PDA

View Full Version : Obama Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet


wild1
08-28-2009, 02:30 PM
Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 show the Senate bill could give the president a "kill switch" on the Internet and allow him to shut out private networks from online access.

FOXNews.com

A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

"In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency,' which they didn't define," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

"We think it's a very bad idea ... to put in legislation," he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

"The current language is so unclear that we can't be confident that the changes have actually been made," he said.

The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users.

"As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told CNET News.

A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported.

Spokesmen for Senator Rockefeller and the Commerce Committee did not return calls seeking comment before this article was published.

But Rockefeller, who introduced the bill in April with bipartisan support, said the legislation was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records.

"I know the threats we face," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. "Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest."

The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures.

But many in the technology sector believe it's a job the government is ill-equipped to handle, said Franck Journoud, a policy analyst with the Business Software Alliance.

"Simply put, who has the expertise?" he told FOXNews.com in April. "It's the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard."

Clinton, of the Internet Security Alliance, praised President Obama's May science policy review, which he said would take cybersecurity in the right direction by promoting incentives to get the private industry to improve its own security measures.

But he faulted the Senate bill, which he said would centralize regulations for an industry that is too varied to fall under the control of a single set of rules without endangering the economy and security.

"We think a lot of things need to be done to enhance cybersecurity," he told FOXNews.com, but this bill is "not something that we could support."

redsurfer11
08-28-2009, 02:38 PM
Just like China and Iran.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 02:41 PM
I was going to post this earlier but it was a Prison Planet article and they are pure nutters ya know?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 02:44 PM
We have had this discussion before and I said then as I do now I really don't have a problem with it in cases of national emergencies or terrorist attack. Someone is going to have to be the one responsible for pulling the cord.

Haven't you guys watched Transformers?

alpha_omega
08-28-2009, 02:47 PM
We have had this discussion before and I said then as I do now I really don't have a problem with it in cases of national emergencies or terrorist attack. Someone is going to have to be the one responsible for pulling the cord.

Haven't you guys watched Transformers?

A national emergency i could agree with, but that is not what the article says.

What defines a "cyber-emergency", and how is that determined?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 02:53 PM
A national emergency i could agree with, but that is not what the article says.

What defines a "cyber-emergency", and how is that determined?

That is a fair question. The problem is most of our shit is run by computers and on networks so it can mean alot of things.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2009, 03:00 PM
All they could do is shutdown public DNS. There is no central point which all internet traffic flows to shut it all down. It's literally a web. Good luck with that Government.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 03:01 PM
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national security perspective."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10200710-38.html

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf

http://www.isalliance.org/

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=bb7223ef-1d78-4de4-b1d5-4cf54fc38662

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10252154-38.html

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/08/white-house-cyber-czar-quits.html

http://news.cnet.com/DHS-scores-F-on-cybersecurity-report-card/2100-1009_3-6050520.html

http://www.eff.org/about/staff

http://www.eff.org/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

Donger
08-28-2009, 03:02 PM
That is a fair question. The problem is most of our shit is run by computers and on networks so it can mean alot of things.

Almost no critical infrastructure SCADA systems are connected to the Internet at all, IIRC.

BucEyedPea
08-28-2009, 03:04 PM
I've known about this bill for months. It was on some libertarian sites. What a bunch of BS! If Bush wanted it, the left would be crying foul and the Bushies saying it's necessary but now the roles are reversed.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 03:04 PM
Almost no critical infrastructure SCADA systems are connected to the Internet at all, IIRC.

Great point i was going to bring that up.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2009, 03:05 PM
Power grab as ususally, but the idea that the governemnt is going to tell me how to run my network is laughable. More so than they already do from a SOX and HIPAA perspective.

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 03:17 PM
All they could do is shutdown public DNS. There is no central point which all internet traffic flows to shut it all down. It's literally a web. Good luck with that Government.

True especially with all the private lines owned by the telco's. Then again the telco's caved when it came to spying on Americans so I could see them caving again.

jjjayb
08-28-2009, 03:28 PM
This will allow them to pull the plug as Iran did during the election protests. What a strange time we live in.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2009, 03:32 PM
This will allow them to pull the plug as Iran did during the election protests. What a strange time we live in.

But Iran built their evironment with the idea of control. TThat's not how it is here. There is no kill switch and you'd be hard pressed to put one in. You are literally talking about 100,000's of nodes that route traffic.

wild1
08-28-2009, 04:20 PM
All they could do is shutdown public DNS. \

for we non IT people, what would that mean?

memyselfI
08-28-2009, 04:22 PM
Democrats need to be stoned to death if they support this now and did not/would not if it were Regular or a Republican in office.

