New Bill Would Give U.S. President Power to Kill Some, or All of the Internet

Every time I see a thread title involving government involvement in anything technological in the FPN section, I think "guess it's been a while since the staff stirred up the conservatives..." and keep scrolling. The thread will just balloon to ten+ pages and be locked within two days anyway.
 
Both parties are way out of touch with the American people and are spending so much cash it is guaranteed our children will be slaves to debt. A little off topic but ya government at it's best .
 
RumpleForeSkin said:
the stupid runs thick in you huh? 2 words.. PATRIOT ACT

It wasn't Obama, nor the democratic party that drummed up that masterpiece.

I PROUDLY voted for Obama, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. The alternatives are all tied to religious zealots,oil barons and generally the people that they will in a few years after screwing them over make them out to be an enemy to the state.

you sir are an asshat.

Remember, kids: if it benefits working class people it's godless communism, if it benefits businesses it's a necessary step to protect our way of life.
Click to expand...

I strongly object to you calling me an asshat and stupid.

I've never heard of the "working class people" creating jobs, it's the "business class" that create jobs for the "working class". Sounds to me that not only have you drank the koolaid you have wealth envy. You probably think Abraham Lincoln was a democrat too.

You want a blueprint for the US in twenty years? Look at Greece. All the social programs, there's no incentive for them to work. Now that the economy is in the toilet and the Greece GOV can't send out the welfare checks and such the people are up in arms.

Greece has been borrowing money for so long it finally caught up with them. Please don't say I watch too much Fox news. This is basic stuff.

One more thing you complain about the, "religious zealots,oil barons,etc.". Where's your tolerance for other people? Very hypocritical.

Now with that being said I'm ready to accept your apology for calling me an asshat and stupid. C'mon you can doooo it.
 
MiG31_Foxhound said:
Every time I see a thread title involving government involvement in anything technological in the FPN section, I think "guess it's been a while since the staff stirred up the conservatives..." and keep scrolling. The thread will just balloon to ten+ pages and be locked within two days anyway.
Click to expand...

This is a healthy discussion. You should add something that's worthy to it.
 
madcap magician said:
This is a healthy discussion. You should add something that's worthy to it.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, healthy, and likely productive too. Surely many opinions, regardless of how entrenched, are bound to sway under genuine consideration of other peoples' views. :rolleyes:
And since you seem to have already come up with some handy criteria to determine the relative worth (or lack there of) of an individual's input, why don't you come up with something on topic and slap my handle on it. Just copy/paste it from the top of this reply.
 
BillR said:
Lieberman's Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 (S. 3480) is, thankfully, somewhat more complex than that. It requires that owners of critical infrastructure, a definition that dates to the PATRIOT Act, work with the newly created director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications within the Department of Homeland Security, to develop a risk assessment and a plan to mitigate their risks in the case of a national cyber emergency.

One has to ask exactly what constitutes a cyber-emergency, national or otherwise.

Come to think about it, wouldn’t a total breakdown of communications constitute such an emergency?
Click to expand...

Someone speaking out against this president is a cyber emergency to him.
 
MiG31_Foxhound said:
Oh yes, healthy, and likely productive too. Surely many opinions, regardless of how entrenched, are bound to sway under genuine consideration of other peoples' views. :rolleyes:
And since you seem to have already come up with some handy criteria to determine the relative worth (or lack there of) of an individual's input, why don't you come up with something on topic and slap my handle on it. Just copy/paste it from the top of this reply.
Click to expand...

Well at least you recognize my back handed comment. As far as criteria of relative worth, looks like you fulfilled that requirement. Good job.
 
RumpleForeSkin said:
the stupid runs thick in you huh? 2 words.. PATRIOT ACT

It wasn't Obama, nor the democratic party that drummed up that masterpiece.

I PROUDLY voted for Obama, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. The alternatives are all tied to religious zealots,oil barons and generally the people that they will in a few years after screwing them over make them out to be an enemy to the state.

you sir are an asshat.

Remember, kids: if it benefits working class people it's godless communism, if it benefits businesses it's a necessary step to protect our way of life.
Click to expand...

For the record, I hate that Patriot Act and do not agree with it at all, but let's do some comparisons:

So you take the ability to for national security agencies, with the approval of the representative republic, to listen in on an incoming foreign call from only known terrorists and are comparing it to the ability of a President, without the approval of the representative republic, to kill switch whatever public and private networks he chooses, resulting in the cease of all private security, commerce, voice communication, financial transactions, etc which would essentially cripple the United States just the same or more severe than an actual cyber attack from a terrorist or foreign country, and if not allowed to control the private networks the President gets to choose the opened ended "punishment" they will assess on private citizens? To compare that would be more than just apples and oranges, it would amount to a negligent action.

But, let's just throw out that rationality and look further for another sake of your argument. The Patriot Act, in my opinion and yours, is wrong and government has no business in growing its powers in such a way, but the fact of the Patriot Act being passed gives sanction to Obama having this power how?

As for your little parting note, you forgot to mention that when the benefit of the working class takes from another class (redistrubution of wealth, taxes on the wealthy, social justice instead of equal justice, etc), then yes it is communism or rather better described as a type of soft slavery.
 
CounTDookU23 said:
I think he was pointing out the fact that there are evils on both sides. I still want to see the yellow cake and WMDs that led us to wage war in Iraq. Politics are straight bullshit either way...... you think politicians give two shits about he American people once elected. Both parties are full of shit. Really one party defines your beliefs?
Click to expand...

Exactly, it's called the Washington Party. The Democrat and Republican parties are the golden parachutes for politicians. Any time a single politician or even whole party starts to overstep bounds, the other one takes up the charge as the "saviors" only to lead us down the exact same path. The path is Authoritarianism, growth in government. Until the Democrats and Republicans are demolished, no liberty will grow in this country and will instead slowly slip away.
 
Sl4ckm4st3r said:
TFTFY.

Not that Clinton was really all that great, but at least he's cultured enough to support his team at the World Cup.
Click to expand...

True, but we could go back far more than 10 years if you wanted. But I said two years because the last year of the Bush administration and the current years of the Obama administration has seen more government growth and spending than the entire 230+ years of American presidency and congress combined.
 
Gnomepatrol said:
"A bill proposed by Joe Lieberman" but this is Obama's proposal right , man when did he change his name and turn old and white
Click to expand...

Obama, his administration, and the progressive congress have all previously lent agreement and have stated to additional powers such as this, the only thing about Lieberman is that a final bill has been introduced (which can only be done in the congress). It must be sponsored by a congressman, otherwise it is a "Presidential mandate" which could have constitutional issues. Of course, Obama has proven he doesn't really care about it being constitutional, as he has issued many executive orders without the approval of congress, but one as broad of an infraction against America as this is something they are a little weary on without the approval of congress (besides, they know they'll pass it anyway, cause they just have to pay representatives off with your tax money).
 
madcap magician said:
You want a blueprint for the US in twenty years? Look at Greece. All the social programs, there's no incentive for them to work. Now that the economy is in the toilet and the Greece GOV can't send out the welfare checks and such the people are up in arms.
Click to expand...

Which happens to be exactly what those in power want to happen, that way when the leeching public goes up in arms they can continue to blame "capitalism" and a representative republic system for being at fault (when it has nothing to do with it) and move on ahead with their plans.
 
MiG31_Foxhound said:
Oh yes, healthy, and likely productive too. Surely many opinions, regardless of how entrenched, are bound to sway under genuine consideration of other peoples' views. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually, this is exactly how debate and conversation works, as long as the consideration of other peoples views also come with logic, reasoning, and facts or proof of history. The problem is that one side particularly disregards all that when presenting their ideas, and they then get offended if anyone disagrees with them.

