Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

page: 5
74
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
After seeing the different aspects of the bill, the only thing that comes into my mind is one thing:

We need more cyber security for this country.


Yes, I agree. We need more of our 'privledges' potentially taken away.



After 9/11, President Bush focused the majority of his time and money on stopping physical attacks from happening.


After 9/11, Bush and his cronies made a lot of money, also.



Whether or not it did a good or bad thing, I won't garner a guess, but he didn't focus too much on cyber security.


Fact: Good thing. He destroyed everything exept 1 and 2. I suppose he/they left them for the next couple administrations to play with.



Twice this year, our government's computer infrastructure has been attacked.


They need to stop buying blackmarket switches and routers. They need to get .mils off the WWW.



Did you guys know that the DOD is attacked over three million times a day through computers?

THREE MILLION!


Did you know 3 million home computers, any given day, get attacked more than 3 million times.



So, if we don't want this bill to come, we need more cyber security for this country.


Umm, that is the supposed point of this bill.



Defense is the best offense.


a. Stop buying hardware from China's underground.
b. Get off the WWW.
c. Develop a secret OS.
d. Develop secret routing software.
e. Stop buying hardware from China's underground... Oh.
f. Get off the WWW... Oh.



If a rogue nation or terrorists are able to hack into our infrastructure and gain national secrets, we could be in deep trouble.

For example: what would happen if terrorists gained knowledge of a document that shows all of the locations of nuclear silos in the country?


Wouldn't matter. Our congress sells that stuff to them anyway. Sibel Edmonds' Deposition: Video and Transcript Released

I don't want gov to tell me when I can and can't use my ultimate expression of speech. Especially not when it has to do with me being safe. I can handle myself, thank you very much.


Oh wait, I guess we're pretty much already at that state, might as well juss put the icing on the cake, for Pete's sake.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by shanerz]




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
would it be possible for the pres to simply order all the ISP's (Comcast, Cox, Time-Warner, etc.) to shut down all their subscribers' access to the internet??

i mean, Time-Warner doesn't seem to have any problem in shutting off my service when i can't pay the bill, so can the pres just give them an order to shut down all their customers' internet access?


it would seem that under a State of Emergency/Martial Law this would be entirely possible... maybe i'm wrong though..

[edit on 29-8-2009 by adrenochrome]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:17 AM
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.


Hmmm...
I find it interesting, humorous, sad, and ironic, that the most racist people of all are those such as yourself who pull the race card every chance they get - based on assumptions.

I thought our country was past this - most of us regular Joe's are willing to look past race...
I'm constantly proven wrong, as according to some, the only way to be critical of Obama is by being a racist.

I suppose everyone who was critical of the 42 former presidents were just being critical because they hated whites?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
LOL. Basically right after I made my post I got the "Warning!!! Your system required immediate virus scan. Personal Virus Scan can perform..." As if a direct link from ATS.

Coincidence? I got a laugh out of it.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I do not believe that the Internet can be stopped. Think about the number of people that utilise it for all kinds of purposes...even TPTB. It would just be near-impossible to completely shut down or even slow it down significantly.

Nevertheless, a bill like this is definitely a danger to civil liberties and should be put under heavy public scrutiny. Why should even the highest ranking leader of any region be allowed to prevent people access to the Internet? Internet access is a basic right (currently) and this should not be changed.

If they want people to stop using the internet, I predict they will use negative reinforcement to do so - just like the Swine Flu (SF) vaccine. They encourage people to go get the vaccine so they feel "safe and protected" from the SF. Maybe they will invent some evil entity that manipulates people to cancel their ISP and stop using the internet.

[edit on 29/8/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Obama would never be able to "pull the plug" on the internet. Major corporations across the US would tear him apart if he even tried....because it would severely affect their income. And the web is too critical of a tool for the US and world economy. Not going to happen. So stop fear mongering. By the way, I find this thread to be nothing more than a pitiful joke.



[edit on 8/29/2009 by MadDogtheHunter]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
It's just another face of the "Patriot Act". It's why there was so much talk when that came about. Imagine Biden getting on tv and stating that it's our patriotic duty to stay off line.

So before they shut me down, Obama stinks. Biden stinks. Pelosi stinks.

There, now I'll do my "patriotic duty".

-hrrrmmff-



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the internet blocked by iran during the election riots? An if true then why couldn't lord obam do the same here?
Another thought to add, not sure if this was brought up yet or not, but why isn't the press all over this? Can you imanagine the outrage if President Bush tried the same thing?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Chance321
 


Technically speaking, there is nothing stopping him. Legally, there is, hence the need for a bill.

EDIT: I'm sure I remember this being discussed when Bush was President and getting the same level of coverage.

[edit on 29/8/09 by stumason]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
The US is a corporate run country...and all the major corporations DEPEND on the net for sales, marketing and much more...what makes anyone think that the major corporations would allow Obama or anyone else to shut down the net for even 5 minutes? Are you all that gullible? I think so, its pretty obvious.

Not going to happen people, get a grip.

This is REALITY...not a cheesy science-fiction movie....duh



[edit on 8/29/2009 by MadDogtheHunter]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by shanerz
 


So, you wouldn't want cyber security to protect our country?

I may be a conspiracy buff. I also believe in a shadow government, and I do believe that parts of our government are corrupt, but that doesn't make me not a patriot.

I love the United States, and we need to protect it.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I'm completely surprised by almost every post on this subject. A lot of you people are differentiating the corporations from the government. When the first thing you learn in politics is that government policy is controlled by corporations.

I'm going to start out describing 1 theory on how this legislation could be put into effect.
The United States update of the power grid with the smart grid is well underway. MSM has already been reporting weaknesses in the power grid and further vulnerabilities in the the finalized smart grid.

Now, in my experience nearly half of MSM news is only released to the public to do one thing. To condition people or to familiarize people to way of thinking that will help shape future policy. We heard about H1N1 for months before it was even categorized as an epidemic. We heard about terrorists, and weapons of mass destruction continuously before the war in Iraq. When did we hear about the possibility that both of the issues might be completely fabricated?

This information about the power grid seems to me like pre-conditioning. And although the legislation can become fully activated through other means this would be a good opportunity for them.

Now, moving on to some of the really disappointing comments in this thread.

"I realise that the US has control of the mythical "root DNS servers",but it would be no technological feat to have these up and running in another country in short order"

"Also, preparations are all set to cut down all communication, including land phones, cell phones, beepers, it is ALL being done away with"

"Shutting down the carriers, such as AT&T and Verizon, would cripple all communications. It would be very hard and time consuming to selectively shut off certain services. "

"There is one way to shut down the Internet. NO ELECTRICITY Shut down the power grid. Almost everything we do in this modern world requires electricity."

First off: I don't think they have any plans of shutting down the internet or any other communications. That would cause mass public dissent. Not gonna happen.

All the government/Corporations need to do is restrict what is let through their servers. You cannot connect to the net without going through an ISP. To 'shut down' the internet, is more to regulate it the same way MSM is.
If the government decides that only certain sites should be permitted to exist, they simply program an allow/restricted list for everyone connecting through them.
The ISP's in Canada are facing a bill right now to upgrade their systems so each customer has a log data file that police and government have unrestricted access to. With that information, it is simple for them to release new statements that certain websites support crime and or threaten national security. Once this view has been taken in by the general public, slowly (And I do believe this would be progressive policy) they will limit websites. More and more will be put onto a block list and the remaining sites will be owned by the same corporations that own MSM.
Do you think this would hurt the telecomm giants? Do some digging and look to see who owns them or what they own. This will be well planned and well executed.
In the end you will have a regulated internet that has all the conveniences of the old one, but simply doesn't have the little people operating in it anymore. To become a web service provider and have your site with unrestricted access from web users, you may have to abide by new regulations. Like operating a store, market or any other form of business.

That's it. I don't see it as a diabolical plan to get rid of communications between people, although in one aspect it is. I see it as another bid by corporate power seizing what they can from the independent operator. Everything is fueled by money.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the internet blocked by iran during the election riots? An if true then why couldn't lord obam do the same here?
Another thought to add, not sure if this was brought up yet or not, but why isn't the press all over this? Can you imanagine the outrage if President Bush tried the same thing?


Iran TRIED to block access to certain sites and IPs during the post election turmoil, just as China TRIES to block access to this very day. It didn't/doesn't work for them simply because the infrastructure is intact, and there are people like me, all over the world, that have nothing better to do than to run proxies on obscure IPs that will facilitate free communications along said infrastructure by shunting the "forbidden" information around the Great Firewall, and whatever else they have, that they try to erect between the source and destination of said forbidden news.

Only way to effectively block it is to disrupt the infrastructure, which would cut off EVERYTHING dependent on that infrastructure.

[edit on 2009/8/29 by nenothtu]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Come on people, in order to have total conversion to a fascist, socialist, communist, totalitarian system of government the framework must be massive, all aspects of the private sector must be controlled, having the ability to throw a kill switch on communications is a very small step in a grand plan.

Everyone should loose the paranoia and fear and learn to accept the inevitable. Stop bitching and whining, it is time for all Americans to unite. Change is what we wanted after all.

Be magnanimous, be proud, spread the wealth, reap the rewards of acceptance and obedience today. A new world awaits all of us.

Stand, and say it with me...

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Socialist States of America and to the regime for which it stands, one nation under Obama, divisible, with tyranny and injustice for all."






posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
goodbye ATS....its been real everyone



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


don't even give them the thrill, if we just ignore their posts it won't matter anyways.

These post are done by people In ACORN, or some faction of the Apollo Alliance, or these people are just this stupid and can't look at plain facts.

With all the information here, you just can't claim ignorance.

Why don't you guys do everyone a favor and just answer questions.
On this problem, just tell us why the President of the United States needs more power? Well, where waiting...................



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Who cares if it would work or not!

The point is that the Executive Branch of this Republic does not need the power to attempt it. Don't get caught up in the BS of the technical side, that is what they want.

There is no excuse for the powers that this administration has. It has more than the last one, and that one took too much.
Wake up here a little people.

This is one that your going to have to fight back on hard, and it won't be from a computer. You are going to have to hit the streets and get a few people pissed off about it.

Enough is enough. Too few men, too much power. It is suppose to be a three way balance, and they gave the other two a flat tire.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by threekings
 


All I want to know is "Why does he need this power?" What good could come of it? What bad things could happen if it's not checked?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by j2000
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Who cares if it would work or not!

The point is that the Executive Branch of this Republic does not need the power to attempt it. Don't get caught up in the BS of the technical side, that is what they want.

There is no excuse for the powers that this administration has. It has more than the last one, and that one took too much.
Wake up here a little people.

This is one that your going to have to fight back on hard, and it won't be from a computer. You are going to have to hit the streets and get a few people pissed off about it.

Enough is enough. Too few men, too much power. It is suppose to be a three way balance, and they gave the other two a flat tire.


Personally, I could care less how much power they grab. I have no problem ignoring it. They only have the power they can cow us underlings into acknowledging, which in my case is near zilch. I make a piss-poor underling.

The purpose of the post was to respond to someone who asked a question about how well this cutoff business worked for foreign governments. The answer was not all that well.

Hit the streets and scream at will. I'm an old man, and would prefer direction my energy towards more meaningful opposition. That screaming in the streets business hasn't worked too well in getting results lately.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
One question...WHY?

WHY would he ever have to do that? The internet is not government run. The government uses the interenet sure but they dont control it. I refuse to allow an Iran-like scenario or China-like shield go on. The internet is now our main source for not only news but communication across the globe. We cannot allow them to ever shut it down, if ever for a moment even.

What's scary is- why even have this power? When would this be used...in say Martial Law? The only cause I see for this is in the event of martial law- they dont want people organzing, gathering info, or communcating. Which leads me to my next point- how far will this go? Will they include phones in this as well?

It's quite ridiculous. However...Iphones and phones that use wireless networks are based off of cell phone towers rather than standard lines or dsl connections. So theres a chance that they wouldn't be affected...I believe thats what happened in iran, is it not?





new topics
top topics
 
74
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join