Is Obama taking more control of the Internet w/new `emergency powers`?

2010-02-27 12:27:38

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6834|San Diego, CA, USA

Cybersecurity bill to give president new emergency powers

https://img517.imageshack.us/img517/1394/internet1.jpg

The Hill wrote:
The president would have the power to safeguard essential federal and private Web resources under draft Senate cybersecurity legislation.

According to an aide familiar with the proposal, the bill includes a mandate for federal agencies to prepare emergency response plans in the event of a massive, nationwide cyberattack.

The president would then have the ability to initiate those network contingency plans to ensure key federal or private services did not go offline during a cyberattack of unprecedented scope, the aide said.

Ultimately, the legislation is chiefly the brainchild of Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, respectively. Both lawmakers have long clamored for a federal cybersecurity bill, charging that current measures — including the legislation passed by the House last year — are too piecemeal to protect the country's Web infrastructure.

Is this reasonable? Or is this being alarmist?

2010-02-27 12:33:13

#2

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6754

I think you are being alarmist.

2010-02-27 12:40:30

#3

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5829|Toronto

The internet is part of a country's infrastructure. The president is commander in chief. So it's up to him to be concerned with any current or possible threat. He's been able to identify it as a threat, so I'll say that's reasonable enough. He may have information (actually, he does) that we don't, so assessing the feasibility of an attack may lead us to differing conclusions.

With that, I'm all for being prepared; it's not like an extra 30 computer geeks is going to break the budget.

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2010-02-27 12:40:58

#4

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6967|Disaster Free Zone

An idea with no details.

It's like saying, "The president would have the ability to initiate a contingency plan to ensure pollution would not destroy the environment"

Utterly meaningless.

2010-02-27 12:44:22

#5

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

Oh noes it'z teh rockefellers again!

Well it's mostly federal stuff anyway... I doubt obama is an uberhacker. NSA would be on it really quick tbh.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-02-27 12:59:12

#6

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6935

Doctor Strangelove wrote:
I think you are being alarmist.

As usual.

2010-02-27 13:35:38

#7

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6697|'Murka

I think pretty much all "cybersecurity" initiatives being attempted by Congress and/or the White House are alarmist. Because those two entities know fuckall about cybersecurity or the implications thereof.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-27 13:47:28

#8

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

FEOS wrote:
I think pretty much all "cybersecurity" initiatives being attempted by Congress and/or the White House are alarmist. Because those two entities know fuckall about cybersecurity or the implications thereof.

Senators think they're hackers lol.

2010-02-27 13:49:56

#9

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6697|'Murka

Cybargs wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I think pretty much all "cybersecurity" initiatives being attempted by Congress and/or the White House are alarmist. Because those two entities know fuckall about cybersecurity or the implications thereof.
Senators think they're hackers lol.

That's because the internets are a series of tubes, see. And you can send an internet to your friend on Tuesday and it not show up until Friday.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-27 13:57:38

#10

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6811|South Florida

Why wouldnt a corrupt government want to control the ONLY means of free speech and thought left in the US.

Right now there planning the staged cyber attack which will give them cause to shutdown everything else and force feed you BULLSHIT from the only source which will then be available: The government.

You will have no source of communication. and when it all falls down, you best fucking believe there gunna shut down the internet. When the military is rolling down your street you best believe your not going to be able to just hop on the net to warn people. You best believe the news corperations which is owned by the same people commanding this type of legislation is going to be broadcasting any of it.

Last edited by Mitch (2010-02-27 14:02:08)

15 more years! 15 more years!

2010-02-27 14:01:28

#11

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

Mitch wrote:
Why wouldnt a corrupt government want to control the ONLY means of free speech and thought left in the US.

Constitution.

Edit: Why try to control when people don't give a fuck about politics?

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-02-27 14:02:25)

2010-02-27 14:08:08

#12

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6811|South Florida

Cybargs wrote:
Mitch wrote:
Why wouldnt a corrupt government want to control the ONLY means of free speech and thought left in the US.
Constitution.

Haha yupp just like the second and fourth amendment, oh and the TENTH amendment.

Do you know how the gov gets around the constitution??? Terrorist attacks, pandemic, catastrophy.

OH NOES TERRORISTS SOMEONE PASS THIS PATRIOT ACT
OH NOES DEADLY FLU OUTBREAK
OH NOES CYBER ATTACK BETTER SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING JUST INCASE.
OH NOES A EARTHQUAKE IN FUCKING HAITI BETTER DEPLOY TROOPS THERE. - ps we'll never leave.