Your statement is only true when you take out the things about being entrenched or genuine consideration, the operating phrase to make your statement true would be "when people of irrationality enter a conversation".
 
EvilWays said:
Time to lay our own fiber then.
Click to expand...

Which would constitute a private network of mass communication, and would still fall under the Presidents jursidiction despite it being private property and private money supporting it.
 
Again since people just love to read headlines and not actually read around. The President has had the power to kill any form of communication in the country since the 1930's. This bill does not give the President any power. It actually limits it and better defines these actions. Remember this is Joe Leiberman bringing this bill into the senate. He is not a person that would help Obama. He is damn near a republican and would never give up power to him like this. So please stop talking nonsense.
 
psychoace said:
Again since people just love to read headlines and not actually read around. The President has had the power to kill any form of communication in the country since the 1930's. This bill does not give the President any power. It actually limits it and better defines these actions. Remember this is Joe Leiberman bringing this bill into the senate. He is not a person that would help Obama. He is damn near a republican and would never give up power to him like this. So please stop talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't help things when the "news" team at [H] is about 2 steps away from Fox reporters (sensational headlines, no background or context, general BS to stir up the uneducated).
 
EvilWays said:
Time to lay our own fiber then.
Click to expand...

Onion router anyone???


Anyway "Lieberman's Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010" my computer are assests i'm gonna go protects them by shotgunning their asses. And why is the nuclear whatever on the network anyway? so they can tweet the 3 minute warning??

"Hey guys, just pulld da switch! gonna get real hot where you are so you can work on your tannage! I just wun a free ipad!!1!1"
 
JerRatt said:
Which would constitute a private network of mass communication, and would still fall under the Presidents jursidiction despite it being private property and private money supporting it.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

Fact of the matter is, as stated before, civilian utilities and military infrastructure shouldn't be on the same network as normal internet traffic.
 
This country is already well on its way to total Socialism. Everyone should watch Fall of the Republic.
 
For the record, I hate that Patriot Act and do not agree with it at all, but let's do some comparisons:

So you take the ability to for national security agencies, with the approval of the representative republic, to listen in on an incoming foreign call from only known terrorists and are comparing it to the ability of a President, without the approval of the representative republic, to kill switch whatever public and private networks he chooses, resulting in the cease of all private security, commerce, voice communication, financial transactions, etc which would essentially cripple the United States just the same or more severe than an actual cyber attack from a terrorist or foreign country, and if not allowed to control the private networks the President gets to choose the opened ended "punishment" they will assess on private citizens? To compare that would be more than just apples and oranges, it would amount to a negligent action.

But, let's just throw out that rationality and look further for another sake of your argument. The Patriot Act, in my opinion and yours, is wrong and government has no business in growing its powers in such a way, but the fact of the Patriot Act being passed gives sanction to Obama having this power how?

As for your little parting note, you forgot to mention that when the benefit of the working class takes from another class (redistrubution of wealth, taxes on the wealthy, social justice instead of equal justice, etc), then yes it is communism or rather better described as a type of soft slavery.
Bravo JerRatt, You hit many nails on the head. Now we vote the incumbents to the unemploiyment line. So they can feel what 2 out of 10 Americans on the corner are feeling. Maybe we can wake them up to the fact that they need to stop their power grabbing, crony payoff ways & let Americans get back to work. To RumpleForeSkin who you responded to, it's time to realize that you have been conned by power grabbers who have bullshitted you into believing that there is more than 1 American. They are trying to divide us by race & class envy, it's called divide & conquer. They won't succeed unless you buy into that line of shit. We still have the power & come November they will find that out. Vote them out, any of us would a better job than they're doing & if you can't, then like they say when you're waiting in line at the Deli, Next !!!
 
Dreaz said:
Well, it doesn't help things when the "news" team at [H] is about 2 steps away from Fox reporters (sensational headlines, no background or context, general BS to stir up the uneducated).
Click to expand...