BigRedChief
08-28-2009, 04:31 PM
We have discussed this before. Not a good idea in my opinion. But on the other hand the government can take the internet out/over any time they choose to.

RINGLEADER
08-28-2009, 04:33 PM
We have had this discussion before and I said then as I do now I really don't have a problem with it in cases of national emergencies or terrorist attack. Someone is going to have to be the one responsible for pulling the cord.

Haven't you guys watched Transformers?


I don't have a problem with it either really. As more of every day life goes through the Internet it is important that Obama have the ability to react quickly if something were to go wrong. Privacy and control concerns need to be respected of course but the examples I heard being debated all sounded perfectly acceptable to me.

RINGLEADER
08-28-2009, 04:35 PM
I've known about this bill for months. It was on some libertarian sites. What a bunch of BS! If Bush wanted it, the left would be crying foul and the Bushies saying it's necessary but now the roles are reversed.

There is this though...

Funny how that happens.

I know Cindy Sheehan is still out there but what happened to the anti-war protests? It's not like Obama is winning the war in Afghanistan with his bold new initiative.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-28-2009, 04:36 PM
There is this though...

Funny how that happens.

I know Cindy Sheehan is still out there but what happened to the anti-war protests? It's not like Obama is winning the war in Afghanistan with his bold new initiative.

THe foundations funding them let the democrats know that the war is won, yet not over. Strange indeed.

mlyonsd
08-28-2009, 04:44 PM
Other than stopping nude pictures of Michele sunbathing from being blasted across the internet I can't really think of a case it should be shut down.

***SPRAYER
08-28-2009, 04:46 PM
Define emergency.

:shake:

BucEyedPea
08-28-2009, 04:49 PM
There is this though...

Funny how that happens.

I know Cindy Sheehan is still out there but what happened to the anti-war protests? It's not like Obama is winning the war in Afghanistan with his bold new initiative.
You mean his surge? Yeah, I figure if two former world superpowers can't tame that nation then the odds are we won't.

But the anti-war movement is on-going with the libertarians, but not reported on except in their own press. It's also been rolled into the Campaign for Liberty with Peter Schiff planning to run for senate, Rand Paul running for Senate, and of course Ron Paul getting more air time than ever with an occasional anti-war sentiment slipping in. Actually more a anti-FP sentiment slipping in.

Taco John
08-28-2009, 04:52 PM
Define emergency.

:shake:



Well, from what I recall from the last administration, the bar has been set at "poll numbers are dropping and a distraction to rally around is needed."

patteeu
08-28-2009, 05:12 PM
I've known about this bill for months. It was on some libertarian sites. What a bunch of BS! If Bush wanted it, the left would be crying foul and the Bushies saying it's necessary but now the roles are reversed.

The Bush administration's philosophy was to take the fight to the enemy so that encroachments on freedom at home could be minimized.

The current administration has shifted the emphasis more toward defense. To provide the same level of security they will have to infringe more freedom. It may well be that they will infringe more freedom while failing to provide the same level of security but that remains to be seen.

The Ron Paulians wanted to adopt the foolishness of a "play only defense and they won't come" strategy which would have been a recipe for disaster wrt security.

mikey23545
08-28-2009, 05:19 PM
<b>"I know the threats we face," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. "Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest."</b>

Yes, our enemies <i>are</i> very real, and much closer than many imagine...

Simplex3
08-28-2009, 06:09 PM
I'm fine with the government having a switch that removes THEIR stuff from the Internet. Anything beyond that I am most certainly not OK with.

singularity
08-28-2009, 06:17 PM
Obama's presidency cannot end soon enough comrades!

Adept Havelock
08-28-2009, 07:12 PM
for we non IT people, what would that mean?

The address book that links URLs like chiefsplanet.com (for example) to a specific IP address would be turned off.

This bill is a very bad idea, IMO.

Garcia Bronco
08-28-2009, 07:53 PM
for we non IT people, what would that mean?

DNS basically converts names to an ip address and the reverse. So if public DNS is completely down and not replicating and no copy can be reached then you would have to know the ip address of say the website you wanted to connect to. It would reallybe impossible for them to do this as well.

wild1
08-28-2009, 08:06 PM
DNS basically converts names to an ip address and the reverse. So if public DNS is completely down and not replicating and no copy can be reached then you would have to know the ip address of say the website you wanted to connect to. It would reallybe impossible for them to do this as well.

Ok, so that would take down any internet related system? For example, there's one that I use all day long that is served through the internet. Even a short downtime is a huge problem. Would it still work, is this possibility accounted for, or is it down until DNS comes back on?

dirk digler
08-28-2009, 08:22 PM
Ok, so that would take down any internet related system? For example, there's one that I use all day long that is served through the internet. Even a short downtime is a huge problem. Would it still work, is this possibility accounted for, or is it down until DNS comes back on?

