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

FEOS wrote:

WRT the PATRIOT Act and FISA, the Chicken Little thing isn't relative at all. The boundaries are clearly defined, yet you choose to constantly state that the boundaries are much broader than they actually are. If the boundaries weren't clearly defined, I wouldn't trust the government with it at all.

It's not relative at all, Turq.

Does this mean that if the boundaries were clearly defined in the government running socialized medicine that you would trust it with healthcare?

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

WRT the PATRIOT Act and FISA, the Chicken Little thing isn't relative at all. The boundaries are clearly defined, yet you choose to constantly state that the boundaries are much broader than they actually are. If the boundaries weren't clearly defined, I wouldn't trust the government with it at all.

It's not relative at all, Turq.

Does this mean that if the boundaries were clearly defined in the government running socialized medicine that you would trust it with healthcare?

Considering I've seen government-run healthcare in action and I've seen the alternative...no. I'll take the alternative. Every single time.

It's an invalid comparison anyway. Government-run healthcare doesn't risk infringing on my Constitutional rights and therefore clearly defined boundaries are not as critical. Additionally, government-run healthcare is not a function of the federal government as defined by the Constitution--national defense is.

But then again, your choice to believe that government should be limited to what the Constitution specifically states is only an opinion as well.

I guess what I'm getting at is...  it's no less valid to be wary of the government's surveillance powers than it is to be wary of the government running healthcare, because in both cases, the majority of the wariness doesn't stem specifically from laws but from potential consequences.

Granted, my distrust of the government regarding surveillance isn't specifically connected to FISA or the Patriot Act, because even if those laws were not in place, I would still assume that the government does some shady shit with the power it has.

My personal belief is that no law really has the power to stop the government from spying on someone if it really wanted to.

The only reason I trust it with healthcare is because, in most implementations of socialized medicine, it's still professionals in the field running most things rather than politicians.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Does this mean that if the boundaries were clearly defined in the government running socialized medicine that you would trust it with healthcare?

Considering I've seen government-run healthcare in action and I've seen the alternative...no. I'll take the alternative. Every single time.

It's an invalid comparison anyway. Government-run healthcare doesn't risk infringing on my Constitutional rights and therefore clearly defined boundaries are not as critical. Additionally, government-run healthcare is not a function of the federal government as defined by the Constitution--national defense is.

But then again, your choice to believe that government should be limited to what the Constitution specifically states is only an opinion as well.

That's not an opinion, that's the Constitution.

Turquoise wrote:

I guess what I'm getting at is...  it's no less valid to be wary of the government's surveillance powers than it is to be wary of the government running healthcare, because in both cases, the majority of the wariness doesn't stem specifically from laws but from potential consequences.

Granted, my distrust of the government regarding surveillance isn't specifically connected to FISA or the Patriot Act, because even if those laws were not in place, I would still assume that the government does some shady shit with the power it has.

My personal belief is that no law really has the power to stop the government from spying on someone if it really wanted to.

The only reason I trust it with healthcare is because, in most implementations of socialized medicine, it's still professionals in the field running most things rather than politicians.

Now THAT is opinion.

mikkel wrote:

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?

The exact same way the railroads are.

EDIT- I actually laughed pretty hard there. Why do you think there is so much talk of selling of public business? Do you think the mail is no longer infrastructure (communications in it's most rudimentary form) once it's been privatized? It can still be regulated by the government, but it may not be as closely controlled. Air-transport is another good example of coordination between the public and private.

Last edited by Pochsy (2010-02-28 12:18:17)

mikkel wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

mikkel wrote:

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

The exact same way the railroads are.

EDIT- I actually laughed pretty hard there. Why do you think there is so much talk of selling of public business? Do you think the mail is no longer infrastructure (communications in it's most rudimentary form) once it's been privatized? It can still be regulated by the government, but it may not be as closely controlled. Air-transport is another good example of coordination between the public and private.

You're laughing somewhat prematurely. Neither privately owned networks, nor privately owned railroads, nor privately owned courier and delivery services, nor privately owned airlines are part of a country's infrastructure. It's private infrastructure in whatever country it might be in, but it does not belong to the country.

As FEOS said, the argument made is that it is deemed to be critical infrastructure, which allows the government to assert some control of non-government assets and infrastructure. This topic has been covered here on BF2s before.

Another tricky factor here is that most telecommunication infrastructures began with public funding.  For the most part, they are only being maintained privately but were constructed with public funds.

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

You're laughing somewhat prematurely. Neither privately owned networks, nor privately owned railroads, nor privately owned courier and delivery services, nor privately owned airlines are part of a country's infrastructure. It's private infrastructure in whatever country it might be in, but it does not belong to the country.