Oh palleeaasseeee with the Fox News. Just because they're not in bed with obama doesn't mean they're sensationalizing.


BTW would you please back up this ridiculous comment, "sensational headlines, no background or context, general BS".
 
EvilWays said:
Point taken.

Fact of the matter is, as stated before, civilian utilities and military infrastructure shouldn't be on the same network as normal internet traffic.
Click to expand...
That's the solution.
This kill switch thing is just admitting we have a problem. For everyone and their dog, they realize by plugging into the network (Internet), it's THEIR responsibility to protect their own equipment. Our idiot stick government can't figure that out.
If they don't want the risk, don't plug into the network. Here's a novel idea, for Gore or whoever the dumbass was that first proposed "Smart Power"... Seems like this is a huge downside, no?
 
Dreaz said:
Well, it doesn't help things when the "news" team at [H] is about 2 steps away from Fox reporters (sensational headlines, no background or context, general BS to stir up the uneducated).
Click to expand...

Doesn't help when users are too lazy to bother reading the article before forming their opinion on the matter either.
 
madcap magician said:
Oh palleeaasseeee with the Fox News. Just because they're not in bed with obama doesn't mean they're sensationalizing.


BTW would you please back up this ridiculous comment, "sensational headlines, no background or context, general BS".
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think if I just define sensationalism to you, you might understand my point.
producing or designed to produce a startling effect, strong reaction, intense interest, etc., esp. by exaggerated, superficial, or lurid elements: a sensational novel.
Click to expand...

Now read the headline:
New Bill Would Give U.S. President Power to Kill Some, or All of the Internet

Now read the commentary provided:

A bill proposed by Joe Lieberman would give the President and Homeland Security sweeping new controls over the internet with very few limitations. This is some scary stuff right here. Big Brother is alive and well.

Now read the article and learn up what it actually does. Or read a post by someone educated on the matter:

Again since people just love to read headlines and not actually read around. The President has had the power to kill any form of communication in the country since the 1930's. This bill does not give the President any power. It actually limits it and better defines these actions. Remember this is Joe Leiberman bringing this bill into the senate. He is not a person that would help Obama. He is damn near a republican and would never give up power to him like this. So please stop talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

So oddly enough, this bill doesn't provide "sweeping new controls over the internet with very few limitations". In fact, these controls have always been in place! Let's also remember that USA doesn't house all of the internet, so there's no way America could shut off the internet even if they wanted to. Not to mention the word "kill" used here just to incite rage and fear in people. The internet can't be killed; it isn't human. So, you have 3 points there.

The other part (big brother and scary stuff) is just meant to incite fear and anger into people without actually providing relevant context.

So for this one post, I've covered all 3: sensational headlines, no context, and general BS.
 
TexUs said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

See, this is why people won't ever take you seriously. Why do I need to prove what is already common knowledge? Why isn't the responsibility on your ass to educate yourself?

But here you go because I know you won't do it yourself.

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/61StatL101/ComAct34.html

and I'll quote the first section, just in case all those words confuse leave your mind blank.

SEC. 1. For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the "Federal Communications Commission", which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act.
Click to expand...

And then the bill continues. All the new bill does is redefine terms for the modern age. The president could always kill your precious radio signals, phone lines, or anything else used for communication anytime he/she deemed it necessary.

Sorry, no tinfoil hat here.
 
Funny, I don't see authority delegated to the President anywhere in there
:rolleyes:
 
psychoace said:
Again since people just love to read headlines and not actually read around. The President has had the power to kill any form of communication in the country since the 1930's. This bill does not give the President any power. It actually limits it and better defines these actions. Remember this is Joe Leiberman bringing this bill into the senate. He is not a person that would help Obama. He is damn near a republican and would never give up power to him like this. So please stop talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

The difference in this bill is it describes more specifically that it covers electronic and digital communication, stuff which wasn't a consideration back then and while may be covered by the 1930's act it could still leave grey area without this new bill. But the main difference is that this bill gives the President power to "punish" others in whatever way he see's fit as appropriate, when he isn't given access to someone's private network.

