Saturday, August 29, 2009
Obama Wants To Rule The Internet
Dear Leader His Excellency Barack Hussein Obama, Junior wants to rule in the same manner as North Korea's Kimmy Jong Il. Obama wants to lord over internet access in the same manner as China.
Obama wants to rule the internet! CNet News:
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."
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."
Civil Liberties ? Why - - - what are those? I didn't think we had any left because The Left said Bush and Cheney took away all of our civil liberties.
Welcome to 1984.
It is time to use the impechment act, this guy as prove his crass incompetence and his despotic appetite for power and liberties violation beyond any shadow of doubt.
Remove him, the sooner, the better.
What's that you say? They are more busy in preventing school children from exercizing their God given right to pray, then actually defending civil liberties?!
I am shocked. Shocked!
I knew you were going to make my day and use that phrase. I just knew! Thanks, Molson!
It's an act - the move to control the internet - that, if proffered by W. Bush, Cheney or any other Repub would have the Libs vomiting blood. Not a peep out of 'em on this. Thanfully we have org's like the EFF.
Giggle... sorry... feeling a little spunky this evening.
There would be manifestations everywhere at every corner of the world (what the left loves to do) and signs Bush equals Hitler would be everywhere.
The f*cking "demons"crass can do whatever they want in USA, it's time that sanity prevails for once in USA.
You are Spot On. The Libs would be involuntarily soiling their pants if it had been Bush or Cheney asking for this wide and sweeping control of the internet as Obama is seeking.
I very much like your opening sentence of your first comment:
That asshole doesn't realize that the Internet is worldwide and he is not the master of the world like some f*cking god or something.
It sums up Barry perfectly. He wants to control the world.
The Internet would be full of dog food, doggie treats, tennis balls and comfortable pet beds.
I say let Ellie control the internet! I'm all for it!
You guys are worried about an emergency act that allows the government to utilize servers to help out if an internet attack takes place. Well where were you when your precious Republicans and some Democrats decided it was okay to see who you talk to or what you send. Not to mention looking over your financial records when they so desire.
I know the Patriot act is a boring read but when you read it you will find there are tons of references to internet control.
The sad thing is all you are worried about is those you disagree with and you don't watch those you like enough. Slight of hand is Washington's game no matter who is in charge or what party you like.
Where on this blog did I ever write I supported, in full, the entire Patriot Act? And yes, I have read it. Some parts are very Big Brother-ish.
No, I am not worried only about those I disagree with and not watching those I like enough. Have you spent any time reading where I've bitched about Republicans and areas where I disagreed with Bush? No, you're too busy talking out of your colon. Are you Jersey McJones?
Name one civil liberty denied to any American during the W. Bush terms. One. Name one. You can't.
Another one of those that never bother to read that you were libertarian and that you did NOT vote for the Republican party at the last election. They are too lazy and would rather assume than consider the real facts.
But as you know, when someone assumes, he is making an ass of you and me right?
Well, you know those Kool-Aid injecters, they lump everyone who doesn't believe exactly what they believe into one category and only one category.
For a group that claims tolerance and a big tent, they all wear their blinders firmly in place every moment of the day and night.
I don't expect anyone to go over this blog with a comb, finding out everything about me so they are always accurate in their accusations they lob at me. But pick any given month in the archive and there's plenty of criticism I have lobbed at Republicans and RINOs.
I was against the Bush stimulus and his spending and I bitched about it and wrote about it. Liberals like Wade ignore this and just lump me in as another Neocon. That's fine, though, I'd certainly rather be incorrectly labeled and though of as a Necon than correctly called a Liberal or Pbama Cultist! ;-)
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.