the actual legislation that enables the shutting down of the internet has been limited, but I have to admit, I'm tired of the US government thinking it knows better than everyone else. If they chose to regulate their own countries cyberspace, then I'll be annoyed, but I'll accept it. However, I don't believe that the US should be allowed to go outside their borders at all. The article doesn't make it clear, but considering the internet is very international, they'll probably have to, which is something I firmly oppose. I don't want my internet shut down by the fucking FBI, because they are not part of my country and should not be allowed to regulate me.

Still, surely they have better things to be spending money on? The mounting environmental crisis? The severe housing shortage?

The US government has no authority over anything not located in the US. That means the vast majority of the internet will be fine, at least from other countries. There are two major problems with this bill: 1) The President can order American ISPs to completely cut off access to every citizen within the States and 2) websites based in the US (read: not the international companies like Google, Amazon, etc) will not be able to be accessed by anyone outside of the country.

The biggest websites for commerce are already multinational, so it won't impact them at all, but some of the smaller ones (which is the majority) based in the US will be shut down. That said, I'm not entirely sure how much people in other countries actually use US-based websites to actually do any commerce, so we'll see how that effects other countries.


As an American citizen, the things I'm more worried about are the effects on the economy should it ever be used for more than a few seconds at a time and the whole "Big Brother" aspect. I can easily see the US economy tanking for days with a country-wide internet blackout that lasts as short as an hour.

 

[spartan231490]

The article is bullshit. What they're really going for here is the right to shut down the internet in case of public outcry against government actions on the fear that people will use the internet to coordinate rebellion.
No matter who is in command, roughly half the country is going to be disapproving of our leaders because of party infighting. What this shows us is that the US government is afraid of its citizens. They have good reason to be, given that it's spent the last twenty years working its citizens into a frothy-mouthed frenzy of Democrat Vs. Republican. You watch, sometime in the near future, there's going to be an event where lots of people are just taking part in an ordinary, peaceful demonstration and the president in charge is going to kill the internet, saying that the demonstration represents a national emergency.
Under no circumstances should the President of any country be allowed to shut down the internet. Even the fiasco they keep pointing to as an excuse has much more reasonable ways to solve, provided the people managing your country's major networks isn't a retarded monkey with cheese instead of brains. This bill is giving the government way too much power, no matter what they say about limiting the President's power.

I won't go so far as to say that this WILL happen in the near future, but it wouldn't surprise me. And as long as we allow our rights to be stripped away, a day will come when we won't have any left, did none of you understand that V for vendetta wasn't just a comment on the past, but also a warning as to what is happinging this very moment in the country that supposedly represents freedom and equality. a republic doesn't become an empire in a day, it is a series of small reasonable steps that the government convinces the people are necessary, weather or not they believe they are is irrelivant. I point out that the only federal governing body is supposed to be congress, but a federal agency, I believe it's the fcc or ftc, has had the ability to pass laws for something like 30 years, and not one member of that agency is elected by the people. Beware small losses people, for liberty always dies a the death of a thousand paper cuts.

 

[spartan231490]

Is it just me or is the whole world slowly getting more and more fascist?

No, just more stupid. Read the article, and you'll understand this is a massive overreaction.

Ah.
I'm really not sure which would be worse =/

Well, from the sounds of it, this bill simply reduces the authority over communications, given to the President back in 1934, when there was no internet, and TV was still in its infancy. Yes, it does start a new Agency, but one that's been sorely need for far too long. If you take a look at that Wall Street Journal article I posted, it'll show we've already had foreign agencies running through our electrical grid, trying to make a roadmap of our infrastructure. It's rather necessary to step up security in the private/utilities sector this day and age. To say otherwise is simply being blind to how vulnerable some of our systems are.

The downside is, FEMA-like organizations have failed miserably in the past. I'm thinking the New Orleans area. But, having nobody paying attention is worse imo.

Am I the only one who thinks that they should step up security at the site, instead of building an unconstitutional agency with the power to ignore our constitutionally (sarchastic air quotes)"protected" rights?

 

[chinangel]

Question, is this a global kill switch? I mean i know the US government considers the world their own personal fiefdom but...

well what does this mean for us who don't salute the red white and blue?

 

[RJ Dalton]

I won't go so far as to say that this WILL happen in the near future, but it wouldn't surprise me. And as long as we allow our rights to be stripped away, a day will come when we won't have any left, did none of you understand that V for vendetta wasn't just a comment on the past, but also a warning as to what is happinging this very moment in the country that supposedly represents freedom and equality. a republic doesn't become an empire in a day, it is a series of small reasonable steps that the government convinces the people are necessary, weather or not they believe they are is irrelivant. I point out that the only federal governing body is supposed to be congress, but a federal agency, I believe it's the fcc or ftc, has had the ability to pass laws for something like 30 years, and not one member of that agency is elected by the people. Beware small losses people, for liberty always dies a the death of a thousand paper cuts.

Exactly, exactly.
I'd like to make a point that this bill was written by a democrat, supported by democrats and will be passed by a democrat controlled congress, just to make a point to all those people who think the republicans are the only problem in this country.
On the other hand, I'm never gonna hear the end of this from my fanatical right-wing conspiracy theorist uncle. He'll go on in that smugly superior voice of his, "It figures the democrats would ruin everything."
This is the real problem in our country. The corrupt government are only a symptom of the blind, fanatical adherence to the parties that allows our government to get away with this shit. If people would think for themselves and realize that just because they say "this is what I mean to do" that doesn't mean that's what they actually intend to do (politicians lie to get power, what a fascinating and radical concept), this wouldn't be happening.