Slashdot Mirror
Emergency Government Control of the Internet?
TheZid writes "A newly proposed bill would give Uncle Sam the power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a 'cyber security emergency.' As usual, our government is trying to take away our privacy by citing security. What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform? What counts as an emergency? Can political opponents be deemed a cyber-security emergency?"
I don't know whether this newly announced policy is at all a good idea. But I can't tell from the reporting whether it's even what the headlines say. Those headlines lately have been telling us the government is going to execute grandma rather than pay for her back medicine, and other crazy talk based on nothing.
But what I do want to know right now is where were you the past 8 years? While the government was spying on every American's email and phone. While it was infiltrating nonviolent political groups with troublemakers and spies. While it was torturing people to death around the world. While it was invading Iraq for no good reason, lying all the time. While it was kidnapping people into prisons without any charges or basis for them. While it was feeding banks as much credit and deregulation as they could stand until they went bust, then handed them more $TRILLIONS. While it stopped collecting taxes from rich people, even as bridges collapsed and cities drowned.
Where the hell were you then? Or do you suddenly get up in arms only when your porn might get cut off during a massive cyberattack, for which you'll blame the government instead of the attackers? Or maybe it has something to do with a Black Democrat being "the government" for a while, instead of a nice White Republican.
Where were you for 8 years? If you weren't submitting those stories or too busy stopping them to post, then go back under whatever rock you came from. The rest of us are trying to clean up that mess, and you're tracking it all over the floors.
--
make install -not war
You write:
"Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform?"
Hmm, have you been attending town hall meetings armed with your guns, bubba?
Quick, call Faux News, they want to hear from you!
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
well.. Dems already call people who disagree with the healthcare reform plan terrorists http://sweetness-light.com/archive/dem-protesters-political-terrorists and who can blame the president from cutting the terrorists off?
the government only means well when trying to create legislation to effectively deal with internet attacks. its mundane in language not because its a sneaky conspiracy to slip all-encompassing power to an ideological monopoly, but because its simply mundane in purpose as well
but of course, the legislation is fucking retarded: there are much better ways to deal with cyberattacks like ddos than to pass pointless wasteful backfiring laws
but instead of simply pointing this out, we have a million screaming fear-addled nitwits who believe this is some sort fascist march. the stupidity of the government's proposal is only matched by the fear-addled stupidity of the responses to it like you see in the comments here
no, dimwits, this is not overturning the constitution and all the blood and sacrifice of the american revolution. no morons, this is not 1984 or the rise of nazism or agent smith or emperor palpatine or whatever else goes on in your paranoid schizophrenic fantasy life
your government means well, its just stupid. period, end of story. that really is the truth. but you who react to it like its fascist armageddon are fear-addled hysterical twits that are certainly no better than your government's stupidity
yes, you with your adrenal glands firing on all cylinders and your cold sweats and your demagoguery-stoking images and the battle hymn of the republic going off on full alarm in your head: calm the fuck down you low iq high adrenaline twit. a raccoon in the throes of fight-or-flight spasms after you turn the porch light on in the middle of the night has a leveler head than some of you
why don't some of you go buy automatic weapons and some tins of tuna fish and move to the high sierras and leave the job of corralling the well meaning but idiotic public servants back towards common sense to MUCH leveler heads than yours
k, thanks!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Can I say here that I really hate that evil "mr. burns" filth of the earth eugenicists wanna be Jay Rockefeller.
He has been pushing for controlling and limiting the Internet for a long time. He is one of the few people I sincerely hope catches a good case of cancer and dies.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Gee thanks for that opinion Glenn Beck. I think the only ones seen as an enemy are those right-wing zealots that say Obama was born in Keyna and that do those Tea Bag parties and disrupt town hall meetings.
If the Republic is going to fall, it is not just the Obama administration, but every administration for the past hundred years or so.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I would be really pissed if I were stupid enough to vote for Obama. "Change you can believe in"?
Not only has he supported most of Bush's programs and policies he had added to them.
It must be noted that if I were stupid enough to actually vote for the most liberal member of congress running as a conservative, I would probably be to stupid (*blind*) to understand this.
--
My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
Maybe YOU should take a look at the 16% who don't have health insurance
People like you just piss me off. You read some right wing horse shit and go around spouting it as if you actually know something. Ten bucks says you couldn't spell health insurance two months ago and now you are a self-proclaimed expert with deep insights.
You want to know how I know you are full of shit? Because I occasionally get my ass out from behind a computer screen and actually meet and talk to people. It's really not that hard - it just takes a personality and a bit of heart - and they will talk to you. Go to any shit ass business, and there are hundreds of them w/i a couple of square miles of where you stand, and ask people about their health insurance. Or lack of it. And realize what a stupid, self-absorbed blow hole you have been.
Two years ago my cousin died of cancer because of no insurance. Yeah, he made the mistake of turning 50 years old and at the first opportunity his Fortune 500 company found a way to dump him. Bye bye insurance. Hello shitty, low paying, insurance-you-must-be-joking jobs. All that "care" he was suppose to get? Yeah, good luck getting medicare in his state if you aren't living in a box on the street. All that "hospitals have to help you" shit? Good fucking luck as they shuffle you around and the paper work always seems to get lost until, surprise, surprise - you are dead.
I'm sorry but fuck you and all your health care FUD.
"They are the same party,"
Yes, but it's the Democratic party. Your assumption that they are unified, and effectively cooperate to achieve their goals just because they are in the same party and mostly have the same goals is amusing, but not supported by history.
How are you any better? You are simply repeating the Obama and Democratic talking points
Actually I did no such thing. You have a political agenda and you want to see the Obama bogey man everywhere so you do.
- About 10% of the American population consists of people like me - we are wealthy enough to buy insurance, but we voluntarily choose NOT to buy insurance.
Ok, so this tells me three things.
1) You are, or think you are, rich. You like things the way they are and will go through any contortions to convince yourself and others to keep them that way. In short, you are just acting out of your own self-interest.
2) You have never had a major illness. If you think 10% of Americans can absorb the cost you are frankly delusional or completely unacquainted with what the uninsured are charged. Go ahead, risk a kidney transplant. Maybe you can afford it and the 80k a year (for the rest of your life because you will never get insurance again) you'll need for ongoing drugs.
3) You have no idea what the top 10% can afford. If you were serious you would admit that maybe the top 2 of people could risk this. Peope, even those making 100k+ per year would be out of their freaking minds not to get insurance.
And then there's the many people that checked "I'm not insured" on the Census mail-in poll, but in reality they are insured - by Medicaid or SCHIP or SSI. About 20%.
Oh, the very scientific "many people" on which your statistic are based. Right. How could anyone doubt that?
And, of course, you fully supported SCHIP, SSI and Medicaid. You're just that kind of caring guy. So why not just transfer those funds into a public option then? Harder to nickle and dime and screw people in committee in the future, eh?
Why do you want to ignore their opinion - do you not believe in democracy?
Fine. Let's have a special election next month on health care - yes or no. What? What? Oh, you shut up pretty quick didn't you?
Like Grandma Pelosi who called us "unAmerican" because we dared to speak up at townmeetings.
Actually you just looked like a bunch of jack asses. Please, speak out more.
Ok, I can see you have your little no-nothing friends modding me down so good luck living your "rich" life. Don't forget to add in the costs of private protection for your family. Since you want to live in a Mexico City society you;ll have to try and survive in such a society.
Change that our new (recycled) masters can believe in, anyway...
http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss174/nomadiyak/Socialism.jpg
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
>>>Clinton was the first president since 1980 to reduce the size of the deficit (as a percentage of GDP). The last person to do it prior to Clinton was Carter.
>>>
False.
Clinton had ONE (just just one) year of surplus money, but when he left office the debt was about 1 trillion dollars larger than when he came in. Carter had a miserable presidency with rampant inflation, oil lines, and is really not worthy of considering (it's the reason escapism like disco clubs were so popular). The last president to actually shrink the debt was Andrew Jackson some ~150 years earlier.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>You fail to explain how auditing the Federal Reserve helps anything or solves any problem.
Jeez. Asking "why do we need to audit" is like saying "why do I need an itemized bill from the phone company - just let them send me a bill that reads 'You owe $100' and I'll pay it even if I don't know what the 100 dollars was for." Foolishness. Oftentimes I've received itemized bills where I was charged for services I never used or signed-up for. In effect I audited the company and found mistakes.
QED, the purpose of an audit is to ascertain if the Fed actually IS helping solve our problems, or if they are just spending the money foolishly. We the people have a right to know where our hard-earned dollars (aka labor) went. If it's the former, good, but if it's the latter than we need to know that too.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall