No, Obama Isn't Taking Over The Internets - Cybersecurity bill threat appears drastically overstated...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
No, Obama Isn't Taking Over The Internets
Cybersecurity bill threat appears drastically overstated...
12:05PM Wednesday Sep 02 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: legal · business · security · privacy · Politics
Declan McCullagh has for years had a nasty habit of actually reading the laws Congress passes into law, which is frequently more than can be said of Congress itself. Last week, McCullagh wrote a piece for CNET exploring a new bill aimed at shoring up the nation's cybersecurity defenses. According to McCullagh, the bill would allow Uncle Sam to "seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency." McCullagh, who has a Libertarian bent, wound up terrifying the entire Internets. While that sounds scary, there's just one problem. According to Wired's Nicholas Thompson, it isn't true. While the original bill had some now-removed scary language, the new version simply acts to do things like provide scholarships for promising security researchers -- and doesn't give the President any power he didn't already have. The passage in question that started it all: In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network — [the president] may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network. The wording is incredibly vague, insisting the President "may" in "coordination with the relevant industry sectors" simply "direct the national response" to the threat. That's a far cry from saying he's installing a secret Internet kill switch. There's plenty of very real Obama technology policy positions to criticize (like stocking the DOJ with RIAA lawyers and his positions on telco wiretap immunity and surveillance) without making any up.
Related:- Wednesday Evening Links
- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
bgraham @ 2nd Sep 12:08PM:
Why not turn off even more?
TV, telephones and internet.
That would stop anything.
reply
Raptor @ 2nd Sep 12:12PM:
I don't know...
....That conveniently juxtaposed, scary looking, Grandma unplugging Obama picture makes me think otherwise.
--
....where's my fiber?
reply
anon @ 2nd Sep 12:15PM:
what
quote:
the new version doesn't give the President any power he didn't already have.
Then why give it to him... again?
reply
manfmmd @ 2nd Sep 12:26PM:
Something
tells me if Bush was still in, the left would be all over this..
Change you can believe in?
Riiiiiiiiiight....
ACLU...EFF...Where art thou?
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
reply
openbox9 @ 2nd Sep 12:30PM:
Re: what
Because the proposed law does more than simply affirm the President's authority.
reply
mystryfiostk @ 2nd Sep 12:37PM:
.
Here come the teabaggers and freepers.
reply
MeKuN @ 2nd Sep 12:41PM:
Re: .
Here comes the troll.
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Sep 12:44PM:
I don't trust them
When the laws are vague, you trust the Government.
I would rather not have the Government as restricted as possible. After all, that is what the constitution is about - to restrict the powers of Government.
reply
Hpower @ 2nd Sep 12:44PM:
lol @ obama picture
He looks scary as hell in the picture LOL. Screw the gov trying to control the internet.
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually.
reply
ender7074 @ 2nd Sep 12:49PM:
Re: Something
They're too busy trying to destroy our intelligence gathering agencies. You know, because they are evil.
--
Does Microsoft mean small and squishy?
reply
funchords @ 2nd Sep 12:50PM:
Re: Something
said by manfmmd :
tells me if Bush was still in, the left would be all over this..
All over what?
These aren't "left" versus "right" issues.
The EFF is still fighting the Bush policies that Obama is continuing. "Change you can believe in?" Obama voted for telecom immunity, so I guess we shouldn't expect change.
Obama is also getting no special pass for the copyright power grab that simply continues under his watch (although a lot of bad copyright-strengthening proposals come from the left, anyway).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent. --Spock and McCoy stardate 5029.5
reply
ender7074 @ 2nd Sep 12:51PM:
Re: .
Better than the Stalinists and commies.
--
Does Microsoft mean small and squishy?
reply
Titus Pullo @ 2nd Sep 12:51PM:
Re: Something
said by manfmmd :
tells me if Bush was still in, the left would be all over this..
Change you can believe in?
Riiiiiiiiiight....
ACLU...EFF...Where art thou?
Oh, I agree that there's nothing quite so vague as government wording by government lawyers. It's a cesspool of excrement so vile it'd make a freight train take a dirt road.
But, you know (or you damn well should), all this left - right bullsh*t has become completely irrelevant at this point. Either your faux representative government is one that caters to your ideology, by and large, or it doesn't. There is no left or right; it's a damn shell game of divide and conquer run by two parties that do a kabuki on behalf of their corporate masters. You can bet your last penny that Reagan knew at least this much.
And therein lies the only difference between these two affiliations: there are more within the 'right' well aware of this, evidently, than there are on the 'left' -- where wide-eyed idealism (which, for the love of God should have been destroyed, if not by Reagan then certainly by Bush) still lives in small clusters of people who, if they're not smoking skank bud, should be.
I'll tell you this much: if Bush were still ... I don't want to think about it; it's positively perverse.
--
reply
MoJeeper @ 2nd Sep 12:53PM:
Re: .
said by mystryfiostk :
Here come the teabaggers and freepers.
it's called freedom of speach. Call them what you may but I respect their and your right to voice their opinion. I think your post is off base but that's my take.
I don't believe the president needs to have the switch to the Internet. Better yet give it to Harry Reid he is so ignorant it would take him the rest of his life to figure out how the switch works.
We may as well move to china where they know how to supress the truth and freedoms.
--
Semper Fidelis. 233 Years Strong.
»www.pleasant-viewfire.org
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 2nd Sep 12:54PM:
Re: .
You're judged by the company you keep. I'm happy to be classed and judged with mine, not humiliated by their lack of experience and apparent hatred and disdain for prosperity in America.
I don't think I need to say any more on this subject.
reply
Matt @ 2nd Sep 01:02PM:
Baffling
It is baffling to me that people want to deny our government the ability to protect critical communications infrastructure and gloss over the entire first sentence.
---
In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
---
You're right, let's not allow our government to respond to attacks launched from compromised private networks. While we're at it, we should probably take steps to allow anyone to shoot at troops while on US soil, as long as they are shooting from their own private property of course. :uhh:
reply
kapil @ 2nd Sep 01:03PM:
Re: .
said by ender7074 :
Better than the Stalinists and commies.
Actually, No. When was the last time "Stalinists and commies" came after you?
"Teabaggers" are a much bigger 'threat' if it could be called that in the first place. It's a bunch of uneducated, small-village-mentality fools that are killing this country one Hitler reference at a time.
The biggest communist threat we've ever faced - bigger than USSR - is China...but no one seems to be paying attention to that.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com
reply
Matt @ 2nd Sep 01:08PM:
Re: .
said by NOVA_Guy :
You're judged by the company you keep. I'm happy to be classed and judged with mine, not humiliated by their lack of experience and apparent hatred and disdain for prosperity in America.
I don't think I need to say any more on this subject.
Please don't. Because nothing being spewed from the anti-healthcare reform folks is even remotely "experienced" unless you consider their vast experience in spreading FUD.
When Bush was in office I was told I hated America because I didn't march lock-step with his policies. Now that Obama is in office, those same people tell me I hate America because I want to provide healthcare for everyone. They say now is not the time, but of course Hillarycare (now Obamacare, very imaginative) was 16 years ago and it wasn't the right time either. So when is the right time to lift the healthcare burden off Americans? If you want to increase prosperity, make sure your populace is healthy and remove the #1 reason for personal bankruptcy.
reply
kapil @ 2nd Sep 01:09PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by Eat Me :
that is what the constitution is about - to restrict the powers of Government.
No, it's not. The word has a definition. It's not what you think it's about. A constitution is the legal framework for the government of a nation....it says nothing about restricting powers of the government other than to say that any powers not explicitly granted to government is vested with the people. If the people, through their elected representatives, allow the government more authority so it can do more on behalf of the people it represents...then that isn't unconstitutional.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com
reply
acehyde @ 2nd Sep 01:10PM:
What if?
The section that says quote:
"direct the national response to the cyber threat".
What if under Obama's (or any other President after Obama) national response is to disconnect or otherwise interfere with private sections connectivity?
What would constitute quote:
"an immediate threat"?
Also, who are these quote:
"relevant industry sectors"
that they mention?
Where are the checks and balances with this?
Would Congress be able to block this if he opened one of the many "The Sky is Falling" emails and panicked?
--
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
-Ronald Reagan
reply
Andy S @ 2nd Sep 01:15PM:
Re: Baffling
To: NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Euthanizing America
I wonder if we can sign up people claiming untrue things about the healthcare debate to the procedures they claim are in it.
Love how a Dr. talking to elders about end of life choices that most children don't want to talk to thier parents about is killing grandma.
I guess it's like Forest Gump.. They are not smart people.
reply
ShellMMG @ 2nd Sep 01:32PM:
Legislative Messes
The bottom line is we have a congress stacked with senators and representatives who have NO idea how the internet functions, what technologies actually work, how profit and loss play a part, and they take their lack of knowledge to pass legislation with no clue as to the Law of Unintended Consequences. When they do bother with information it's usually at the behest of lobbyists. Garbage gets slipped into the bills under the cover of darkness -- and politicians who can't be bothered to read the bills before they come up for a vote.
My husband trains federal and state policies to social service workers for our state. Trying to get the two systems to mesh is time-consuming, expensive, results in legal gobbledygook and the end product usually causes more problems than it solves. Trusting them with internet legislation is hard to justify, but at least it's unlikely to have the lethal consequences of their ideas regarding "health" care.
reply
longstreet @ 2nd Sep 01:33PM:
hmm
If a major cyber attack occurs, they'll grill Obama.
If he trys to protect us, they'll grill Obama.
Anyone want to grill Obama?
If it was Bush saying it back when the AUMF was written, i'm pretty sure these same people wouldn't be talking.
The government should not be allowed to take over private computers or networks. I agree with that.
I read the bill and I just don't see clearly where a reasonably intelligent person could possible imply that from.
reply
ARGONAUT @ 2nd Sep 01:38PM:
Really? Really?? Really???
Death-net maybe :huh:
Lets see how Fox News spins this to the willing sheep.
reply
BloodRoses @ 2nd Sep 01:47PM:
Re: Something
Thanks for that, it made me giggle. :)
reply
mrkevin @ 2nd Sep 01:51PM:
Yes he is
Since it was Al Gore who invented it. It only makes sense that Obama promised Gore control back over his invention.
--
An army of sheep led by a lion, will always defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.
reply
tdouglas22 @ 2nd Sep 01:54PM:
Re: hmm
said by longstreet :
I read the bill and I just don't see clearly where a reasonably intelligent person could possible imply that from.
That's just it.... your giving people too much credit. It's harsh to say but there really aren't that many intelligent people in the world.... least of all, the ones who use common sense on a regular basis.
reply
jimbo2150 @ 2nd Sep 01:57PM:
Re: Why not turn off even more?
said by bgraham :
TV, telephones and internet. That would stop anything.
Eventually, TV will become IPTV and POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) and cellphones will become VOIP and turning off the internet at that time would do just that.
I also think it's a little ironic: many groups out there siding with Chaney that torture is perfectly fine to defend our nation from terrorists. Yet at the same time, give the president power to TEMPORARILY suspend net access to prevent security threats from the Internet and you get the response: "Takes away my nets? Hellz no!"
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
anon @ 2nd Sep 02:10PM:
A warning:
"No socialist government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently worded expressions of public discontent.
They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.
"And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil.
"And where would the ordinary simple folk - the common people, as they like to call them in America - where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?"
Winston Churchill, The First Conservative Election Broadcast, June 4, 1945.
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Sep 02:45PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by kapil :said by Eat Me :
that is what the constitution is about - to restrict the powers of Government.
No, it's not. The word has a definition. It's not what you think it's about. A constitution is the legal framework for the government of a nation....it says nothing about restricting powers of the government other than to say that any powers not explicitly granted to government is vested with the people. If the people, through their elected representatives, allow the government more authority so it can do more on behalf of the people it represents...then that isn't unconstitutional.
The US constitution absolutely limits the power of Government, and the US was founded on the principle of limited Government.
The bill of rights was specifically designed to limit the power of the Government as well.
Furthermore, the constitution and the declaration of independence recognize our rights as coming not from the Government, but defines them as rights we are born with, and that the Government can only recognize those rights, not take them away.
For example, the right to free speech cannot be taken away without a constitutional amendment. If any law tries to do it, it can be (and has been, repeatedly) challenged in court. Same for the freedom of the press and our other rights. Even gun control laws have been ruled as unconstitutional in many cases (DC v Heller, for example).
Notice that the bill of rights uses language like, "Congress shall make no law" or "The right of the people. (to do XYZ)..shall not be infringed."
All of these things say things that the Government cannot do. In other words, they limit the powers of Government.
reply
manfmmd @ 2nd Sep 03:05PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by kapil :said by Eat Me :
that is what the constitution is about - to restrict the powers of Government.
No, it's not. The word has a definition. It's not what you think it's about. A constitution is the legal framework for the government of a nation....it says nothing about restricting powers of the government other than to say that any powers not explicitly granted to government is vested with the people. If the people, through their elected representatives, allow the government more authority so it can do more on behalf of the people it represents...then that isn't unconstitutional.
I beg to differ, it say that those powers not delegated to the federal government are vested with the states. It's time to brush off the 10th Amendment and re-read it.
edit to quote:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"or to the people", as some would interpret, would be the ability to add to or take away from the Constitution via a ratification of a new Amendment by the states.
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
reply
hopeflicker @ 2nd Sep 03:08PM:
Re: Yes he is
said by mrkevin :
Since it was Al Gore who invented it. It only makes sense that Obama promised Gore control back over his invention.
better check your facts »www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
reply
cameronsfx @ 2nd Sep 03:09PM:
Re: Why not turn off even more?
He already has that power with FEMA and the War Powers Act. Karl needs to learn some laws. :o
reply
puck0114 @ 2nd Sep 03:10PM:
Re: Baffling
We live in a society that calls you an "elitist" if you're educated and lauds people for their mediocrity. What do you expect?
The biggest threat to the politicians is an educated populace.
reply
manfmmd @ 2nd Sep 03:12PM:
Re: Something
said by funchords :said by manfmmd :
tells me if Bush was still in, the left would be all over this..
All over what?
These aren't "left" versus "right" issues.
The EFF is still fighting the Bush policies that Obama is continuing. "Change you can believe in?" Obama voted for telecom immunity, so I guess we shouldn't expect change.
Obama is also getting no special pass for the copyright power grab that simply continues under his watch (although a lot of bad copyright-strengthening proposals come from the left, anyway).
They shouldn't be left or right issues, but the emphasis placed on these issues, the choice to pursue these issues, and the media coverage that each receives depends on who is in power at the time.
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
reply
manfmmd @ 2nd Sep 03:16PM:
Re: Baffling
said by Matt :
It is baffling to me that people want to deny our government the ability to protect critical communications infrastructure and gloss over the entire first sentence.
---
In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
---
You're right, let's not allow our government to respond to attacks launched from compromised private networks. While we're at it, we should probably take steps to allow anyone to shoot at troops while on US soil, as long as they are shooting from their own private property of course. :uhh:
They should respond by cutting off their connectivity to the outside world, PERIOD until the attack is brought under control by the private sector. They have no business taking down the internet if their systems are under attack.
Hire a competent staff that can adequately (up for interpretation) defend the government network against outside threats. It's not the ISP's fault that the government can't do that.
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
reply
manfmmd @ 2nd Sep 03:17PM:
Re: Yes he is
said by hopeflicker :said by mrkevin :
Since it was Al Gore who invented it. It only makes sense that Obama promised Gore control back over his invention.
better check your facts »
www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek - Look it up.
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Sep 03:34PM:
Re: Baffling
said by Matt :
It is baffling to me that people want to deny our government the ability to protect critical communications infrastructure and gloss over the entire first sentence.
---
In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
---
You're right, let's not allow our government to respond to attacks launched from compromised private networks. While we're at it, we should probably take steps to allow anyone to shoot at troops while on US soil, as long as they are shooting from their own private property of course. :uhh:
The Government can protect its infrastructure without shutting off public access to the internet.
Using your analogy, they can defend the country without killing every citizen "just in case."
Why are they using the public internet anyway? The Government should have its own network, separate from the internet and secured so that access to it from the internet would be impossible.
reply
Neyland @ 2nd Sep 03:37PM:
Re: Why not turn off even more?
said by cameronsfx :
He already has that power with FEMA and the War Powers Act. Karl needs to learn some laws. :o
quote:
While the original bill had some now-removed scary language, the new version simply acts to do things like provide scholarships for promising security researchers -- and doesn't give the President any power he didn't already have.
Am I missing something?
reply
amigo_boy @ 2nd Sep 03:40PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by Eat Me :
The US constitution absolutely limits the power of Government, and the US was founded on the principle of limited Government.
Absolutely limits power? Consider the context. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. Twelve years after the revolution -- and the founding generation living under the relatively-libertarian Articles of Confederation. The AoF granted no powers to a central government, because there was none. No need to enumerate powers (nor the rights those powers should respect) because there was no entity to use/abuse those powers.
After 12 years, the founding generation wanted a more powerful government, not less. They ditched the AoF in favor of a vastly more powerful and completely new government, creating loopholes like "general welfare" and "reasonable searches" which didn't exist before.
So, it's obviously not an absolute limit on power. It was (relatively speaking) one of the largest expansions of power in this country's history. The AoF was an absolute limit on power. It wasn't effective. And, after the revolutionary high wore off, the founding generation opted for more effective, efficient government to meet their needs. Just like every generation since has desired.
You're right that it's not an unlimited power. But, in the process of defining (in some cases, vaguely) power, they were vastly increasing power to meet their needs. They didn't invalidate the concept of powerful, effective government. They were the role model for it.
Mark
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Sep 03:45PM:
Re: hmm
said by longstreet :
The government should not be allowed to take over private computers or networks. I agree with that.
I read the bill and I just don't see clearly where a reasonably intelligent person could possible imply that from.
AUTHORITY
SEC. 201. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AU-
THORITY.
(2) in the event of an immediate threat to stra-
tegic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network—
(A) may declare a cybersecurity emer-
gency; and
(B) may, if the President finds it necessary
for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and
the timely restoration of the affected critical in-
frastructure information system or network;
(3) shall, in coordination with various critical
infrastructure industry sectors, develop detailed
cyber emergency response and restoration plans for
each critical infrastructure industry sector;
Now this doesn't say outright that Obama will take away your interwebz (ones!) but it is pretty vague and open for interpretation.
What does he mean by direct the response? Your computer is infected. I order you to take it offline to protect that nation's national security.
It may very well be that the Government has good intentions, but like I said, I don't trust them.
reply
hopeflicker @ 2nd Sep 03:45PM:
Re: Yes he is
His humor was NOT apparent.
thank you
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Sep 03:47PM:
Re: hmm
said by longstreet :
If a major cyber attack occurs, they'll grill Obama.
If he trys to protect us, they'll grill Obama.
Anyone want to grill Obama?
So no one in the past 8 years grilled Bush over:
The USA Patriot Act
9/11 and its aftermath
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
No one, right?
reply
Matt @ 2nd Sep 03:49PM:
Re: Baffling
Where does it say anything about an off switch for the internet? Karl even mentions this falsehood in his last paragraph.
reply
Mr Neutron @ 2nd Sep 03:51PM:
Re: Baffling
said by Matt :
It is baffling to me that people want to deny our government the ability to protect critical communications infrastructure and gloss over the entire first sentence.
---
In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
---
You're right, let's not allow our government to respond to attacks launched from compromised private networks. While we're at it, we should probably take steps to allow anyone to shoot at troops while on US soil, as long as they are shooting from their own private property of course. :uhh:
The problem with governments (not just ours) is that they have a funny way of taking broad definitions and making them even broader. ;)
I'd feel a lot better is the rather vague phrase "immediate threat to strategic national interests" were just a tad better defined. But the reason why legislation is usually worded so vaguely is because it's about expanding power rather than confining it (Albeit for the noblest of reasons, of course! Ain't it always?).
Once the government specifically defines the exact circumstances that constitute "an immediate threat to strategic national interests," I can take their purported desire to "protect" me seriously. Until that happens, it can be safely assumed that this is simply another power grab by the usual suspects (i.e. people who grab power because they can, not because they are doing so in the interests of protecting you and I).
--
Damascus, Aurens.
Aurens, not this. Go round.
Damascus, Aurens - Damascus!
reply
Matt @ 2nd Sep 03:58PM:
Re: Baffling
said by Mr Neutron :
Once the government specifically defines the exact circumstances that constitute "an immediate threat to strategic national interests," I can take their purported desire to "protect" me seriously.
This seems to be the crux of most arguments against this idea and I think it's hand tying. An immediate threat to national interests seems specific enough to me. There is no way you can plan for every possible attack or contingency, so you word it vague enough so the people in charge can make the decision.
After all, that's sort of why they are in charge in the first place. As Dr. Evil might say, "I'm the guy in charge, need the info to make the decisions." :)
reply
amigo_boy @ 2nd Sep 04:01PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by manfmmd :
I beg to differ, it say that those powers not delegated to the federal government are vested with the states. It's time to brush off the 10th Amendment and re-read it.
The BoR was a sop to the anti-federalists who didn't want the new government even with the amendments. The ratification process was highly politicized, with the kind of hyperbole we see in the modern healthcare debate. People just trying to pollute the public's opinion. Win at any cost.
Anti-federalists insisted that rights commonly enumerated in state constitutions be enumerated in the new Constitution. Without this, anything could happen. Federalists insisted that, if there was no specific grant of power to infringe a right, there was no reason to add language protecting the right (it would imply a power had been granted).
I think the BoR is good for only one reason: It added more debate, to help us understand the founding generation's view of balancing individual and collective imperatives.
But, it's not an absolute protection. For example, I can't get on my roof at 2:00 AM and begin spouting Teabagger rhetoric. The Supreme Court interpreted (with the help of the debates surrounding the 1st Amendment) that freedom of speech is subject to "time, manner and place" restrictions.
Likewise, your reference to the 10th amendment (and so-called state's rights). The Constitution has a supremacy clause. It essentially says the same thing the 10th amendment says. The federal government is supreme. So, there is no such thing as state sovereignty (if the Civil War hadn't already proven this). It simply says that, if the federal government legislates in an area which a state does, the federal government's authority is supreme.
The 10th amendment simply reiterated that principle from a slightly different (and, perhaps superfluous) perspective. If a power isn't delegated to the federal government, it remains with the state (or people). However, the "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" clauses are broad enough to encompass any power a future Congress may see fit to exercise!
If the founding generation was so concerned with state supremacy or limited grants of power, they would have 1) stuck with the Articles of Confederation, or 2) more precisely defined loopholes such as described above.
In the end, we have a balance of powers to accommodate ever-changing balancing interests. Those interests, like the founding generation, were individual versus collective -- with the collective interest being more important (as evidenced by the founding generation ditching the Articles of Confederation for a vastly more powerful government).
It's been much the same for the past 220 years, as each generation shifted toward more powerful and efficient government to meet new challenges which the founding generation couldn't envision. (They couldn't envision their own challenges just 12 years earlier!).
Mark
reply
lesopp @ 2nd Sep 04:05PM:
Re: lol @ obama picture
Every time I see a picture of him I throw-up a little bit.
By the way, the mods here chastised me for using the term obamageddon, so you folks should be careful.
reply
GlobalMind @ 2nd Sep 04:11PM:
Re: Something
Well let's not forget the Patriot Act....talk about seizing control...
reply
anon @ 2nd Sep 04:11PM:
Your article is disingenuous.
Isn't saying the President "may" do something sort of like saying go ahead? Why does this power need to be specified to that one person?
Your article is off base. That passage may have been removed, but it did give him the power to do just what everyone was scared of. Good thing it was removed, Our fears were not unfounded. The fact that is was in there at all bothers me a great deal and makes me wonder about our legislators and whether they really value freedom for our country and it's people.
reply
lesopp @ 2nd Sep 04:11PM:
Re: Legislative Messes
We don't have a congress, we have a glee club with the authority to screw us big time.
reply
GlobalMind @ 2nd Sep 04:12PM:
Re: Something
said by BloodRoses :
Thanks for that, it made me giggle. :)
+1 "skank bud" classic... : )
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Sep 04:17PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by amigo_boy :said by Eat Me :
The US constitution absolutely limits the power of Government, and the US was founded on the principle of limited Government.
