Slashdot Mirror
Sen. Bond Disses Internet 'Kill Switch' Bill
GovTechGuy writes "Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) has introduced his own cybersecurity legislation with Sen. Orrin Hatch, and he had some harsh words for a competing bill sponsored by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. Bond said that bill, which has been criticized for allegedly giving the president a 'kill switch' over the Internet, weighs down the private sector with mandates and puts too much on the plate of the already overburdened Department of Homeland Security. Sen. Bond's bill would create a new position in the Pentagon, reporting directly to the president, in charge of coordinating all civilian cybersecurity. Any private-sector involvement would be voluntary and free from legal challenge, rather than mandated."
No good news here. Bond's concerns about a cyber security bill can only mean he feels it isn't harsh enough. If he's in league with copyright's Prince of Darkness Orrin Hatch, who not too long ago wanted to scan all PCs warrantlessly and without judicial oversight automatically destroy those found with "unauthorized content" (read: entertainment), it shouldn't take too much in the way of imagination to predict his response to information he defines as threats to security.
- js.
Our energy sector is insanely regulated also. The BP oil spill wasn't caused because of deregulation but because the morons "we" elected to congress thought it was a good idea to artificially cap liability.
Likewise, the problem we've had with the net is a lack of regulation rather than too much of it.
So what are these problems with the internet that are because of a lack of regulation that will magically become better with regulation? In almost every single case regulation simply leads to corporations screwing the public even more because they can game them and the public losing in higher prices and less choice because it makes it harder to start up a business or to compete with established companies.
The firms like MS and the ISPs that do very little to curtail the soft targets aren't going to get better knowing that they'll face even less regulation.
MS pretty much lives on the regulation we call software patents and copyright. ISPs got the way they did by screwing the public by taking money to provide internet access and then unilaterally changing the definition of the internet to their own interests.
We don't need regulation there, we need sane patent reform, we need a return of sane copyright, we need a correct definition of internet, we need to end all public handouts to businesses, etc.
When consumers have choice they will be more effective than "regulation" ever will be. The problem is regulation almost always reduces chocie.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
If "conservatives" believe the intent of the Constitution is as it's stated, then why did the five-member conservative majority in SCOTUS just give corporations free speech rights superior to those of actual human beings? Ever since Justice Alito changed the court to a five to four conservative majority, the Supreme Court has become increasingly activist, striking down key laws that limit the power of corporations, government executives, and well-heeled criminals (the less well-off criminals still get the shaft, though).
One of the reasons we've got to be really careful about any sort of "internet kill switch" bill is, even if the legislature makes it voluntary, the newly activist conservatives in the Supreme Court are sure to take the "voluntary" part out, if they can.