Poll: Sentate Committee passed "Internet Kill switch" Bill

[spartan231490]

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?

Don't think so, but i suspect that they will find a way to include the multinational sites like google and youtube somehow. They can't touch anything based completely elsewhere but i suspect they may find a way to hit the ones that are international. for that matter, all this agency will prolly do is cause most internet coutnries to move thier severs overseas, don't know if that's possible, but if it is, it will likely not accomplish it's stated goals. The minimum wage and other things like it just pushed most production overseas, this will prolly just push the internet overseas, furthing the rapid degeneration of the US economy.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

I didn't think it was possible, but I found someone else who thinks for themselves on the internet.

 

[Akalistos]

If you haven't heard, a senate committee recently passed the bill which Sen. Joe Liberman proposed as basically a way for the president to shut down the internet.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/06/26/cyberspace-protection-bill-approved-no-kill-switch/

However, there appears to be no actual "kill switch" mentioned. The bill would instead create a new agency that would monitor all things cyber-related, and would be the FBI of cyberspace.

To quote a friend, "This is bullshit...if our country can't secure their own shit then we deserve to be broken into. This administration has no idea what they are doing with 'cybersecurity.'"

So, Escapists, what do you all think? Is the Obama Administation overstepping its boundaries, or could the creation of a new agency be benficial to the security of our country?

In my opinion, this is just plain wrong. The DoD and Homeland Security already have massive countermeasures for a cyber-attack. Besides, nearly all the agencies have cyber-divisions, and the Air Force has a large chunk devoted to cyber-security (and who knows what the NSA is doing). Establishing a new agency is a waste of time and money the could be better spent fixing the country.

Also, this reminds me of the full-body scanners proposed for airport security. Some people were willing to have a little of their privacy taken away (considering the full body scan scans your entire body... just let that sink in for a moment) for a minor increase to security. As Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'm Canadian. A Canadian gamer to be exact. I did play online for a while but... The "XBOX LIVE SYNDROME" have now spread far and wide across the US. If The US got a "KILL THE INTERNET" switch, i don't think it will affect me in a negative light. In fact, I may give a party and finally hook-up my PS3 on the INTERNET if they kill it. Of course, is the US blow out the whole planet's internet... expect nuke arriving in a delay of 6 to 9 open days.

 

[chrono16]

I hear the Ministry of Truth knocking.....along with the rise of Big Brother.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Rights that've been already under someone's control since 1934. Essentially, you never had them to begin with. They've been on borrowed time. Just because it's there, doesn't mean it's always going to be used. Everyone who works for a living pays for the government and military to be vigilant for them. Otherwise, the civilian populace would be in charge of security. Which they aren't. Either no time, blissful ignorance, or lack of funds.

You still haven't said which 3 amendments this infringes upon. Though, since they've been 'infringed' since before I was born (and likely you also), I fail to see how this infringes upon them anymore more than they already were. Simply puts the power into someone's hands who's actually knowledgeable in the matter.

I already said that just because one bill was unconstitutional, doesnt mean we should allow the upgrade to continue to be so. And the vigilance that is meant by that quote is, try to keep up with me, AGAINST the government to ensure that they don't chip away at our rights, like they are now. Hence the, we aren't paying part. I'm not posative they are three seperate amendments, the first(free speach) and the forth(illegal search and seizure(intellectual property)) I'm sure of. I'm not sure which ammendment protects our rights to privacy. Does it really matter that our rights have been infringed sinse 1934, if we actually raise enough of a fuss over it, the supreme court would do what it's job, and declare it unconstitutional, and repeal it, if it isn't already too late. But we wont, because the majority of americans, are either too scared, or too lazy to stand up for themselves.

 

[Hashime]

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?

I agree, if my service is limited because of them I will be pissed.

 

[SlasherX]

Did we go back in time is it 1984?

 

[Plurralbles]

well, meh, good thing Steam has an Offline mode.

I could live without the internet, but I'm pretty sure it'd destroy the economy. No president would do this unless he really, really, really REALLY wanted to fuck the entire country over. Hell, some people couldn't even do their fucking banking! This killswitch might exist and be allowed, but it will NEVER be used.

 

[JordanMillward_1]

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..)

Pretty much this. It seems like every time Obama does something sensible, America cries out "Nooo! You can't do that! It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL I TELLS YA!"

Having an agency have those powers rather than the President is a good thing, and having those powers in place to protect the economy, etc, is a good thing. Did you guys not realise that your economy going down a bit caused pretty much everyone's economy to do badly? This will help prevent electronic warfare destabilising the world economy, so really, America needs to suck it up and realise that, for once, they are going to have to sacrifice something for the rest of the world, and not the other way around as it usually is.

 

[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?

Which site, every power station in the US? Or every server in the US? That's the problem, you can't just add 'physical' security here, unless it's to remove remote access points from our power grid (Which I think should be a first step anyway). Typically, isn't it the governments responsibility to provide a safe environment for businesses to function? The bigger question though, would we rather have such power in the Presidents hands (Which it was prior to this legislation), or in the hands of an agency whose sole function is maintaining cyber security on a national level?

No, it isn't the governments job to provide a safe place for businesses to function, not at the detriment of the rights of the citizens. If a convenience store opens up in a bad neiborhood, is it the governments job to outlaw gun ownership in that neiborhood? No. If a brothel opens up in las vegas, is it nevada's job to make every man over the age of 18 carry a condom in his wallet by law? No. It is the bisiness responsiblity to protect itself, and even if you want to regulate it nationally, you could easily force the grid's to remove remote access, double thier firewalls, install more/better protection software, whatever, you dont need to install a killswitch on the internet and remove the people's rights. Or maybe i should say, the sheeple's rights.

 

[Quaxar]

Skynet is UK, Big Brother is American. I see some problems arising...

 

[Ham_authority95]

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

Yours is too? *High fives*

 

[spartan231490]

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..)

Pretty much this. It seems like every time Obama does something sensible, America cries out "Nooo! You can't do that! It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL I TELLS YA!"

Having an agency have those powers rather than the President is a good thing, and having those powers in place to protect the economy, etc, is a good thing. Did you guys not realise that your economy going down a bit caused pretty much everyone's economy to do badly? This will help prevent electronic warfare destabilising the world economy, so really, America needs to suck it up and realise that, for once, they are going to have to sacrifice something for the rest of the world, and not the other way around as it usually is.

We don't have to sacrifice our rights for the world, our lives are our own, we should rise up and live them. If anyone recognizes that referance, you deserve a medal AND a cookie. but seriously, what right do you have to turn us into potential slaves awaiting our masters, just because your economy might do poorly when ours does. If you notice, that means that you suffer a lesser version of our fate, just punishment for dragging you down if there ever was one.

 

[spartan231490]

well, meh, good thing Steam has an Offline mode.

I could live without the internet, but I'm pretty sure it'd destroy the economy. No president would do this unless he really, really, really REALLY wanted to fuck the entire country over. Hell, some people couldn't even do their fucking banking! This killswitch might exist and be allowed, but it will NEVER be used.

Small price to pay to quell news of a small rebellion from traveling and causing it to be a full scale revolution. That is just one of the many evil uses that the government will eventually put this to, if we don't stop them while we still can. but hey, im on the record, after the next american revolution, maybe people will look back and say, "why did no one listen to this guy?". then again, prolly not, sinse all record of my "subversive writtings" will have been deleted, destroyed, ect. by the empire.