Bill would give president emergency control of Internet, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 74 times


reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 05:12 PM by Magantice
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???



reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 05:34 PM 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.



reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 06:31 PM by Maxmars
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]


reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 08:12 PM by DieterDengler
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.



reply posted on 28-8-2009 @ 08:39 PM by FantasmaTaans
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
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^