As FEOS said, the argument made is that it is deemed to be critical infrastructure, which allows the government to assert some control of non-government assets and infrastructure. This topic has been covered here on BF2s before.

Another tricky factor here is that most telecommunication infrastructures began with public funding.  For the most part, they are only being maintained privately but were constructed with public funds.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007 … 02683.html, to those who are unaware.

If the government ever intended to play that card, they would have done so already. Corrupt and bribed governments and officials will remain corruptible and susceptible to bribery, and the FCC will continue to ignore every aspect of this corporate theft.

Well, that's a pretty strong argument for moving to another country if I ever saw one...

Do you happen to know if Canada's internet infrastructure is that fucked?

Pochsy wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

The exact same way the railroads are.

EDIT- I actually laughed pretty hard there. Why do you think there is so much talk of selling of public business? Do you think the mail is no longer infrastructure (communications in it's most rudimentary form) once it's been privatized? It can still be regulated by the government, but it may not be as closely controlled. Air-transport is another good example of coordination between the public and private.

You're laughing somewhat prematurely. Neither privately owned networks, nor privately owned railroads, nor privately owned courier and delivery services, nor privately owned airlines are part of a country's infrastructure. It's private infrastructure in whatever country it might be in, but it does not belong to the country.

As FEOS said, the argument made is that it is deemed to be critical infrastructure, which allows the government to assert some control of non-government assets and infrastructure. This topic has been covered here on BF2s before.

Wa? Hold up, this argument is moving too quickly for me. The commander in chief is not responsible for protecting the interests of the country? Public or private does not matter in the least; it's crucial to the very survival (not only because America would die without porn, but the economy would be guttered) of the country.

This isn't really moving quickly at all, and it certainly hasn't moved anywhere near the direction you're suggesting. I haven't made any remarks at all regarding the responsibilities of the acting president.

Pochsy wrote:

I actually can't see where you're taking this, I really not trying to be an ass; I normally am, though.

Wait. I've re-read your post very carefully, and I think all you've done is affirmed my statement. No? Or I should say FEOS has, anyways.

I haven't reaffirmed anything that you have said, and FEOS directly disputed it. I think you need to read it again, even more carefully.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's not an opinion, that's the Constitution.

Yes, but your choice to believe that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted is opinion.

No. That's where you're confused. The wording of the Constitution with regard to the delegation and separation of powers is unambiguous. Those powers not explicitly provided to the Federal government are given to the States. That is what it says (more or less, I don't have the document in front of me). That being the case, the Federal government only has the powers explicitly provided in the Constitution. Period.

Do you disagree that the Constitution is the foundation of all of our country's laws?

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's not an opinion, that's the Constitution.

Yes, but your choice to believe that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted is opinion.

No. That's where you're confused. The wording of the Constitution with regard to the delegation and separation of powers is unambiguous. Those powers not explicitly provided to the Federal government are given to the States. That is what it says (more or less, I don't have the document in front of me). That being the case, the Federal government only has the powers explicitly provided in the Constitution. Period.

Do you disagree that the Constitution is the foundation of all of our country's laws?

It might be the foundation, but it doesn't have to be interpreted in a strict sense.  Clearly, if that was mandatory, then our federal government would be much smaller than it currently is.

It is your opinion that it is best to interpret the Constitution in a strict way.

However, the majority of society doesn't seem to agree with you on this, because if they did, they would vote more often for people who took a stricter approach, and the government itself would be shrinking, not growing.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No. That's where you're confused. The wording of the Constitution with regard to the delegation and separation of powers is unambiguous. Those powers not explicitly provided to the Federal government are given to the States. That is what it says (more or less, I don't have the document in front of me). That being the case, the Federal government only has the powers explicitly provided in the Constitution. Period.

Do you disagree that the Constitution is the foundation of all of our country's laws?

It might be the foundation, but it doesn't have to be interpreted in a strict sense.  Clearly, if that was mandatory, then our federal government would be much smaller than it currently is.

It is your opinion that it is best to interpret the Constitution in a strict way.

However, the majority of society doesn't seem to agree with you on this, because if they did, they would vote more often for people who took a stricter approach, and the government itself would be shrinking, not growing.

It's not my opinion that those people don't read/understand the Constitution, Turq.

The majority of society doesn't know the first damn thing about our Constitution other than the name and some of the Bill of Rights.

Keep fighting the good fight. 

Harmor wrote:

Has this been posted: Details of “Einstein” Cyber Shield Disclosed by White House

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/03/02/ … t_id=11601

There are zero details disclosed in that article titled "Details of 'Einstein' Cyber Shield Disclosed by White House".