Absolutely limits power? Consider the context. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. Twelve years
after the revolution -- and the founding generation living under the relatively-libertarian Articles of Confederation. The AoF granted no powers to a central government, because there was none. No need to enumerate powers (nor the rights those powers should respect) because there was no entity to use/abuse those powers.
After 12 years, the founding generation wanted a more powerful government, not less. They ditched the AoF in favor of a vastly more powerful and
completely new government, creating loopholes like "general welfare" and "reasonable searches" which didn't exist before.
So, it's obviously not an absolute limit on power. It was (relatively speaking) one of the largest expansions of power in this country's history. The AoF was an absolute limit on power. It wasn't effective. And, after the revolutionary high wore off, the founding generation opted for more effective, efficient government to meet their needs. Just like every generation since has desired.
You're right that it's not an unlimited power. But, in the process of defining (in some cases, vaguely) power, they were
vastly increasing power to meet their needs. They didn't invalidate the concept of powerful, effective government. They were the role model for it.
Mark
No no no, I meant:
Absolutely. The US constitution limits power. I know that it is not an absolute limit.
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Sep 04:19PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by amigo_boy :
It's been much the same for the past 220 years, as each generation shifted toward more powerful and efficient government to meet new challenges which the founding generation couldn't envision. (They couldn't envision their own challenges just 12 years earlier!).
Mark
Thanks, that's my LOL for the day.
reply
jester121 @ 2nd Sep 04:20PM:
Re: Something
said by funchords :
The EFF is still fighting the Bush policies that Obama is continuing. "Change you can believe in?" Obama voted for telecom immunity, so I guess we shouldn't expect change.
Don't you mean the Clinton policies that Bush continued and Obama is continuing?
I thought so. ;)
reply
manfmmd @ 2nd Sep 04:20PM:
Re: Something
said by GlobalMind :
Well let's not forget the Patriot Act....talk about seizing control...
I'm not saying forget the Patriot Act, I'm saying let's apply the same standard to WHOEVER is in office, regardless of party affiliation.
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
reply
lesopp @ 2nd Sep 04:24PM:
Re: Yes he is
Al Gore did say "I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
Seems to me he was taking credit for creating the internet. Please explain the difference between self serving statements about creating something verses inventing something.
He makes it sound as if it weren't for him we wouldn't be posting on this board today. I guess the folks that worked on ARPANET and at BBN were just madly spinning their wheels.
reply
amigo_boy @ 2nd Sep 04:33PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by Eat Me :
No no no, I meant: Absolutely. The US constitution limits power. I know that it is not an absolute limit.
But, even as a limit of power, when read within the context of its inception, that limit is very limited. The founding generation was moving from limited government to expansive government -- because their own 12-year experiment with a libertarian (consensual) government proving ineffective. Not vice verse.
That's partly why broad grants of power have been consistently interpreted to cover broader applications of government exercise (to meet new challenges which the founding generation didn't foresee, when they couldn't foresee even their own needs 12 years down the road).
said by Eat Me :said by amigo_boy :
It's been much the same for the past 220 years, as each generation shifted toward more powerful and efficient government to meet new challenges which the founding generation couldn't envision. (They couldn't envision their own challenges just 12 years earlier!).
Thanks, that's my LOL for the day.
Then I invite you to live without the SEC, building codes, zoning laws, food & drug quality laws, and government creation of corporate charters (a legal, yet fictional "person" which stands as a fall guy for owners/investors --without which we would have vastly less commerce, and virtually no stock market).
It's easy to talk about how bad things are, without having to live with what would have been the consequences of staying with the founding generation's libertarian Articles of Confederation.
However, I think everyone agrees things could stand improvement. The rub is in everyone's personal definition of "improvement." Some see a greater collective imperative. Others an individual imperative. And then we're back to talking about the context of the founding generation ditching a libertarian government for one vastly more equipped to serve collective interests.
Mark
reply
GlobalMind @ 2nd Sep 04:38PM:
Re: Baffling
said by Matt :said by Mr Neutron :
Once the government specifically defines the exact circumstances that constitute "an immediate threat to strategic national interests," I can take their purported desire to "protect" me seriously.
This seems to be the crux of most arguments against this idea and I think it's hand tying. An immediate threat to national interests seems specific enough to me. There is no way you can plan for every possible attack or contingency, so you word it vague enough so the people in charge can make the decision.
True although I still think the majority of folks won't be happy with vague terminology.
Although, funny how when it was a Republican administration arguing for all sorts of random new powers with vague descriptions of the application or situation to be used, all in the name of National Security - how many folks here and over in Red Room supported it and flamed anyone who opposed it.
Now, with a Dem picking up some of the same cruddy language into their own bill suddenly those folks are outraged.
Gotta love politics, and that's all this is.
The bottom line is what they're trying to get a handle on is the day we see the supposed international uber massive CyberAttack that results in some Die Hard "fire sale" to shut everything down and cause a mass collapse of the nation's infrastructure.
Nevermind the fact that we've already had any number of attacks which have crippled systems - howabout that power grid failure a few years back?
Isolating an offending network certainly is a logical step, and one that may or may not be accomplished by the offending network's owner without some persuasion.
I'd tend to think this is yet another Congress act of defining that which doesn't need to be defined or that which is already defined elsewhere, and thus causing this kind of general reaction.
Face it, Congress can't write a bill that's straight forward and clear. Everything's a list of vague terminology and mindless gibberish unless of course it involves what monies I must pay them in extortion fees every April 15th. And even then they aren't clear.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
reply
anon @ 2nd Sep 04:46PM:
Re: Baffling
Actually, the government has the power to do this already as has already been pointed out.
Compare a cyber attack to a real war:
1. The government needs to protect basic infrastructure so societ can function. Things like power stations, roads for access for emergency vehicles (including ambulances and police), communications to allow those same.
The internet in the future is one additional factor they need to secure those same resources for civilian as well as gov't survival. In the real world you would see troops blocking access to roads. Since you can now use the internet to impede or shut down civilian resources already, that are NOT part of the government network, then it is mandatory to protect those same non-government resources for public safety.
And if you do not think the president does not have that authority, then look into the concept of martial law which would be implemented if not nationwide at least regionally. And our president does have that authority.
The question is do you think that a country like North Korea or Iran would not use cyberattack? Think about it, no country in the world anymore poses a credible sustainable threat to our homeland (short attacks definitely, not sustained) would not use cyberattacks to disrupt our strategic resources like fuel, electricity, phone service transportation since they can't bomb us or send a constant stream of missiles our way?
Just because they havent been able to mount a truly effective cyberattack yet (or have chosen not to) does not mean they have not been trying. Think they will say "Let's not mess with people's internet. That is too cheap an option. Let's build multibillion dollar bombers instead."? Take a look at those pictures of war you see and imagine those in your own backyard. That is war. And you can bet that as soon as our enemies that we are at war with find an effective way to hurt us (read effective as something more than a scratch or a black eye) then they will.
Have the government have there own network not connected to the internet? You think they are stupid? They already have that. They do not need the internet to keep running on critical government resources and you can bet it is separate.
the problem is if you cut their communication off with us then you have just isolated yourself from they help you will be screaming for then.
The internet is a highway. In the real world, our troops would restrict our highways to essential traffic. Doing the same in a true cyber attack would not only make sense, but be imperative. The same people complaining now would be the first ones complaining if they didnt in an emergency. History has proven that out.
And remember, the president the power of martial law, always has. In that case, all those laws you put in to restrict him? or to give him more power? Moot point. Until Congress can convene to revoke his decision.
Guess what? if we are under attack, then we may not be able to even convene congress. hmmm. Sounds like a national emergency to me.
I am all about restricting government power to what it needs (also read that as small government, left or right has major major problems in that regard). But for laws that impact on national security, you have to take into account they may have to be implented in the extreme situations. Look at those war pictures and see if any solution presented will work in that situation or not.
reply
GlobalMind @ 2nd Sep 04:40PM:
Re: Something
said by manfmmd :said by GlobalMind :
Well let's not forget the Patriot Act....talk about seizing control...
I'm not saying forget the Patriot Act, I'm saying let's apply the same standard to WHOEVER is in office, regardless of party affiliation.
Entirely agree with you there.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
reply
rdmiller @ 2nd Sep 04:44PM:
What a wimpy story!
This is so less testosterone-powered than Declan's. I liked the first one better.
reply
TooFastFlash @ 2nd Sep 05:05PM:
Trust Issue
Since I just purchased a firearm online, I am considered a threat and more than likely being monitored in some form. I agree with everyone above saying is a trust issue. Whats wrong with packet sniffing and traffic monitoring?
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Sep 05:07PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by amigo_boy :
Then I invite you to live without the SEC, building codes, zoning laws, food & drug quality laws, and government creation of corporate charters (a legal, yet fictional "person" which stands as a fall guy for owners/investors --without which we would have vastly less commerce, and virtually no stock market).
It's easy to talk about how bad things are, without having to live with what would have been the consequences of staying with the founding generation's libertarian Articles of Confederation.
I actually have, in foreign countries. Some things were better, some things were worse.
I did appreciate not having a building department breathing down my neck about every little thing I did. Compare that to the US, where the building departments in many towns in my state sets all sorts of arbitrary rules and often puts things out for the public to comment on, so your home improvement project is often subject to the will of the public.
The stupid public drinking laws we have here were also nonexistent there. I enjoyed being able to have a beer outside with my friends... outside the bar that is.
Food and drug quality laws in the US are a joke for the most part. They allow things like Carbon Monoxide to be used to make meat appear fresh.
But no, my comment was more along the line of Government efficiency. Government is by no means efficient when they are paying $500 for a toilet seat.
reply
htech007 @ 2nd Sep 05:22PM:
Not for Private Communications
There is no need to shutd down private sector communications in an emergency. I'm fine if the president wants to shut down government services on the internet. If there is such an emergency, I would hope it would be left up to the ISPs to make the decision. Unless the president is going to pay my bill, my servers and infastructure should be mine to choose what to do in case of an emergency. Let me decide what is right for my customers. I pay enough taxes and comply with regulation that I have earned the right to make my own decision in an emergency or any other time. The internet is way diffierent that physical objects flying in the sky that could crash.
reply
amigo_boy @ 2nd Sep 05:22PM:
Re: I don't trust them
said by Eat Me :
I did appreciate not having a building department breathing down my neck about every little thing I did.
I agree. I like the variety of construction/design found in Latin America. But, when you go to buy a house, you have to do your own investigation whether studs are 16" on center, or horse dung was used as insulation. (This is why it's common in those countries to buy a property with the intent to tear down the house and build your own. The house is an unknown.).
Here, the majority has opted for standards because it facilitates their daily lives (participating in other markets they deem more important).
said by Eat Me :
The stupid public drinking laws we have here were also nonexistent there. I enjoyed being able to have a beer outside with my friends... outside the bar that is.
That's good stuff too -- until a bunch of drunks are standing outside your house drinking. Or, a drunk is passed out outside the bar. Or, (in the absence of zoning laws) your neighbor turns his house into a bar.
It's always about balancing competing interests. That's what the founding generation faced. They weren't keen on a distant, unrepresentative legislature imposing taxes upon them (in many ways for socially engineering). Then, when they had a decade of libertarian local representation, and a bunch of hot-heads began screaming revolutionary rhetoric (Shay's Rebellion), and there was no central, powerful government to deal with it -- they suddenly fell in love with distant, less representative government. :)
Every generation since has been the same. Weighing the degree to which the distant/powerful government helps or harms them personally. Less interested in how it helps/harms others.
said by Eat Me :
But no, my comment was more along the line of Government efficiency. Government is by no means efficient when they are paying $500 for a toilet seat.
I guess it's the difference between a micro and macro view. If we didn't have a large, powerful central government we (in Arizona) might not be able to buy cheap $2 toilet seats imported from China because California, Oregon and Washington would join together to block their import (giving their toilet-seat makers a captive market).
So, the occasional $500 toilet seat (representative of occasional perversions of distant, less representative government) isn't so bad when compared to the alternative.
That's not an excuse to accept the status quo. Just that, things aren't so bad when taken as part of a larger picture.
Mark
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 2nd Sep 05:29PM:
Re: I don't trust them
The only time the words "government" and "efficient" belong in the same sentence is when they're separated by a single word: "isn't".
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 2nd Sep 05:32PM:
Re: lol @ obama picture
I actually love the picture. If I could only get permission from the picture owner, I'd love to start using this in a number of places. It's the first one I've seen of him that starts to show him in an honest light.
reply
C0deZer0 @ 2nd Sep 05:32PM:
Re: I don't trust them
But no, my comment was more along the line of Government efficiency. Government is by no means efficient when they are paying $500 for a toilet seat.
Which some would argue is a way to cover up what they pay for R&D on all those shiny new weapons in the military budget, or insert conspiracy theory here like Area 51, etc.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 2nd Sep 05:36PM:
Re: Baffling
What part of my statement is untrue? This is the first time in history that I believe our government is openly advocating the eradication of a generation of people, based solely upon what some bean-counter with his own agenda thinks ought to happen.
Obamacare will ration health care for the masses, creating an HMO like option for everyone. The "benefit": some without care will get care. The failure: many more with care will be forced into worse coverage and actually lose benefits.
But that's not really the topic of this particular discussion, is it? I guess pro Socialism nut jobs are everywhere these days. Perhaps I should also be as rude and ask if it would be proper to euthanize them?
--
Trusting the Democrats to fix our economy and give us health care is like trusting the fox with keys to the henhouse, a brand new gas stove, and a pantry full of goodies for side dishes. In the end, all will be dead and nothing but lies will be told.
reply
C0deZer0 @ 2nd Sep 05:39PM:
Re: hmm
Define major cyber attack.
Hell, for all we know, it could just be as simple as buying out 4chan from under its existing domain owners. Or the government issuing a command from its internet-connected systems to black-hole the IP at the DNS level.
As AT&T has certainly seen for itself, all you have to do to see a "major cyber attack" is piss off the dregs of the internet by denying them their access - they'll mobilize almost immediately. :p
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever
reply
NOVA_Guy @ 2nd Sep 05:41PM:
Re: Baffling
If the government network is under attack, wouldn't it just be easier and more logical to suspend outside access to the government network by taking it offline until its defenses can be shored up?
It seems to me that taking one attacker offline only breeds the likelihood of people moving to another private network to start their attacks all over again.
If you are assigned protective detail for someone, and your assignee starts getting shot at, what do you do first-- remove your protectee to safety, or start shooting back in a number of random directions? The most logical response is the first one: remove the target from harm's way.
Why should the strategy change because it's an online attack? Take the affected assets offline to ensure they are totally protected, then go after the attackers once you know they can do no more harm to their intended target.
--
Trusting the Democrats to fix our economy and give us health care is like trusting the fox with keys to the henhouse, a brand new gas stove, and a pantry full of goodies for side dishes. In the end, all will be dead and nothing but lies will be told.
reply
drslash @ 2nd Sep 05:47PM:
Plenty of opinion
There is plenty of opinion and editorial in this article for it to not be tagged with 'Op/Ed'.
reply
longstreet @ 2nd Sep 06:21PM:
Re: hmm
All of the things you listed should not have happened and most definately nobody wanted to happen.
I see nothing wrong with the wording in the bill.
As the headline points out, it's fantastically overstated.
The only people that would care otherwise are those people that want to hear things spun in the manner they like. They are the same people that would grill Obama if he didn't do anything about cyber attacks.
If you want to talk about a real eye-opener, it's the fact Obama has adopted Bush's policies. Many people whom believed his campaign promises got burned.
reply
GlobalMind @ 2nd Sep 07:02PM:
Re: Baffling
said by NOVA_Guy :
What part of my statement is untrue? This is the first time in history that I believe our government is openly advocating the eradication of a generation of people, based solely upon what some bean-counter with his own agenda thinks ought to happen.
I thought only Leftists make statements like that without offering actual proof.
Sorry but the death panels FUD was sooo a couple weeks ago.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
reply
axus @ 2nd Sep 07:04PM:
Re: Something
"The left" should be all over it, someone like Bush could be in office again. He was all about interpreting vaguely defined powers to mean the maximum, for example the Patriot Act authorization.
reply
Hazy Arc @ 2nd Sep 07:14PM:
Re: Plenty of opinion
What else would you come to expect from this site?
reply
KrK @ 2nd Sep 07:36PM:
Re: Something
You're missing the point. What's happening is the Right is so ready to go off on Obama about anything and everything that they shoot themselves in the foot (again) going off about something that's not there.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
anon @ 2nd Sep 07:39PM:
The black helicopters are a comin!
They are going to take away your guns, your grandma, and now your internets. It's a Oligarhy I tells ya!
reply
KrK @ 2nd Sep 07:41PM:
Re: Something
The EFF doesn't move until the threat is real. Under Bush, it always was.
reply
KrK @ 2nd Sep 07:45PM:
Re: A warning:
said by Jootch :
"No socialist government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently worded expressions of public discontent.
They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.
"And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil.
"And where would the ordinary simple folk - the common people, as they like to call them in America - where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?"
Winston Churchill, The First Conservative Election Broadcast, June 4, 1945.
Guess old Winston made a mistake, because what he described wasn't a "Socialist" country (which all are) but a Communist one. A common mistake many Americans make to this day.....
government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently worded expressions of public discontent.
Control over and managing all business and industry is a staple of Communism, not Socialism.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
nixen @ 2nd Sep 07:58PM:
Re: Something
said by KrK :
You're missing the point. What's happening is the Right is so ready to go off on Obama about anything and everything that they shoot themselves in the foot (again) going off about something that's not there.
I'd *really* not categorize McCullough as part of "the right". Libertarians, as centrists, tend to be left of both of the two major parties' national office holders.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
reply
Mr Neutron @ 2nd Sep 08:22PM:
Re: Baffling
said by Matt :said by Mr Neutron :
Once the government specifically defines the exact circumstances that constitute "an immediate threat to strategic national interests," I can take their purported desire to "protect" me seriously.
This seems to be the crux of most arguments against this idea and I think it's hand tying. An immediate threat to national interests seems specific enough to me. There is no way you can plan for every possible attack or contingency, so you word it vague enough so the people in charge can make the decision.
After all, that's sort of why they are in charge in the first place. As Dr. Evil might say, "I'm the guy in charge, need the info to make the decisions." :)
I would argue that they are "in charge" as the result of backroom deals that were made and not as the result of anything you and I did (or didn't do). And in case you're wondering, I would say that of whatever pack of hyenas happened to be "in charge."
said by Matt :
An immediate threat to national interests seems specific enough to me.
I suppose it's good enough for anyone who believes that politicians act to promote his best interests rather than their own.
I don't share that belief, but I must say that I hope you are right and I am wrong when it comes to what the exact motivations are behind this legislation.
--
Damascus, Aurens.
Aurens, not this. Go round.
Damascus, Aurens - Damascus!
reply
Mr Neutron @ 2nd Sep 08:28PM:
Re: Baffling
said by GlobalMind :
Isolating an offending network certainly is a logical step, and one that may or may not be accomplished by the offending network's owner without some persuasion.
You mean "force" don't you? Let's call a spade a spade here.
Persuasion is something you do with your mouth. Force, on the other hand, is something that involves men with guns.
I think you'll find that the Feds have a tendency to take the latter approach whenever they're dealing with a problem. After all, when the only tool you're familiar with is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail after a while. ;)
--
Damascus, Aurens.
Aurens, not this. Go round.
Damascus, Aurens - Damascus!
reply
nixen @ 2nd Sep 08:32PM:
Re: Baffling
said by puck0114 :
The biggest threat to the politicians is an educated populace.
Good thing they don't have to worry about that, eh?
Let's face it, if you want to control a population, there's only four things you need to do across the population:
•keep them confused
•keep them ignorant
•keep them invested
•keep them entertained
So long as you can do any one of the above for each and every citizen, you'll retain control, forever.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
reply
amigo_boy @ 2nd Sep 08:38PM:
Re: Something
said by nixen :
Libertarians, as centrists, tend to be left of both of the two major parties' national office holders.
That's not quite true.
Conservatives say Libertarians are "left" due to L's believing that social relationships should be consensual, not coerced by public law. (E.g., no war on drugs; no definition of marriage; etc.).
Liberals say Libertarians are "right" due to L's believing that markets (essentially socio-economic relationships) should be consensual, not coerced by public law. (E.g., no SEC or food & drug quality laws; free markets in the true, Darwinian sense.).
Libertarians (true Libertarians) are extremely consistent in their beliefs. This leads to adherants of the two traditional parties feeling uncomfortable -- liberals advocating freedom of individual matters, but not in commerce; conservatives advocating freedom of commerce, but not individual matters (unless it involves guns).
But, it's all meaningless because true, consistent Libertarianism cannot, and has not existed. It's not reasonable. There will always be coercion in any society. Once that can of worms is opened, it's just a matter of negotiation -- and, the unfortunate spectacle of both political parties unable to cope with the fact that they're both violating the same principle (non-coercion) in different ways, accusing the other of being guilty.
And then there's the Ron Paul (small l) libertarians. They use all the Big-L rhetoric to sound like they're standing on moral high ground (above the two parties), while distancing themselves from Big Ls due to their obvious irrelevancy, and thus embracing coercion just like the two parties. Just differently, in ways that benefit them.
Mark
reply
anon @ 2nd Sep 09:25PM:
The CNET article is 100% correct
The Wired article is 100% wrong and the CNET article is 100% right. DSLReports should remove their link to the Wired article because it is Orwellian. Wired must be part of some State run media.
reply
Tarheels Fan @ 2nd Sep 09:51PM:
Re: hmm
said by longstreet :
All of the things you listed should not have happened and most definately nobody wanted to happen.
Really?
Vote on the Patriot Act
»educate-yourself.org/cn/patriota···te.shtml
No one wanted the war in Afghanistan?
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizat···rrorists
Iraq?
»archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITIC···iraq.us/
The complaining about this isn't about the executive branch having the power to take over the internet, its the double standard libs have. I could see Olbermann crapping his pants now about this if it were Bush. It truly is amazing how you libs have done a 180 on the ability to allow the state to take care of you and now take over the internet at their will.
Where are you nutjobs now, when GE is set to make billions from cap & trade & health care and the CEO is an advisor to the president (oh don't forget they also own the leftist media outlet, NBC)? Can you imagine the uproar if the CEO of Halliburton was a presidential advisor?
reply
funchords @ 2nd Sep 10:19PM:
Re: Something
said by jester121 :
Don't you mean the Clinton policies that Bush continued and Obama is continuing?
That could be true. If it is, thanks for the correction.
reply
amigo_boy @ 2nd Sep 10:29PM:
Re: Something
said by jester121 :said by funchords :
The EFF is still fighting the Bush policies that Obama is continuing. "Change you can believe in?" Obama voted for telecom immunity, so I guess we shouldn't expect change.
Don't you mean the Clinton policies that Bush continued and Obama is continuing?
Don't you mean the Reagan and Bush I policies that Clinton and Bush II continued, and Obama is continuing?
RICO (Reagan's PCOC, President's Commission on Organized Crime) and the "War on Drugs" comes to mind.
Mark
reply
tuminatr @ 3rd Sep 12:13AM:
this bill was scarry I will need to go read it again
I think the scary words were gives the president the power to stop internet traffic if he feels there is a threat, in the wrong hands this could be dangerous I dont think Obama would excessive it but who is to say he could not decide everyone who apposes his is a threat
our government is here to serve us not us serve them
reply
tuminatr @ 3rd Sep 12:15AM:
link to the cnet story
»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
reply
ARGONAUT @ 3rd Sep 02:33AM:
Re: The black helicopters are a comin!
