Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

page: 3
74
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
....................
I know it must be difficult for you to swallow that a black, democrat is the President, but the people voted him in, live with it.


I know it must be difficult for people who want a President to be in office just because he is black, but many Americans who voted for him now see that it was a big mistake, and a large part of the population of the United States is seeing this man was the worse choice we could have ever made... i know people from around the world, including England, still love the United States President nomatter what he does, but AMERICANS are waking up to the reality of what the Obama administration wants... LIVE WITH IT.... It has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin... it has EVERYTHING to do with the policies, laws, and bailouts he has been implementing...and of course EVERY promise he didn't keep....

[edit on 28-8-2009 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
this would be absolutly, the worst thing that could happen, i live in the uk but im sure the priminister has some sort of copy cat idea stashed somewher.e what tickles me is all this talk of 'cyber' next theyll be calling the plan, "Codename Cyberdyne" and start the creation of "Cyber Network Protection Androids" which the prinsiple look to look like #ing Arnie Swcharts-a-whatever" (cant spell that). this could actually be interesting to see how this works out, according to many crystal pendulums we'll be in WW3 in under 5 years.

Brilliant Post.
Stars!!! =]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Hello WarrenB, When I posted my thread called "What would happen if ATS suddenly dissappeared? " at 1:am this morning, it was suggested that perhaps I needed time away from ATS. Silly Me. No one says anything on ATS that could ever ruffle the feathers of cyber security right???



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


It looks like we need an internet 2.0 with servers located
somewhere out of the reach of Washington DC. Israel maybe?
How about South Korea or India?
Internet 1.0 shut down by ObamaIronFist? Switch to internet 2.0.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Okay so we know how bad that could potentially be, Now what do we do now..? how do we stop this from going through..? ... always my last thoughts after reading many topics on here. Some guy earlier posted about obamas job as president, stating that "We" made the wrong decision. My take on that is obama and mccain are backed, and controlled by the same people(Global Elite), Thus the outcome would of been the same, except with obama they now have the race card to defend their actions..


Nero..



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
If there was one thing I didn't think Obama would do it would be taking control of the internet. Wasn't he the champion of the internet?

Times are getting dark, and i'm losing hope, we need to rebell against this stupid government theives and there banksters.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Not at all surprising that a Rockefeller has his name on this bill. They are a blood line that should have never existed (along with many others). Our ability as humans to spread information and stay informed is under assault. They want us ill informed, lazy and quiet and this bill will allow the goverment to target, monitor and shutdown any web presence they feel is a threat to "national security".

I am generally not a person that spends a whole lot of time worrying about things that are out of my control but they are making it difficult for even us passive folks to sit on our hands.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by southside-hitmen
Not at all surprising that a Rockefeller has his name on this bill. They are a blood line that should have never existed (along with many others). Our ability as humans to spread information and stay informed is under assault. They want us ill informed, lazy and quiet and this bill will allow the government to target, monitor and shutdown any web presence they feel is a threat to "national security".

Wow! It was Rockefeller who helped reshape New York, so that we can get out of the first depression.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Amazingly, it was introduced on April 1st 2009...

No one panicked then...


Discussed here...

It doesn't matter HOW they change the wording of this bill... It's ALL the same.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
THIS IS A MUST READ THREAD!


(And something that should be "DUGG".)

A lot of valuable input here (partisan ideologies aside)

My fear, however, is that what we are seeing is NOT what it appears to be.

The fact that a "Rockefeller" is a key proponent of the so-called legislation is telling from many perspectives.

Remember that even those clusters at the root level are individually interdependent, there are layers of control within the framework that engender the creation of a single control point. That this has been massaged or nearly a decade should alert us to the indication that some people have been very busy in the background, consolidating media ownership, creating FCC regulations and setting up a similar initiative at the U. N.

This proposition is, in effect, an excuse to develop, test, and deploy such a system. Currently, it is unlikely that the framework is fully developed enough for such control to be implemented. This legislation is the impetus for the creation of a market entity (or corporate body of representatives of the market) WHICH CAN FILL THAT NICHE.

The legislation will create the opening for the investment of massive amounts of capital to establish such an entity. It will be supranational (just like the central banks - from whom they will "borrow" the money) and it will FORCE the American citizens to pay the cost in debt.

Israel is poised neatly in this area of expertise, as they already contract to our defense department the tools of cyber-espionage, under the guise of 'security' - no less.

This legislation must NOT pass. There can be no application of control that will not be repressive, and no body of government, global or otherwise should EVER have the power to control the exchange of ideas - in any way shape or form.

I only hope that the next false-flag attempt doesn't take the form of silencing the web (spider web .... illuminati, anyone?
... "spin no web....")

Best think of how you will be getting your 'true' information if the web becomes 'theirs' to control.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I have thought about this happening many times and I would miss my 'groups' extremely much that I talk with here. Lets just say...heck does hit the fan....would it be worth our while for someone to try to have addresses for all users and send out news letters to keep everyone in touch in a way? Does that sound possible? Could ATS choose to send everyone a 'letter' of keeping in touch so to say. I sure would miss being in touch with like minds if this was to happen.

Is a newsletter in the mail a possibility if ATS went down? Mabey I need to get addresses from my online peeps that I talk alot with. There are many a wise on here that I would hate to loose total contact with and I would hate to not see updates on all that is discussed here.

If the worst of the worst happens...and camps are real and controlling the masses does take place...look for me with ATS imprinted on my forehead lol. Ill burn it there if I have to so I can find like minds.

(I really dont think things will come to this or that....but just in case, back up plans are always a good precaution).



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Has anyone noticed the trend of "providing security" being said whenever the elite want to pass a bill that is fishy and wrong? I think the only cards in the hands of the elite is emergency and protection (control) and they play their cards good enough, they can win America with a masterful bluff. As for the people, time will only tell what kind of hand we have, if any.

S&F.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
This is insanity.

Let them disconnect FBI, CIA, NSA, Pentagon computers
from Tnternet. There will be no threat.

Why are there any vital computers that are connected to
Internet anyway?

This is Germany 1939,
or China for past 60 years,
or NKorea.

Another pathetic attempt by slave owners to manage their slaves.
Enough is enough.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Well then. I guess we're going to have to create a different internet before they pull the plug that will allow all people to communicate in an unmonitored unthreatened way. Msg. me if you have any capabilities and would like to be a part of this project.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by warrenb
 


It looks like we need an internet 2.0 with servers located
somewhere out of the reach of Washington DC. Israel maybe?
How about South Korea or India?
Internet 1.0 shut down by ObamaIronFist? Switch to internet 2.0.


No, that would also be vulnerable. A new design is what is needed. Msg. me if you have any talent that would help.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I believe this is another attempt to snatch away more of our rights and liberties by the nwo. I say "NO"!!! Great post



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb

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 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.



When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

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.)

news.cnet.com...

The Rockefeller again!
WTH!?
So in the event of an emergency (flu anyone?) the web will be controlled.
They can block sites, deny access, monitor everything...



Read the excerpt of the bill here
www.politechbot.com...

[edit on 28-8-2009 by warrenb]


Okay, I don't agree with this, in times of emergency internet maybe the last form of working communication. Major NO



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Kinda seems like it is just a way for the government to control information. I don't think they would shut it down entirely, but, I think they would pull the plug on servers who are putting out info they don't like out



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I'd personally very much like for the internet to be left alone and remain 100% free, but I can understand how certain people would believe it to be in the country's best interests to allow for control over private networks such as for power companies in case of some sort of cyber-terror attack or other situation. Cyber-terrorism is one area that could easily allow for malicious-minded people to do untold damage very quickly. The idea of someone for example messing with major power companies and disrupting electricity or something of the like definitely warrants government attention.
Basically, yes, this could allow for further government control of the internet, which I and most other people would probably disagree with, but under the circumstances considering the danger cyber-terrorism could pose, it is an understandable concern.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by llpoolej
Kinda seems like it is just a way for the government to control information. I don't think they would shut it down entirely, but, I think they would pull the plug on servers who are putting out info they don't like out


That is the exact point of it. The extreme left is very troubled by the fact that there is an alternate media, the monopoly on information is gone. First it will be talk radio, then it will be the internet. The goal is the same.





top topics
 
74
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join