Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's a bill in the Senate that will give Obama power over the internet in the US.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/

On one hand I see this move as preparation in case of a cyber terror attack and on the other...well actually thats all I see this bill happening for. Its not like the internet isn't already government controlled and your information readily available - the moment you break a law/arrested you can be rest assured that the police can easily look up your myspace/dakka/etc.

When it comes to cyber security the entire world is pretty vulnerable and even the cynic in me fails to see how this bill is negative since the idea of the president or government shutting down networks for their own agendas than the country's seem outlandish and would be met by fierce resistance.

To elaborate on Canes point, I would be surprised as hell if I was assaulted by Wrestling Midgets while taking a shower as well.

Cane wrote:...outlandish and would be met by fierce resistance.

WREXASAUR SMASH!!!



Wrexasaur smash YOU!!!

Cane wrote:
When it comes to cyber security the entire world is pretty vulnerable and even the cynic in me fails to see how this bill is negative since the idea of the president or government shutting down networks for their own agendas than the country's seem outlandish and would be met by fierce resistance.

I agree, though we do have to remember that a cybersecurity emergency will be a whole lot less visible than 9/11. Hackers don't topple buildings.

This is a double-edged sword in that its likely to make the general public far less distrustful with respect to the veracity of the emergency, while simultaneously making it much easier to fabricate.

I have a feeling that if Bush was behind this people would be foaming at the mouth by now.

Regardless, I think a huge amount of transparency would be needed in this bill for it to be free from the possibility of abuse.

Hell, is he still out to steal our 401k's?

All hail Obamanation!

I for one welcome our new internet overlords...

Seriously, would you prefer it to be Cyber Command? Where's the transparency in that? We need to establish a network defense foundation. Guess where the military and DHS are within the constitutional framework? That's right, the executive branch.

I worry for this country, not because it is going to be socialist, I might have to pay some taxes I don't like or I'll have my guns taken away, but for the total embrace of fear-mongering, lack of intellectual curiosity and willful ignorance amongst the public discourse.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I have a feeling that if Bush was behind this people would be foaming at the mouth by now.

Regardless, I think a huge amount of transparency would be needed in this bill for it to be free from the possibility of abuse.

To be fair, the PATRIOT Act was hardly free from the possibility of abuse and it was welcomed by all side. Same for various anti-Terrorism Acts in the UK.

Read Cory Doctorow's "When SysAdmins Ruled The Earth" for an interesting perspective on cyber-terrorism and possible responses. It's available free from Feedbooks.com.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:
I worry for this country, not because it is going to be socialist, I might have to pay some taxes I don't like or I'll have my guns taken away, but for the total embrace of fear-mongering, lack of intellectual curiosity and willful ignorance amongst the public discourse.

Quoted for Truth. Seriously. Has anybody done a study with blood pressure medication stocks rising correlation to the rise of fear-mongering?

You mean like when others were calling Bush and Cheney a Nazi right, and declaiming that all our rights had been taking away right? RIGHT?

Here's an interesting aside:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama’s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009

You got it all wrong Frazzled... this is how you do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:To be fair, the PATRIOT Act was hardly free from the possibility of abuse and it was welcomed by all side. Same for various anti-Terrorism Acts in the UK.

Hmm, good point.

It was criticised a lot more later on, but there was very little objection to it at the time it was passed. Not that I'm a fan of that one either.

How can you CONTROL the internet.

garret wrote:How can you CONTROL the internet.

Ask Kid_Kyoto, he had to live in Red China with their lack of Youtube and whatnot.

Sigh. Socialism for the win.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him.*

Seriously, the only remotely good thing he has done as of yet is to ensure troops still flow to Afghanistan. That place is where we're making an impact the world can see, even the media which enjoys exaggerating the sad facts (but they won't admit it). Just saw on the news that 51% of Americans in a recent poll believed the Afghanistan War is a waste. I will bet money that those very same Americans don't have a clue as to why we're there, and just don't like to see young men and women come home in caskets. The Middle East is riddled with Terrorists and Radical Muslims. Some preside in Afghanistan. If 51% of Americans want our troops home, that's fine. But if they can't comprehend that the most active defense of our nation and allied nations from Radical Islam's reach is to take the fight to the Radical Muslims, that we'd be better off devoting every cent from the Armed Forces into Homeland Security, they need to be slapped across the face. Armed Forces are homeland security. This nation was built on the blood of people who didn't wall themselves up and shut out the world but rather wished leave their mark for future generations.

/OT rant over

*I couldn't vote for him, but if I could, I wouldn't have. When I can vote, I won't vote for him in the 2012 election.

Rico.

not sure what your aside on this issue means... looks like some kids homework....

as for controlling the internet...

It's already to late to realize what you can't realize you're not having access to.

grizgrin wrote:Hell, is he still out to steal our 401k's?

It's like the posters.

Change is all you'll have left.

But at the State Fair, I saw some people with buttons that said: CHANGE: I'd like mine back.

Creativity. I like it.

Rico.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frgsinwntr wrote:not sure what your aside on this issue means... looks like some kids homework....

The fact it's an aside means it has very little to do with this issue, silly goose.

What I was trying to say was that we have a dunce running the country, one who can count the things he's done that have resulted in a better country (or, a not-worse country) on one hand.

Sam, give me 800 billion.
...
What? Whaddya mean nothing happened?

Why Government needs to have their thumbs in everyone's pies is beyond me.

Rico.

Rico wrote:
Seriously, the only remotely good thing he has done as of yet is to ensure troops still flow to Afghanistan.

Yeah, 10 months sure is an awfully good measure of time on which to base your aggregated decision with respect to any given Presidency.

Rico wrote:
That place is where we're making an impact the world can see, even the media which enjoys exaggerating the sad facts (but they won't admit it).

So, explain to me how you know the media can see progress in Afghanistan, even though they won't admit it. Seems like awfully shaky reasoning to me; especially in light certain public comments by the SecDef about 'realistic expectations' with respect to the nation, and a general focus on maintaining the stability of Pakistan over developing the internal security of Afghanistan.

Rico wrote:
Just saw on the news that 51% of Americans in a recent poll believed the Afghanistan War is a waste. I will bet money that those very same Americans don't have a clue as to why we're there, and just don't like to see young men and women come home in caskets.

You don't seem to know why we're there. I imagine you just like being able to romanticize the notion of putting boots on the ground in the name of American exceptionalism.

Rico wrote:
The Middle East is riddled with Terrorists and Radical Muslims. Some preside in Afghanistan.

Reside, not preside.

Also, Afghanistan isn't a part of the Middle East.

Rico wrote:
If 51% of Americans want our troops home, that's fine. But if they can't comprehend that the most active defense of our nation and allied nations from Radical Islam's reach is to take the fight to the Radical Muslims, that we'd be better off devoting every cent from the Armed Forces into Homeland Security, they need to be slapped across the face.

There's a difference between the most active defense, and the best defense. They can be the same thing, but they don't have to be. Some of the most impressive national gains in world history have been undertaken during periods of selective isolationism (see: splendid isolation).

Rico wrote:
Armed Forces are homeland security. This nation was built on the blood of people who didn't wall themselves up and shut out the world but rather wished leave their mark for future generations.

Actually, that's not true at all. The most active period of American territorial expansion was presided over by the meanest interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which was specifically laid down in contrast to an interventionist foreign policy.

umm... yea... anyone who is a RAGING antiboma should answer these questions...

When did the economy collapse ?

Who caused the economy to get into the state it was in?

When did Obama take over?

Truthfully... i think all the "outsourcing" the bush era gave us was the reason for it. It led to High spending here in the US as we became a service economy, and destoryed our manufacturing.

I am going to leave it here since I am not an expert... but I think you need to read other things besides fox news...

dogma wrote:

Rico wrote:
The Middle East is riddled with Terrorists and Radical Muslims. Some preside in Afghanistan.

Reside, not preside.

To all intent and purpose, they did preside until we went over there after 9/11. The Taliban sheltered and aided them by allowing training camps and and a place to launch their raids from as well as pretty much dancing to the same tune. The reason we went over there was because of 9/11. We were going after into Afganastan after Al Quaida if the Taliban did not turn them over and to a standing ovation from Democrats and Republicans, Bush said this was not subject to negotiation.

Rico wrote:But if they can't comprehend that the most active defense of our nation and allied nations from Radical Islam's reach is to take the fight to the Radical Muslims...

In 723 AD, Christian Europe is besieged by Radical Islam.

Only one man can stop their advance now...

clearly.... you are all unaware of the penguin pirates....

This will only lead to pirate internet, a repressive state where police where featureless reflective helmets at all times and only a karate champion who can't act can save up, or Ice-T dressed as a kangaroo or some other nonsense. I can't wait, it should be fun! Bring on the veterans of the central America wars with their shiny cyber-limbs and doomed romance and people suddenly turning into dwarves and goblins for no reason. Somebody please tell Darth Obama that we're on to his foolishness!!! We will not be the first domino to fall... Oops, too late...

Frazzled wrote:I for one welcome our new internet overlords...

That's because you hope to soon be promoted to the position of High Inquisitor of the Internet Fraz....oh the humanity as Frazzled begins to eliminate everything on the internet that isn't related to Guns, Killing Terrorists or Texas! Wait, come to think of it...there could be worse things left to look at....PETA anyone?

It won't be as bad as you think...

When the vocal minority congregate and passionately articulate, they appear to be less the minority and more the majority.

Relapse wrote:
To all intent and purpose, they did preside until we went over there after 9/11.

That's not really true. The Taliban maintained nominal control of the major urban centers for about 7 years, but never actually dominated the nation in the sense that one normally considers when describing state control. It is true that no major militant group could operate in country without the Taliban's consent, but that's not the same thing as simply stating that the terrorists presided over Afghanistan as the Taliban is not a terrorist entity per the standard contemporary of terrorism.

Also, since he used the present tense I assumed he was referencing the present date.

Relapse wrote:
The Taliban sheltered and aided them by allowing training camps and and a place to launch their raids from as well as pretty much dancing to the same tune.

Everyone in Afghanistan danced to the same tune, even the Northern Alliance which became a key ally in our campaign to evict the Taliban, so that element can largely be discounted. They did shelter Al-Qaeda, but that had as much to do with political and military weakness as it did with ideological compliance.

Relapse wrote:
The reason we went over there was because of 9/11. We were going after into Afganastan after Al Quaida if the Taliban did not turn them over and to a standing ovation from Democrats and Republicans, Bush said this was not subject to negotiation.

The reason we're still there, at least in force, has more to do with the stability of Pakistan than it does with Afghanistan itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

That is now my desktop.