So, yes, it does give the President more power as well as more defined protection on his actions so they can't be scrutinized as much if he uses a broad power of the 1930's act.

Leiberman goes back and forth on issues, but is widely considered a liberal. He's also either sponsored or been involved in passing every major legislation that Obama has been involved with so far.
 
EvilWays said:
Point taken.

Fact of the matter is, as stated before, civilian utilities and military infrastructure shouldn't be on the same network as normal internet traffic.
Click to expand...

That is the understatement of the century, which will inevitably lead to many deaths and tons of destruction in our future.
 
TexUs said:
If they don't want the risk, don't plug into the network. Here's a novel idea, for Gore or whoever the dumbass was that first proposed "Smart Power"... Seems like this is a huge downside, no?
Click to expand...

You are assuming that these people actually WANT us to remain safe, instead of opening up more potential holes for attack and destruction of our country (which, in turn, creates more crises for politicians to take advantage of to gain more power).

These people aren't dumb or stupid, they don't just make an err in judgement with their plans, it is intentional. When nothing makes sense, or a contradiction seems to exists, check your premises and you'll find that you were mistaken about their intentions being "good".
 
madcap magician said:
You guys voted obama into office now take your medicine!!! You know who you are, you bunch of pathetic human beings. Of course no one on the HARD forum would vote such a limp into office now would they.
Click to expand...
The bill was sponsored by an Independent, a Republican, and a Democrat.....Obama had nothing to do with this. If you're going to act like an ignorant idiot and start pointing fingers at least point them at the right people :rolleyes:
 
Blown 89 said:
The bill was sponsored by an Independent, a Republican, and a Democrat.....Obama had nothing to do with this. If you're going to act like an ignorant idiot and start pointing fingers at least point them at the right people :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Last I checked, they're all Progressives. :D
 
MajorDomo said:
A bill proposed by Joe Lieberman would give the President and Homeland Security sweeping new controls over the internet with very few limitations. This is some scary stuff right here. Big Brother is alive and well.
Click to expand...

Sadly people in my state (Connecticut) keep re-electing this man. I write letters in protest of nearly everything he does. Luckily Dodd is out after this year, but Joe is here to stay for another couple years. It should be Little Brother in Washington, not the Big Brother bully that we, the people, have to deal with.
 
TexUs said:
Funny, I don't see authority delegated to the President anywhere in there
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

.....

I'm ignoring you after this post because it's apparent you don't actually read what's linked.

Here's some snippets for you since you can't read. How about now you find the bill on the floor and quote the language that gives the president direct control?

The Federal Communications Commission (in this Act referred to as the "Commission") shall be composed of seven commissioners appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of whom the President shall designate as chairman.
Click to expand...

the term of each to be designated by the President
Click to expand...

All such Government stations shall use such frequencies as shall be assigned to each or to each class by the President.
Click to expand...

And the clause that fucks you up right here:

SEC. 606 (a) During the continuance of a war in which the United States is engaged, the President is authorized, if he finds it necessary for the national defense and security, to direct that such communications as in his judgment may be essential to the national defense and security shall have preference or priority with any carrier subject to this Act. He may give these directions at and for such times as he may determine, and may modify, change, suspend, or annul them and for any such purpose he is hereby authorized to issue orders directly, or through such person or persons as he designates for the purpose, or through the Commission. Any carrier complying with any such order or direction for preference or priority herein authorized shall be exempt from any and all provisions in existing law imposing civil or criminal penalties, obligations, or liabilities upon carriers by reason of giving preference or priority in compliance with such order or direction.
Click to expand...

So now you look like an ass who doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't know how to read. Funny how those two things often go hand in hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top