Yes but you could possible access it via ip address. To find the ip address of a given website:

1. Go Start, Run, type in cmd
2. Black cmd box open up
3. Type ping www.chiefsplanet.com it will display the ip address which is 75.125.205.90
4. Open your web browser and type in that ip address in the address bar. viola

Chiefshrink
08-28-2009, 11:30 PM
This will allow them to pull the plug as Iran did during the election protests. What a strange time we live in.

This!! With all these powergrab bills in Washington that the Dems are attempting they knew the majority of America would rebel. When the teaparties and marches on Washington get to be too much "in their eyes" they will pull the plug:thumb:

Chiefshrink
08-28-2009, 11:34 PM
Define emergency.

:shake:

When the govt(Washington-Obama) fears the American people as their supposed to:thumb:

kcfanXIII
08-29-2009, 12:00 AM
patiently waiting for orange to come along and tell us why this is needed. oh, some of his nutbag obama worshipers have already chimed in. well, regardless of what you think may or may not be needed to protect "security," you will never convince me the chance of something that might happen, is not worth giving up our liberties. the sooner you idiots stop buying into the fear, the sooner we can take our country back.

J Diddy
08-29-2009, 12:01 AM
This!! With all these powergrab bills in Washington that the Dems are attempting they knew the majority of America would rebel. When the teaparties and marches on Washington get to be too much "in their eyes" they will pull the plug:thumb:

When the faggoty ass tea parties become too much for my parties politicians we need a rebellion. A bunch of freaking deluded douchebags dropping lipton into a creek ought not to influence real minds.

J Diddy
08-29-2009, 12:02 AM
patiently waiting for orange to come along and tell us why this is needed. oh, some of his nutbag obama worshipers have already chimed in. well, regardless of what you think may or may not be needed to protect "security," you will never convince me the chance of something that might happen, is not worth giving up our liberties. the sooner you idiots stop buying into the fear, the sooner we can take our country back..

You should take your country back and move your plot to Antarctica

kcfanXIII
08-29-2009, 12:09 AM
.

You should take your country back and move your plot to Antarctica

this was a patriot's country before it was a heard of sheep's country. ben franklin's quote is proof your kind is not welcome here.

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

oh and its like this one was specifically targeted at you:

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

and this gem by yours truly:
"go fuck yourself"

J Diddy
08-29-2009, 12:50 AM
this was a patriot's country before it was a heard of sheep's country. ben franklin's quote is proof your kind is not welcome here.

“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

oh and its like this one was specifically targeted at you:

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

and this gem by yours truly:
"go **** yourself"



I can handle you telling me to **** myself, I can handle ben franklin quotes, however I draw the line when you call me stupid and misspell herd.

That being said, didn't we trade liberty for security under Bush?

kcfanXIII
08-29-2009, 01:24 AM
I can handle you telling me to **** myself, I can handle ben franklin quotes, however I draw the line when you call me stupid and misspell herd.

That being said, didn't we trade liberty for security under Bush?


and i bitched about it then, as well as calling out the people who followed dear leader blindly. oh, and i didn't call you stupid, ben franklin did.

J Diddy
08-29-2009, 01:53 AM
and i bitched about it then, as well as calling out the people who followed dear leader blindly. oh, and i didn't call you stupid, ben franklin did.

I wonder if he can spell herd.

Ari Chi3fs
08-29-2009, 02:30 AM
The most surprising thing about this... is that it was introduced by a ... wait for it... a Rockefeller!!!

Might as well have Kissinger co-sign it.

patteeu
08-29-2009, 07:08 AM
“Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”

That quote sounds good, but when you think about it, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. We've been trading liberty for security since the beginning of our country and many of those trades are well worth it.

Let's look at an example: Do we really not deserve liberty or security because we decided to enact laws that require us to stay on the right side of the center line on our roads?

How about another one: Do we not deserve liberty or security because we (ostensibly, at least) require people who are entering our country to show that they have permission to do so?

I agree with you that we frequently give up too much liberty, but that quote doesn't really capture the idea that there is a legitimate balance to be had.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2009, 07:20 AM
That quote sounds good, but when you think about it, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. We've been trading liberty for security since the beginning of our country and many of those trades are well worth it.
In your opinion. That's the same argument gun-controller's use to confiscate guns. I'm sure you don't think that "trade" is worth it.

Let's look at an example: Do we really not deserve liberty or security because we decided to enact laws that require us to stay on the right side of the center line on our roads?

That has nothing to do with what he said. There's also nothing unconstitutional about those lines either. That's more a safety issue too.

How about another one: Do we not deserve liberty or security because we (ostensibly, at least) require people who are entering our country to show that they have permission to do so?
That isn't necessarily always about security either and they are not protected by the Constitution until they are in our jurisdiction.

I agree with you that we frequently give up too much liberty, but that quote doesn't really capture the idea that there is a legitimate balance to be had.

What is legitimate or not, in this context, is opinion. What's happening today is not resulting in security. I say how far we've gone is illegitimate and much of it unConstitutional. And a trade I'm willing to make is a reduction in our bases, getting off certain lands and being less interventionist to provide security which is more workable and makes us more secure.

And actually, that quote by Franklin, was about gun control if read in it's original context. Odd that you disagree with it.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2009, 07:22 AM
The most surprising thing about this... is that it was introduced by a ... wait for it... a Rockefeller!!!

Might as well have Kissinger co-sign it.

Behind closed doors too. The govt is really afraid of the free exchange of ideas.
Just read this morning though that tax agents having been reviewing Facebooks to nab tax evaders and hitting them with tax bills. The govt can also use it to their advantage in other ways too.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2009, 07:55 AM
We've become safety Nazi's:

http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/20-Evolution_Final_72-red-589-url.jpg

***SPRAYER
08-29-2009, 08:34 AM
That being said, didn't we trade liberty for security under Bush?

(extraneous LMAO ) No. That was just a BS libtard narrative.

patteeu
08-29-2009, 09:18 AM
In your opinion. That's the same argument gun-controller's use to confiscate guns. I'm sure you don't think that "trade" is worth it.



That has nothing to do with what he said. There's also nothing unconstitutional about those lines either. That's more a safety issue too.


That isn't necessarily always about security either and they are not protected by the Constitution until they are in our jurisdiction.



What is legitimate or not, in this context, is opinion. What's happening today is not resulting in security. I say how far we've gone is illegitimate and much of it unConstitutional. And a trade I'm willing to make is a reduction in our bases, getting off certain lands and being less interventionist to provide security which is more workable and makes us more secure.

And actually, that quote by Franklin, was about gun control if read in it's original context. Odd that you disagree with it.

First of all, the "quote" was actually a misquote. Ben Franklin wasn't as dopey about this kind of thing as people like you and others who carelessly paraphrase him (and don't really understand what he means). Here is the actual quote (according to WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)):

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Franklin recognizes that to live in an organized society, some sacrifices of liberty are necessary. In fact, that's what the whole freaking constitution is about. It's about sacrificing liberty for the sake of organizing society for the benefits that come from such organization, including security. He just opposes sacrificing "essential" liberty for "a little temporary" security. Sacrificing non-essential liberty to gain substantial security is an entirely different matter.

Yes, whether a particular sacrifice is "worth it" or not is completely a matter of opinion. People who misuse Franklin's quote, like you have in the past, don't generally acknowledge this, but instead try to pretend that ANY sacrifice of liberty, no matter how great the degree of security being pursued, makes one unworthy of either liberty or security.

Simplex3
08-29-2009, 09:51 AM
The address book that links URLs like chiefsplanet.com (for example) to a specific IP address would be turned off.

This bill is a very bad idea, IMO.

It also wouldn't work very well. Records are cached all over the Internet, and I only need DNS if I don't already know the IP address.

kcfanXIII
08-29-2009, 10:23 AM
I wonder if he can spell herd.

keep attacking my typo, you have not a leg to stand on.

First of all, the "quote" was actually a misquote. Ben Franklin wasn't as dopey about this kind of thing as people like you and others who carelessly paraphrase him (and don't really understand what he means). Here is the actual quote (according to WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)):

.

i know it was a paraphrase, but i don't feel like it was a careless use of the quote. the internet has become one of the main channels of free speech. to give ONE man the ability to take that away is against what the founding fathers had in mind when they set up our government. one needs look no further than iran or china to see what the power they are talking about is capable of.

It also wouldn't work very well. Records are cached all over the Internet, and I only need DNS if I don't already know the IP address.

the point is not if it will work or not, the point is they're trying to do it in the first place.

Taco John
08-29-2009, 10:36 AM
Franklin recognizes that to live in an organized society, some sacrifices of liberty are necessary. In fact, that's what the whole freaking constitution is about. It's about sacrificing liberty for the sake of organizing society for the benefits that come from such organization, including security. He just opposes sacrificing "essential" liberty for "a little temporary" security. Sacrificing non-essential liberty to gain substantial security is an entirely different matter.

Yes, whether a particular sacrifice is "worth it" or not is completely a matter of opinion. People who misuse Franklin's quote, like you have in the past, don't generally acknowledge this, but instead try to pretend that ANY sacrifice of liberty, no matter how great the degree of security being pursued, makes one unworthy of either liberty or security.


LMAO

That's a pretty funny conflation. I like the part where you try to make "essential" mean whatever you want it to.

patteeu
08-29-2009, 10:41 AM
i know it was a paraphrase, but i don't feel like it was a careless use of the quote. the internet has become one of the main channels of free speech. to give ONE man the ability to take that away is against what the founding fathers had in mind when they set up our government. one needs look no further than iran or china to see what the power they are talking about is capable of.

Fair enough. I was addressing the paraphrase more than this specific issue. By leaving out "essential" and "a little temporary" it dramatically changes the gist of the message, IMO, and a lot of people (not necessarily you) seem to blindly parrot the saying without really giving any thought to the balancing issues that have to be involved to make it sensible.

I don't know enough about what authority this would give our president and under what circumstances he'd be allowed to exercise that authority for me to take a firm stand on the particular issue. At first glance it sounds pretty bad, but cybersecurity is a huge issue when you think about how crippling it could be to our society if evil-doers (lol) were able to find a way to screw up our electronic financial system, for example. It's certainly a much greater threat to our way of life than a physical invasion in the foreseeable future.

patteeu
08-29-2009, 10:46 AM
LMAO

That's a pretty funny conflation. I like the part where you try to make "essential" mean whatever you want it to.

That's the point. Exactly what Franklin's advice means in any particular situation is debatable. He didn't give us a bright line rule that can easily be applied, but instead a vague reference to the fact that a balance must be maintained between sacrificing freedom and gaining security. It's up to us, through our elected representatives, to figure out what that balance is (within the constraints of the constitution, of course).

Edit: Oh, and you're right. In Franklin's little known follow-up quote he says, "See patteeu for guidance on what I mean by 'essential'". LOL

kcfanXIII
08-29-2009, 10:47 AM
I don't know enough about what authority this would give our president and under what circumstances he'd be allowed to exercise that authority for me to take a firm stand on the particular issue.

oddly enough, most of our elected representatives share this same problem.

patteeu
08-29-2009, 10:52 AM
oddly enough, most of our elected representatives share this same problem.

:LOL:

wild1
08-29-2009, 12:32 PM
We've become safety Nazi's:

http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/20-Evolution_Final_72-red-589-url.jpg

I've thought about that lately too. By the time I'm old we'll probably all be required to wear helmets everywhere.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2009, 03:05 PM
LMAO

That's a pretty funny conflation. I like the part where you try to make "essential" mean whatever you want it to.

You caught that too. Pat thinks AQ is planning on blowing up his basement.

patteeu
08-29-2009, 03:08 PM
You caught that too. Pat thinks AQ is planning on blowing up his basement.

I didn't bother to ask TJ, but I don't really understand what "conflation" he was talking about. Since you do, maybe you can explain it to me and while you're at it you can explain what it has to do with my basement.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2009, 03:09 PM
Quit being so literal minded.

patteeu
08-29-2009, 03:10 PM
Quit being so literal minded.

So you and TJ didn't really catch anything afterall?

BucEyedPea
08-29-2009, 03:11 PM
'eh?

patteeu
08-29-2009, 03:20 PM
'eh?

What was this "conflation" that you and TJ "caught"?

BucEyedPea
08-29-2009, 03:20 PM
First of all, the "quote" was actually a misquote. Ben Franklin wasn't as dopey about this kind of thing as people like you and others who carelessly paraphrase him (and don't really understand what he means). Here is the actual quote (according to WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)):
You're preaching to the choir here. I said it was a misused, out of context quote regardless of it being a misquote. Either way that doesn't change that it's about gun control as we know we're referring to the same essential words.

What you missed entirely was my commenting on your opinion you posted, not Franklin's words, regarding our HUGE loses of essential liberty for an insane and unecessary FP that challenges our security or for revenge on countries who did nothing on 9/11. In that sense you've conflated the issue as well as my post . And you've said I can't read or don't follow?


( I read the thread backwards and posted on the way in reverse before I saw this post)

patteeu
08-29-2009, 03:30 PM
You're preaching to the choir here. I said it was a misused, out of context quote regardless of it being a misquote. Either way that doesn't change that it's about gun control as we know we're referring to the same essential words.

What you missed entirely was my commenting on your opinion you posted, not Franklin's words, regarding our HUGE loses of essential liberty for an insane and unecessary FP that challenges our security or for revenge on countries who did nothing on 9/11. In that sense you've conflated the issue as well as my post . And you've said I can't read or don't follow?


( I read the thread backwards and posted on the way in reverse before I saw this post)

I didn't express an opinion regarding any losses of liberty related to FP so if that's what you were responding to, you're imagining it.

It's not clear to me that you know what the word "conflated" means based on this post. Maybe Taco John can give me a more clear answer to my question.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2009, 03:32 PM
I didn't express an opinion regarding any losses of liberty related to FP so if that's what you were responding to, you're imagining it.
Specifically no, but knowing our past discussions it incorpates those arguments.

It's not clear to me that you know what the word "conflated" means based on this post. Maybe Taco John can give me a more clear answer to my question.

Yes it does, you conflate major losses of liberty for security not minor ones as one and the same. Ayup!

Pioli Zombie
08-30-2009, 06:21 AM
Not that!!!!!!! If people in basements are denied access to their porn and chat sites for a day that will be the straw that starts the revolution!!!!

You can't deny my civil liberty of Facebook!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
08-30-2009, 07:23 AM
Specifically no, but knowing our past discussions it incorpates those arguments.

Then you didn't comment on any opinion I posted, you commented on some vague recollection of opinions I've expressed in the past without bothering to mention them so that someone besides yourself can have a clue about what you're talking about. That's pretty hollow stuff.

If you're going to insinuate that you "caught" something in my post, I'm going to ask that you actually find it in my post or at least articulate specifically what you "caught". Handwaving won't do.

Yes it does, you conflate major losses of liberty for security not minor ones as one and the same. Ayup!

That's ridiculous. Which of my two examples represents a major loss of [essential] liberty [for the benefit of only a little temporary security]? Being forced to drive on the right side of the road or being forced to present evidence of lawful entry at the border?

Simplex3
08-30-2009, 08:25 AM
Not that!!!!!!! If people in basements are denied access to their porn and chat sites for a day that will be the straw that starts the revolution!!!!

You can't deny my civil liberty of Facebook!!!
Posted via Mobile Device

You will be granting the government the power to stop nearly all business in this country for reasons the government never has to disclose. Minus the Internet there's no reason for my company to open in the morning.

BigRedChief
08-30-2009, 08:44 AM
You will be granting the government the power to stop nearly all business in this country for reasons the government never has to disclose. Minus the Internet there's no reason for my company to open in the morning.
They already have the capability. In an emergency, you don't think they would use it and ask permission later?

gblowfish
08-30-2009, 08:47 AM
I must be able to surf porn during a Nuclear Exchange.

patteeu
08-30-2009, 09:03 AM
I must be able to surf porn during a Nuclear Exchange.

Isn't that why the internet was created? :)

kcfanXIII
08-30-2009, 12:38 PM
I must be able to surf porn during a Nuclear Exchange.

i understand that porn, facebook, hell even your online ffl aren't that important during a true national emergency. what you are asking for here, for example of how easy this would be to abuse, swine flu is already at level 6, meaning at any time the gov can declare martial law. once martial law is put into place, americans go taking video and pics of armies rolling through neighborhoods, and instead of getting these images out to the world, the internet has been cut off and no one can see a united states completely controlled by the military. see if your rights are protected in that scenario. not to mention, they ARE setting the frame work to carry this plan out. fema camps are being built, and right in the legislation it leaves the secretary of homeland security the power to decide what they can be used for. they've made plans to use northcomm to direct an international force,(i've even saw UN hummers running around during war game exercises.) and we've seen how they view those of us that disagree with their policies. "unamerican" has been used, and they view all dissent as extremist and want to put us on some sort of list where we can't buy firearms. but yeah, i'm the crazy one. i'm the one reading too much into the dominoes i see them setting up.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2009, 01:58 PM
I see you just want to start fight pat, by picking apart the poster. I nailed it but feel free to spin it as you want. I'm not going to participate in ego excercises....I was just explaining my stand.

patteeu
08-30-2009, 02:55 PM
I see you just want to start fight pat, by picking apart the poster. I nailed it but feel free to spin it as you want. I'm not going to participate in ego excercises....I was just explaining my stand.

Your stand didn't make any sense, as I've pointed out. And yes, I'm criticizing the poster because she isn't making a coherent point to consider.

Inspector
08-31-2009, 10:10 AM
I've thought about that lately too. By the time I'm old we'll probably all be required to wear helmets everywhere.

Wait a minute......

You mean.....I DON'T have to wear this helmet everywhere?

Dang it mom!!!!!!!!!! No wonder all the kids make fun of me.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 10:51 AM
“Emergency Control” of the Internet

Tom Burghardt
Antifascist Calling
Monday, August 31, 2009

You have to hand it to congressional Democrats. Mendacious grifters whose national security agenda is virtually indistinguishable from Bushist Republicans, when it comes to rearranging proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic, the party of “change” is second to none in the “all terrorism all the time” department.

While promising to restore the “rule of law,” “protect civil liberties” while “keeping America safe,” in practice, congressional Democrats like well-coiffed Republican clones across the aisle, are crafting legislation that would do Dick Cheney proud!

As the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773) wends its way through Congress, civil liberties’ advocates are decrying provisions that would hand the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet.

CNET reported August 28, that the latest iteration of the bill “would allow the president to ‘declare a cybersecurity emergency’ relating to ‘non-governmental’ computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat.”

Drafted by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), “best friends forever” of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the telecommunications industry, they were key enablers of Bush-era warrantless wiretapping and privacy-killing data mining programs that continue apace under Obama.As The New York Times revealed in June, a former NSA analyst described a secret database “code-named Pinwale, that archived foreign and domestic e-mail messages.” The former analyst “described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans’ e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.”



Antifascist Calling has noted on more than one occasion, that with “cyberterrorism” morphing into al-Qaeda 2.0, administration policies designed to increase the scope of national security state surveillance of private communications will soon eclipse the intrusiveness of Bushist programs.

As Cindy Cohn, the Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) wrote earlier this month, commenting on this summer’s public relations blitz by former NSA boss Michael Hayden and Office of Legal Counsel torture-enabler John Yoo’s defense of the so-called Presidential Surveillance Program,

While the details are unknown, credible evidence indicates that billions of everyday communications of ordinary Americans are swept up by government computers and run through a process that includes both data-mining and review of content, to try to figure out whether any of us were involved in illegal or terrorist-related activity. That means that even the most personal and private of our electronic communications–between doctors and patients, between husbands and wives, or between children and parents–are subject to review by computer algorithms programmed by government bureaucrats or by the bureaucrats themselves. (Cindy Cohn, “Lawless Surveillance, Warrantless Rationales,” American Constitution Society, August 17, 2009)

Both Rockefeller and Snowe are representative of the state’s “bipartisan consensus” when it comes to increasing the power of the intelligence and security apparatus and were instrumental in ramming through retroactive immunity for telecoms who illegally spy on the American people. If last year’s “debate” over the grotesque FISA Amendments Act (FAA) is an indication of how things will go after Congress’ summer recess, despite hand-wringing by congressional “liberals,” S.773 seems destined for passage. CNET revealed:

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said. (Declan McCullagh, “Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet,” CNET News, August 28, 2009)

But as we witness practically on a daily basis, hysterical demands for “protection” from various “dark actors” inevitably invokes an aggressive response from militarized state security apparatchiks and their private partners.

As Antifascist Calling reported in July (see: “Behind the Cyberattacks on America and South Korea. ‘Rogue’ Hacker, Black Op or Both?”), when North Korea was accused of launching a widespread computer attack on U.S. government, South Korean and financial web sites, right-wing terrorism and security specialists perched at Stratfor and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)–without a shred of evidence–linked the cyber blitz to a flurry of missile tests and the underground detonation of a nuclear device by North Korea.

Adding to the noise, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee went so far as to urge President Obama to respond–by launching a cyberattack against the bankrupt Stalinist regime.

Despite provocative rhetoric and false charges that might have led to war with disastrous consequences for the people of East Asia, as it turned out an unknown sociopath used an updated version of the MyDoom e-mail worm to deploy a botnet in the attack. As Computerworld reported, the botnet “does not use typical antivirus evasion techniques and does not appear to have been written by a professional malware writer.” Hardly a clarion call for bombing Dear Leader and countless thousands of Koreans to smithereens!

In this context, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 goes much further than protecting “critical infrastructure” from over-hyped cyberattacks.

Among other measures, Section 18, “Cybersecurity Responsibilities and Authority,” hands the Executive Branch, specifically The President, the power to “declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.” This does not simply apply to federal networks, but may very well extend to the private communications (”critical infrastructure information system or network”) of citizens who might organize against some egregious act by the state, say a nuclear strike against a nation deemed responsible for launching a cyberattack against the United States, as suggested in May by the head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) General Kevin Chilton.

As I reported in June (see: “Cyber Command Launched. U.S. Strategic Command to Oversee Offensive Military Operations”), the military’s newly-launched U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) is a “subordinate unified command” overseen by STRATCOM. Would “message force multipliers” embedded in the media or Pentagon public diplomacy specialists carrying out psychological operations (PSYOPS) here in the heimat, become the sole conduit for critical news and information during said “national emergency”?

Additionally, under Section 18’s authority The President “shall designate an agency to be responsible for coordinating the response and restoration of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network affected by a cybersecurity emergency declaration under paragraph (2).” What agency might Senator Rockefeller have in mind for “coordinating the response”? As Antifascist Calling revealed in April (see: “Pentagon’s Cyber Command to Be Based at NSA’s Fort Meade”), CYBERCOM will be based at NSA headquarters and led by Lt. General Keith Alexander, the current NSA director who will oversee Pentagon efforts to coordinate both defensive and offensive cyber operations.

How might an out-of-control Executive Branch seize the initiative during an alleged “national emergency”? Paragraph 6 spells this out in no uncertain terms: “The President may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security.”

The draconian bill has drawn a sharp rebuke from both civil libertarians and the telecommunications industry. Larry Clinton, the president of the Internet Security Alliance (ISA) told CNET: “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

And Wayne Crews, the director of technology studies at the rightist Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) told Federal Computer Week: “From American telecommunications to the power grid, virtually anything networked to some other computer is potentially fair game to [President Barack] Obama to exercise ‘emergency powers’.”

True enough as far as it goes, these “free market” cheerleaders are extremely solicitous however, when it comes to government defense and security contracts that benefit their clients; so long as the public is spared the burden of exercising effective control as cold cash greases the sweaty palm of the market’s “invisible hand”!

As Antifascist Calling revealed in June (see: “Obama’s Cybersecurity Plan: Bring on the Contractors!”), the ISA is no ordinary lobby shop. According to a self-promotional blurb on their web site, ISA “was created to provide a forum for information sharing” and “represents corporate security interests before legislators and regulators.”

Amongst ISA sponsors one finds AIG (yes, that AIG!) Verizon, Raytheon, VeriSign, the National Association of Manufacturers, Nortel, Northrop Grumman, Tata, and Mellon. State partners include the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Congress, and the Department of Commerce.

Indeed ISA and CEI, are firm believers in the mantra that “the diversity of the internet places its security inescapably in the hands of the private sector,” and that “regulation for consumer protection” that rely on “government mandates” to “address cyber infrastructure issues” will be “ineffective and counter-productive both from a national security and economic perspective.” CEI and ISA’s solution? Let’s have another gulp of that tasty “market incentives” kool-aid!

In other words, hand over the cash in the form of taxpayer largess and we’ll happily (and profitably!) continue to violate the rights of the American people by monitoring their Internet communications and surveilling their every move through nifty apps hardwired into wireless devices as the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed in a new report on locational privacy.

Unfortunately, Clinton, Crews and their well-heeled partners seem to have forgotten an elementary lesson of history: a national security state such as ours will invariably unwind its tentacles into every corner of life unless challenged by a countervailing force–a pissed-off, mobilized citizenry.

Now that national security “change” chickens are coming home to roost, both CEI and ISA seem incredulous: you mean us? How’s that for irony!

Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with EFF told CNET that changes to the original version of the bill do not address pressing privacy concerns.

Tien told the publication: “The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits. It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

McCullagh avers: “Translation: If your company is deemed ‘critical,’ a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.”

And there you have it, a “cybersecurity” blacklist to accompany a potential state takeover of the Internet during a “national emergency.” What will they think of next!

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html

http://www.eff.org/

http://www.acslaw.org/node/13922

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2009/07/behind-cyberattacks-on-america-and.html

http://www.stratfor.com/

http://www.aei.org/

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135369/Korea_DDOS_virus_mission_shifts_to_destroying_erasing_data?taxonomyId=17

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090512_4977.php

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2009/06/cyber-command-launched-us-strategic.html

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2009/04/pentagons-cyber-command-to-be-based-at.html

http://www.isalliance.org/

http://fcw.com/articles/2009/08/28/cybersecurity-bill-presidential-power.aspx

http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-cybersecurity-plan-bring-in.html

http://www.eff.org/wp/locational-privacy

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14964

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 11:40 AM
Your stand didn't make any sense, as I've pointed out. And yes, I'm criticizing the poster because she isn't making a coherent point to consider.

Please make it stop! Pat is at it again. :#

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 11:49 AM
Well, from what I recall from the last administration, the bar has been set at "poll numbers are dropping and a distraction to rally around is needed."

Is that why the Mane was down so often?

Hell, I thought it had something to do with football opinions.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 11:51 AM
Is that why the Mane was down so often?

Hell, I thought it had something to do with football opinions.

Heh! Orange is the highest alert. That's what did it.

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 11:51 AM
Personally, I think this is a violation of the first amendment.

The Internet is the new free press. Just ask the newspapers.