WHAT THE FUCK DOES SHUTTING DOWN EVERYTHING ELSE EVEN HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? THE INTERNET IS NOT A SERIES OF FUCKING TUBES. one attack isnt gunna hinder the fucking government. all there important shit is run on other intranets not affected by a "cyber attack"

keep making up scary words its working .

Last edited by Mitch (2010-02-27 14:09:48)

15 more years! 15 more years!

2010-02-27 14:10:27

#13

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7002

Mitch wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Mitch wrote:
Why wouldnt a corrupt government want to control the ONLY means of free speech and thought left in the US.
Constitution.
Haha yupp just like the second and fourth amendment, oh and the TENTH amendment.

Do you know how the gov gets around the constitution??? Terrorist attacks, pandemic, catastrophy.

OH NOES TERRORISTS SOMEONE PASS THIS PATRIOT ACT
OH NOES DEADLY FLU OUTBREAK
OH NOES CYBER ATTACK BETTER SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING JUST INCASE.
OH NOES A EARTHQUAKE IN FUCKING HAITI BETTER DEPLOY TROOPS THERE. - ps we'll never leave.

WHAT THE FUCK DOES SHUTTING DOWN EVERYTHING ELSE EVEN HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? THE INTERNET IS NOT A SERIES OF FUCKING TUBES. one attack isnt gunna hinder the fucking government. all there important shit is run on other intranets not affected by a "cyber attack"

keep making up scary words its working .

That's why theres a supreme court...

2010-02-27 14:15:51

#14

Mitch: 16 more years; +877|6811|South Florida

Cybargs wrote:
Mitch wrote:
Cybargs wrote:

Constitution.
Haha yupp just like the second and fourth amendment, oh and the TENTH amendment.

Do you know how the gov gets around the constitution??? Terrorist attacks, pandemic, catastrophy.

OH NOES TERRORISTS SOMEONE PASS THIS PATRIOT ACT
OH NOES DEADLY FLU OUTBREAK
OH NOES CYBER ATTACK BETTER SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING JUST INCASE.
OH NOES A EARTHQUAKE IN FUCKING HAITI BETTER DEPLOY TROOPS THERE. - ps we'll never leave.

WHAT THE FUCK DOES SHUTTING DOWN EVERYTHING ELSE EVEN HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? THE INTERNET IS NOT A SERIES OF FUCKING TUBES. one attack isnt gunna hinder the fucking government. all there important shit is run on other intranets not affected by a "cyber attack"

keep making up scary words its working .
That's why theres a supreme court...

Thats a fucking joke.

Obviously useless, considering the 3 amendments we've already lost.
The resistance would be supressed far before it reached supreme court.

15 more years! 15 more years!

2010-02-27 15:31:39

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
I think pretty much all "cybersecurity" initiatives being attempted by Congress and/or the White House are alarmist. Because those two entities know fuckall about cybersecurity or the implications thereof.

Kind of like the Patriot Act and FISA.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-27 15:31:49)

2010-02-27 16:45:33

#16

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6673

Alarmist. Cyber terrorism will soon be easier to pull off, and cause more economic damage, not to mention China.

2010-02-27 16:52:09

#17

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,056|7058|PNW

System redundancies for telecommunications is important.

2010-02-27 17:25:46

#18

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I think pretty much all "cybersecurity" initiatives being attempted by Congress and/or the White House are alarmist. Because those two entities know fuckall about cybersecurity or the implications thereof.
Kind of like the Patriot Act and FISA.

The concerns about the PATRIOT Act and FISA are alarmist, tbh.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-27 20:01:15

#19

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
I think pretty much all "cybersecurity" initiatives being attempted by Congress and/or the White House are alarmist. Because those two entities know fuckall about cybersecurity or the implications thereof.
Kind of like the Patriot Act and FISA.
The concerns about the PATRIOT Act and FISA are alarmist, tbh.

In your opinion....

What is alarmist and what isn't is purely subjective -- just like what you said in the other thread regarding what is benevolent and what is malignant.

It's all relative.