You forgot Death Camps ;)
reply
KrK @ 3rd Sep 06:41AM:
Re: Something
Possibly, but he sure went off the right hand side of the road on this one.
reply
KrK @ 3rd Sep 06:45AM:
Re: Something
said by jester121 :
Don't you mean the Clinton policies that Bush continued and Obama is continuing?
Hardly....
But it is true that before everything instantly became Obama's fault it was Clinton's fault--- if you ask the right, anyway.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
sonicmerlin @ 3rd Sep 07:31AM:
Re: I don't trust them
I derive a great deal of enjoyment from reading your responses amigo_boy. You debate with facts rather than tactics. It's refreshing.
reply
sonicmerlin @ 3rd Sep 07:49AM:
Re: Legislative Messes
"lethal" consequences of healthcare? *facepalm*
reply
sonicmerlin @ 3rd Sep 07:55AM:
Re: Baffling
said by NOVA_Guy :
What part of my statement is untrue? This is the first time in history that I believe our government is openly advocating the eradication of a generation of people, based solely upon what some bean-counter with his own agenda thinks ought to happen.
Obamacare will ration health care for the masses, creating an HMO like option for everyone. The "benefit": some without care will get care. The failure: many more with care will be forced into worse coverage and actually lose benefits.
But that's not really the topic of this particular discussion, is it? I guess pro Socialism nut jobs are everywhere these days. Perhaps I should also be as rude and ask if it would be proper to euthanize them?
Sigh...it's kind of sad. All the time myself, amigo_boy, and others have spent debunking your ridiculous claims, and you still espouse the same garbage. Have you ever even visited another country, like Canada or the UK, and talked to average people about their healthcare experience?
Look at it this way. How many people in countries with national healthcare are demanding their government adopt the US system?
reply
sonicmerlin @ 3rd Sep 08:02AM:
Re: hmm
said by Tarheels Fan :said by longstreet :
All of the things you listed should not have happened and most definately nobody wanted to happen.
Really?
Vote on the Patriot Act
»
educate-yourself.org/cn/patriota···te.shtmlNo one wanted the war in Afghanistan?
»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizat···rroristsIraq?
»
archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITIC···iraq.us/The complaining about this isn't about the executive branch having the power to take over the internet, its the double standard libs have. I could see Olbermann crapping his pants now about this if it were Bush. It truly is amazing how you libs have done a 180 on the ability to allow the state to take care of you and now take over the internet at their will.
Where are you nutjobs now, when GE is set to make billions from cap & trade & health care and the CEO is an advisor to the president (oh don't forget they also own the leftist media outlet, NBC)? Can you imagine the uproar if the CEO of Halliburton was a presidential advisor?
Uh...I don't know if you've been paying attention to the world around you, but even liberals have been critical of this bill's vagueness. That's why they changed the original bill. Jeez. Get over yourself man.
reply
ndwbr @ 3rd Sep 08:53AM:
Shutdown the whole internet? I don't think so...
The one thing I've been waiting to read in this thread but haven't seen any mention of is the fact that the internet was originally designed to survive even a nuclear attack. It would be practically impossible to "shut down" the internet. To do so, one would have to sever all possible network connections between point A and point B as well as take all DNS servers available offline (and you could still reach your destination by using IP addresses or if you happened to run your own DNS server....) As far as I can see, there is no internet "kill switch", at least not for ALL users. Yes, large numbers of users can be taken offline by disabling the DNS servers of major ISP's, but everyone??? I don't think so. Opinions, please...
reply
GlobalMind @ 3rd Sep 09:42AM:
Re: Baffling
said by Mr Neutron :
You mean "force" don't you? Let's call a spade a spade here.
Yep you're correct. I did mean force. I should have put that in quotes "persuasion." :)
reply
jester121 @ 3rd Sep 10:21AM:
Re: Something
said by KrK :
But it is true that before everything instantly became Obama's fault it was Clinton's fault--- if you ask the right, anyway.
Just like everything wrong today is Bush's fault, if you listed to the left?
Makes one wonder why anyone listens to either.
reply
adfoam @ 3rd Sep 10:36AM:
Re: Shutdown the whole internet? I don't think so...
"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,"
if those systems are so "critical" then they should not be connected to the internet anyway.
reply
nOv1c3 @ 3rd Sep 03:13PM:
Hmm
Guess You all don't remember or recall the Iran protesters and uprising after there last election . The Iran Gov shut down all Internet traffic
reply
vinnie97 @ 3rd Sep 05:11PM:
Re: Really? Really?? Really???
There are plenty of Obama sheep in MSNBC land also.
reply
vinnie97 @ 3rd Sep 05:12PM:
Re: A warning:
We're on our way...auto and bank industry takeovers say hello.
reply
vinnie97 @ 3rd Sep 05:27PM:
Re: I don't trust them
Pointing out the pitfalls of socialized healthcare in neighboring countries and others across the pond is not winning "at any cost." Canadians don't cross the border for healthcare for the fun of it. Forcing down a government option will ultimately remove choice and create more bureaucracy and higher deficits along with taxes to go along with it. With the current set of elitists in control of the government, the balance of which you speak has largely been lost. Luckily, not even all Democrats have been able to reach a consensus on the unwise overhaul of healthcare (yes, reform is needed but not the kind championed by the extreme left).
reply
vinnie97 @ 3rd Sep 05:29PM:
Re: lol @ obama picture
Likewise...he's a narcissistic media whore. It's too bad people voted on an empty image last year and not on principles (barring the so-called "progressives," which are a minority in this country in spite of what this site would have you believe).
reply
anon @ 3rd Sep 07:24PM:
Re: Hmm
> "The Iran Gov shut down all Internet traffic"
Really? When did the Iranian government allow your internet service to resume?
reply
KrK @ 3rd Sep 06:12PM:
Re: Something
said by jester121 :
Makes one wonder why anyone listens to either.
Because they make the most noise and scream about the other the loudest.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
KrK @ 3rd Sep 06:14PM:
Re: A warning:
said by vinnie97 :
We're on our way...auto and bank industry takeovers say hello.
Not really though. The Government isn't running their day to day operations is it?
Some money, some instructions, yeah, but hardly assuming complete control of.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
reply
vinnie97 @ 3rd Sep 06:14PM:
Re: Baffling
Those other countries have already been assimilated. Government programs, once initiated, don't ever get retired.
Canadians in border cities routinely come to the US for care for a reason....and the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association was quoted as recently saying their system is ready to implode.
reply
ARGONAUT @ 3rd Sep 07:20PM:
Re: Really? Really?? Really???
said by vinnie97 :
There are plenty of Obama sheep in MSNBC land also.
Yea, but there not making stuff up to feed the stock. ;)
--
PentiumD 930 DC 3.0GHz - 4GB PC2-4200 - 300GB SATA - BFG Nvidia 7950GT OC 512MB
- Hauppauge WinTV-HVR-1600(1101MCE) - Vista Ultimate SP2 32bit
reply
marigolds @ 3rd Sep 10:38PM:
"Critical infrastructure information system"
Has everyone just completely missed the fact that "Critical infrastructure information system" is a defined designation?
It's a designation given to state, local, and non-government systems used for emergency management, homeland security, and public safety response in disasters. Many systems already have this designation, and it is a lengthy process to get it, not just something that the POTUS can do on a whim.
(In order to even get the designation, the system has to be included as part of a State's annual homeland security grant application. I assume there are other ways to get the designation by working directly with federal agencies too.)
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher
reply
nOv1c3 @ 4th Sep 12:53AM:
Re: Hmm
Excuse me, I don't live in Iran , you being sarcastic or just another liberal Idiot ?
reply
nOv1c3 @ 4th Sep 01:03AM:
Re: "Critical infrastructure information system"
It comes down to trust . A man is judged by the company he keeps
Obama: 'Judge me by the people who surround me
September 3, 1:56 PMColumbia Conservative ExaminerAnthony G. MartinPrevious During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, 'Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.'
OK, we will.
And that is precisely the problem with Obama.
In order to understand Barack Obama one must look beyond the official, Congressional-approved Cabinet choices to the truckload of unofficial 'czars,' 'special advisor's,' and 'officers' he has chosen to come to the White House to have direct access to him.
If one uses the criterion Obama laid out by which to judge his character, political ideology, and plans for the country, we can only conclude that the President is a far-Left extremist who disdains capitalism and free commerce, free speech in the open marketplace of ideas, Caucasian people who have accumulated wealth, and any dissent from the concepts propounded by his 'regime.'
How do we know this? Look at his czars, special advisers, and officers. These are the ones closest to Obama.
John Holdren, science czar, advocates for population control using the most extreme measures, such as mandating the number of children Americans can have. He is also a proponent of 'de-developing' the United States, sending its agricultural practices and technology back to the 19th century. Holdren has also suggested that infants and chronically ill elderly do not fit his definition of 'human,' and therefore can be expendable.
Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar and Harvard law professor, believes that animals should have the right to legal representation. If you try to get rid of rats in your home, a 'concerned citizen' could bring a lawsuit, with the rat as the plaintiff, to sue you for endangering a species. He also believes that if bloggers post something that turns out to be false, they should be prosecuted. In short, Sunstein is a Leftwing moonbat with Fascist leanings. Remember, Obama said to judge him by the people around him.
Ezekiel Emanuel, healthcare czar, believes in using cost-benefit and comparative-benefit analysis to allocate healthcare resources. This means the fewer years you have left to live, the less cost-effective it is to treat you. Thus, most of those resources should be diverted from the elderly to younger people. This is the 'rationing' portion of ObamaCare that many of us have warned about. And this will be done even without the so-called 'public option,' which is not really what the debate about government control of healthcare is about in the first place. Even without the public option, the provision for rationing is inherent in the provisions of the bill, thanks to advisers such as Emanuel.
Van Jones, green jobs czar, is perhaps the most extremist of the extreme in the entire lot. As a self-avowed, self-identified Communist, Jones abhors liberty, the Constitution, the American way of life, and seeks to change it from top to bottom. Here is more on Van Jones.
Mark Loyd, FCC 'diversity czar,' supports Communist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and believes that what Chavez did to squelch free speech in the media and seize the means of communication is a good model for the United States. His plan is to silence conservative talk radio by forcing ownership to change hands to minorities and by implementing a fee structure for licensing that will put most private broadcasters out of business. At that point, Loyd would make PBS, or NPR on the radio, the most powerful forces in broadcasting--controlled by the government, of course.
Due to the areas over which they have jurisdiction, the above-named 'special advisers' to Obama are the key players. Jobs, communication, healthcare, agriculture, population control--all of these amount to a major shift in the way America has operated as a Free Republic for over 200 years.
Questions for consideration: Given these czars and special advisers who have offices in the White House with easy access to the President, how, then, should we judge Barack Obama's ideas and plans for the country, just as he asked us to do? Why is a Communist operating out of the White House as one of Obama's closet advisers? What can Americans reasonably expect over the next few years if the policies espoused by Loyd, Jones, Sunstein, Emanuel, and Holdren are implemented?
reply
marigolds @ 4th Sep 12:21PM:
Re: "Critical infrastructure information system"
I don't get how a lack of trust in Obama connects to his inability to change the critical infrastructure information system designation.
Congress has already passed a law that prevents him from changing the regulation in an arbitrary and capricious way. That means going through the legislatively defined bureaucratic channels in order to change this designation, which takes months and is subject to Congressional and Judicial review.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher
reply
longstreet @ 4th Sep 04:12PM:
Re: hmm
My take on the Patriot Act is that it was hurried through congress. The president said 'we're at war' and the whole country fell in lockstep.
That's dangerous. That's government power & control (nevermind healthcare! pfft) Upon investigation, it was filled with all kinds of abuses that grew the government enormously. The excuse was that it kept us 'safer'. Perhaps it has had some effect, but for the amount of effect versus the expediture of money and loss of personal freedom it required, i'd like it to go away.
I was in the military when all of this went down.
Thirdly, Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes this country ever got itself into. If anything, we should have been focusing on Afganistan.
Fourth, the executive branch isn't taking over the Internet, (lolz?!?) The previous administration (Bush) did a hell of alot more under taking over everything under the pretext of war and national security than the current has.
reply
unsub @ 5th Sep 11:02AM:
Re: "Critical infrastructure information system"
I see you get most of your information from Glynn Beck....good for you.
I know John Holdren. I worked with him before he became the science adviser. He would laugh hysterically at that.
You listed a bunch of highly educated, kind, intelligent people with families and loved ones. Do you REALLY think they are these comic book super villains? Are you really that dense?
You know absolutely nothing about Ezekiel Emanuel. Where the hell did you get this information? Do you even bother to confirm even the slightest bit if this?
How can you sleep at night? You're lying. You're spreading fake news. Seriously. How do you live with yourself?
reply
raster44 @ 5th Sep 01:31PM:
Re: Something
This is Snark, I assume?
reply
raster44 @ 5th Sep 01:50PM:
I Guess I'm Wrong....
I assumed that when I read the article that an intelligent discussion would result in the forum. Boy, was I mistaken! So many idiotic Fox rants and Republican talking points. Fox News is a Entertainment channel, it does not rely on any facts. Republicans are the party of NO! They have no ideas of their own so they just say NO to anything the Democrats propose. Pathetic! I expected more of the dsl reports community.
reply
GlobalMind @ 5th Sep 02:51PM:
Re: Hmm
said by nOv1c3 :
Excuse me, I don't live in Iran , you being sarcastic or just another liberal Idiot ?
I think he's doing a perhaps less than obvious to you job of saying what you meant was Iran shut down Internet service in Iran.
They didn't shut down ALL Internet service everywhere.
He might be a sarcastic smartazz but you don't need to toss the "liberal idiot" thing out there.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity.
reply
cameronsfx @ 6th Sep 06:25PM:
Re: Why not turn off even more?
said by Neyland :said by cameronsfx :
He already has that power with FEMA and the War Powers Act. Karl needs to learn some laws. :o
quote:
While the original bill had some now-removed scary language, the new version simply acts to do things like provide scholarships for promising security researchers -- and doesn't give the President any power he didn't already have.
Am I missing something?
Missing a law class or two.
reply
Mr Neutron @ 7th Sep 07:58PM:
Re: Baffling
said by nixen :said by puck0114 :
The biggest threat to the politicians is an educated populace.
Good thing they don't have to worry about that, eh?
Let's face it, if you want to control a population, there's only four things you need to do across the population:
•keep them confused
•keep them ignorant
•keep them invested
•keep them entertained
So long as you can do any
one of the above for each and every citizen, you'll retain control, forever.
Actually, and sadly, it's even simpler than that.
If people lack the basic critical thinking tools that reason and logic require to be understood, (and, more importantly, exercised) you can get them to believe, quite literally, anything you want them to. Not necessarily because the people you are communicating to are "stupid," or anything like that, but because they completely lack the tools that allow a reasoning person to discern truth from falsehood.
IOW: all they know is what they are told by their radio or TV set because they are unable to formulate their own thoughts and opinions. Worse, they are unable to critically analyze the information they are presented with via the mass media.
If you lack the ability to examine things critically, and draw your own conclusions, the only "thinking" you're capable of doing is regurgitating the same tired talking points that the talk show hosts spit at their viewers/listeners and that are, not very coincidentally, strongly suggested to (if not outright written for) them by the corporations that own the popular media.
Chris Hedges did a really good (and fairly short) piece about this. If you have a hard time coping with reality, you might want to skip reading it, as it is certainly not going to help things.
»thirdworldtraveler.com/Chris%20_···ate.html
Infinitely depressing. :(
--
Damascus, Aurens.
Aurens, not this. Go round.
Damascus, Aurens - Damascus!
reply
nixen @ 7th Sep 11:44PM:
Re: Baffling
The four I cite are more a commentary of how to keep the various elements of a population in check. For some, it will be as simple as keeping them entertaine. For others, it's as simple as keeping them ignorant. For those that do have some access to information, it's best to try to confuse them. And, for those that cannot be held in check through ignorance, confusion and/or entertainment, you get them to "buy in" so that they're too invested to want to do anything to risk what they have.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC
