It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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".
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.
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.)
The Rockefeller again!
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
[edit on 28-8-2009 by warrenb]
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