2010-02-27 20:38:24

#20

mikkel: Member; +383|6887

Pochsy wrote:
The internet is part of a country's infrastructure. The president is commander in chief. So it's up to him to be concerned with any current or possible threat. He's been able to identify it as a threat, so I'll say that's reasonable enough. He may have information (actually, he does) that we don't, so assessing the feasibility of an attack may lead us to differing conclusions.

With that, I'm all for being prepared; it's not like an extra 30 computer geeks is going to break the budget.

How is private property part of a country's infrastructure?

2010-02-27 21:09:37

#21

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Kind of like the Patriot Act and FISA.
The concerns about the PATRIOT Act and FISA are alarmist, tbh.
In your opinion....

What is alarmist and what isn't is purely subjective -- just like what you said in the other thread regarding what is benevolent and what is malignant.

It's all relative.

And in your opinion...

However, if you would bother to actually read the statutes involved, you would see that yes indeed, you ARE being alarmist WRT those two pieces of law. And when I say the statutes involved, it's not just the PATRIOT Act and FISA, it is also Title 50 of US Code, which governs intelligence collection, Title 18 of US Code, which governs collection on US persons, as well as various other aspects of US Code that deal with law enforcement activities. None of those were overridden by either of those acts.

Hence the alarmist characterization when one looks only at those and doesn't bother to look at all the other laws that apply as well.

mikkel wrote:
How is private property part of a country's infrastructure?

It's not. The sticky wicket is when you start to talk about what is deemed "critical infrastructure", such as power and other control networks. Some would argue financial networks would fall into that category, as well. That categorization has to be clearly spelled out...but they've got morons who think the internet is a bunch of tubes working on that. Should turn out fine.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-27 21:37:11

#22

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
However, if you would bother to actually read the statutes involved, you would see that yes indeed, you ARE being alarmist WRT those two pieces of law. And when I say the statutes involved, it's not just the PATRIOT Act and FISA, it is also Title 50 of US Code, which governs intelligence collection, Title 18 of US Code, which governs collection on US persons, as well as various other aspects of US Code that deal with law enforcement activities. None of those were overridden by either of those acts.

Hence the alarmist characterization when one looks only at those and doesn't bother to look at all the other laws that apply as well.

Of course, of course... I'm sure it's all fine.

2010-02-27 21:39:56

#23

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6697|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
However, if you would bother to actually read the statutes involved, you would see that yes indeed, you ARE being alarmist WRT those two pieces of law. And when I say the statutes involved, it's not just the PATRIOT Act and FISA, it is also Title 50 of US Code, which governs intelligence collection, Title 18 of US Code, which governs collection on US persons, as well as various other aspects of US Code that deal with law enforcement activities. None of those were overridden by either of those acts.

Hence the alarmist characterization when one looks only at those and doesn't bother to look at all the other laws that apply as well.
Of course, of course... I'm sure it's all fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

So clearly you bothered to read those things.

It's easier to just do the Chicken Little thing than to educate yourself, I guess.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-02-27 21:43:23

#24

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6877

I'm curious what's really going on.

Air Force, NSA, CIA, and FBI all already have jurisdiction/authority in the area of internet and cyberwarfare.

Sounds like they're trying to shuffle some more power into the executive office, is my first impression.

2010-02-27 21:46:50

#25

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6691|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
However, if you would bother to actually read the statutes involved, you would see that yes indeed, you ARE being alarmist WRT those two pieces of law. And when I say the statutes involved, it's not just the PATRIOT Act and FISA, it is also Title 50 of US Code, which governs intelligence collection, Title 18 of US Code, which governs collection on US persons, as well as various other aspects of US Code that deal with law enforcement activities. None of those were overridden by either of those acts.

Hence the alarmist characterization when one looks only at those and doesn't bother to look at all the other laws that apply as well.
Of course, of course... I'm sure it's all fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic
So clearly you bothered to read those things.

It's easier to just do the Chicken Little thing than to educate yourself, I guess.

The "Chicken Little" thing is also relative. For example, you can be paranoid to terrorism and trust the government to protect you through greater powers of surveillance, or you can be paranoid to the government and believe that they will abuse the powers they are given.

Sometimes, it's even more delineated than that... For example, neocons don't trust the government with healthcare, but they do with warrantless searches. Liberals are the opposite.

So there is wariness of all kinds, which is defined as alarmism by opinion and relative perspective.

BF2S Forums Is Obama taking more control of the Internet w/new `emergency powers`?

The Hill wrote:

Doctor Strangelove wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer