Slashdot Mirror
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 Passes Senate Panel
An anonymous reader writes "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel, giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval. The bill, written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV] and revised by Sen. Olympia Snow [R-ME], was drafted in an attempt to thwart internet-based terrorist threats, and gives the president this 'kill switch' without oversight or explanation. The bill is up for Senate vote."
Why do I have a funny feeling that The Pirate Bay will suddenly be labeled a terrorist organization?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch? You're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting > 90% of the economy, making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people, and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society. The damage would be severe and significant and I just can't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good.
Our freedom in the US is quickly diminishing under the guise of "Terrorism". It makes me sick watching it happen and knowing there is nothing we can do about it.
Kickass Cheap Web Hosting
I don't have a problem with this, there should be a way that the system can be quickly shut down if necessary. Waiting for congressional approval would take months probably, even weeks if there was a really pressing emergency. I don't think this law is about approval (I'm sure there would be a huge investigation by congress if he ever used it), it's about timing - stuff on the internet happens quickly and needs to be responded to quickly.
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?
is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?
He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing
This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason. IMHO, this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way. Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last? Oh, yeah, Hugo Chavez. Oh yeah. the Chinese government. Oh yeah, the Iranian government. Oh yeah, the Burmese government (scuse me Miranmar). If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power, this will do the same in the other direction. "Oh, but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias (that nobody ever heard of until now)." Yeah, keep thinking that. Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power?
Laws like these tend to have a long life. Who in their sane mind would give that out of his hand again? Once granted, it will stay. Even if you eventually get someone that makes Dubja look like Mahatma Ghandi.
To avoid Godwin, I'll pull a Dollfuß. He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich. Think of him as Mini-Hitler. He ruled with a law from the first world war that allowed the administration to make laws without oversight in case of "need". He simply declared the perpetual "need" and thus circumvented the government.
Once such power is granted, it will not go away. And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is no different then the presidents power to issue martial law.
Even during the most oppressive moments of our government, martial law has never been declared.
NO one s on the no fly lists for 'no reason'. Some people are mistakenly put on it. HOWEVER no fly lists are far worse then this; they assume guilt and punish innocent people.
2 different things.
And no, this doesn't have anything to do with Obama. Nice try.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
While US did create ARPA in the 50's for military use, most of how Internet is used now a day has been actually created in Europe. US got the ball rolling, Europe polished and finished it.
On 6 August 1991, CERN, a pan European organization for particle research, publicized the new World Wide Web project. The Web was invented by British scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.
Same goes for almost every other major protocol and technology.
Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?
This bill is not about a kill switch.
From the summary:
...giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval.
Giving a strong legal power (such as power to shut off the internet in an emergency) makes it much easier to control individual websites.
A few years ago, during the big debates on the legality of wire-tapping and torture, many of the counter arguments ran along the lines that the president was within his legal rights because of similar and more massive powers he had during "emergencies" or "war time". And those arguments worked.
No one cares about the practicality of a kill switch, least of all the politicians intelligent enough to understand the bill. A kill switch is not the main goal.
The Internet is an invention of the USA, so why shouldn't we have control over it, you eurotrash piece of shit?
DARPA created the Internet, so why shouldn't they have control over it?
More to the point, a very small number of individuals at DARPA created the Internet, so why shouldn't they have control over it?
In fact, only some PARTS of those individuals created the Internet, so why shouldn't those parts have control over it?
But wait, HUMANS created the Internet, so why shouldn't we all have control over it?
Why exactly are you picking one particular level of abstraction out of the infinite multitude of possible ones and declaring that it is the only one that we should all pay attention to? What makes the nation-state your entity-of-choice with regard to causal efficacy and moral supremacy? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Ex post facto oversight is worthless.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
they're not as bad as the last administration, right?
Do as I say, not as I do. Bush BAD, BO GOOD.
From page 53: "With more than 85 percent of the Nation’s 11 critical infrastructure owned and operated by the private sector, it is vital that the public and private sectors cooperate to protect this strategic national asset" So, they define critical infrastructure to mean the 15% owned by the public sector and the 85% owned by the private sector. Now for your #2... Computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure". Well that about covers the entirity outside of private LANs.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Well to be fair the EU doesn't really have free speech, now does it? From what I understand if you dare to make a Nazi salute or deny the Holocaust you can be put in prison, whereas here we just make fun of them when they hold their little rallies and try to pretend it is 1933 all over again.
I have a feeling if the EU was given control the Internet would become a lot more PC really quickly, and I for one prefer being able to say things even if it offends others, thanks anyway.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
hahahaha. Nice rose-colored reading glasses you have there.
Since when has it been any different? The people with money and connections have always wielded the most power and influence. This was as true, if not more so, in the 1820s as in today. Only the availability of cheap land in the west made the 1820s possibly more egalitarian than today.
The power structure has never changed. If you think that two hundred years ago we had some utopia of equality, even among white males, you're sorely misinformed.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai