Bill would give president emergency control of Internet, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 74 times


reply posted on 30-8-2009 @ 12:03 AM by nenothtu
Originally posted by AceOfAces
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?


In Iran they firewalled access to specific websites, like twitter, that were getting the information out. What then happened was that the information was fed into encrypted proxy networks, which sent the info out of the country in encrypted packets, going to unblocked IP addresses, which proxies then sent them on to their intended destinations once they were out of the country, and out of Iranian Governmeny control.

The only way to block that is to block ALL IP addresses external to the country, which will wreak havoc on all communications going out of the country.


reply posted on 30-8-2009 @ 01:08 AM by threekings
Originally posted by j2000
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?



Who needs the power, Obama? Obama doesn't need it. Corporate America needs it to increase their profit margin. Too many big corps are losing money to independent people on the net. Too much big business is losing out because there are small people taking away from their market share.

If they can control and limit internet usage so it is only used through approved methods they can limit the amount of free products and information. Think about the last time you saw an actual market. We do not have free market anymore. Walmart has put out of business the people that used to sell discount goods in small stores. Big restaurant chains have put out of business the mom and pop restaurants. The only place to get a decent meal these days is little ethnic restaurants that maintain their ethnic consumer base.

Once the internet is controlled it will seem as normal as main stream media. You won't be looking to downloading, torrents, and warez sites to get media. You will be getting it only from itunes, amazon and any other legitimate sites. They want to weed out all the small fish, the internet is a market. No different than a mall. We have ethnic malls here that order in a lot of grey market goods and sell them but they are starting to get cracked down on. You can go to China, where they make Nike shoes and import it to sell at a mall. You need to go through a distributor. It is all about regulation and control. And once the internet is regulated and controlled the corporations behind the market will start making more money. They will only be selling what can be mass marketed and it becomes easier and easier to manipulate the people because of this. Imagine when you search for news on the web that ATS stops coming up when you do a 'political corruption' search. Instead it only links you to CNN, FOX News, TIME Warner, etc, etc.

And don't worry, the corporations will make shell companies that make you believe you are getting something independent. Just like in Canada, when Telus (a leading cell phone provider) created Koodo mobile to appeal to the young generation. And Rogers (One of the biggest) Made Fido.

It is all the same company, they want to hit every demographic and make sure it is only them doing it, no matter how they do it. There is no free market anymore.


reply posted on 31-8-2009 @ 12:13 AM by shanerz
Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by shanerz


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


This isn't what it is. You are looking at one small facet, which is easily fixed by doing the things I, and others, have listed. The best way is getting classified info off the WWW. But then we have to rely on "good people" not to be bought out to keep the secrets we have - and even our 'good' congress has proved itself to be just another greedy facade.

Read threekings posts to see what potentials lie within a regulatory system of my internets... all for the sake of being 'safe' and patriotic. The thing that bothers me most is when they start to condition you to believe that places like ATS are full of 'terrorists' - which they already have started doing. They say in codex that alternate news website readers are potential terrorists. On FOX and MSNBC they have said that alternate news and blog sites are bad sources of information.

Slow and steady always makes best results.


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 think it's obvious that I agree. But when your give up your right to a fair trial, council, a phone call, and can be held in jail indefinitely all because you wanted to be safe and because you thought you were being patriotic... well, you really need to assess your vision of what being patriotic is.


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


Then don't let them knock out small time business, limit your sources of knowledge, reduce your rights, etc. Because they don't lose a damn thing when you do. It's indirect power advancement. They don't follow rules, we "have to". The more laws we have, the less freedom we have. The less freedom we have is an indirect increase in the freedom they have.

And this isn't about Obama, nor was it about Bush. It's about big businesses who buy out all aspects of our government in order to preserve their self-proclaimed status as the dominant species. I think it's long passed the time people should have realized that. 'Bush' introduced the kill patriotism act, 'Obama' hasn't abolished it - like he said he was going to. 'Bush' allowed a massive increase in unregulated lending. 'Obama' paid the banksters back for failing with your money.

Though, I've always said Obama has a lot of time to fulfill promises, a lot of his actions have already blown pretty much all hope of his grandoise claims. This included.


reply posted on 31-8-2009 @ 05:50 AM by Mak Manto
reply to post by shanerz


Which is why I'm saying, that if we don't want this bill to be passed, we should focus more on cyber security.

The country has no defense for it.

This is why this bill is coming forward. If we don't want it passed, let's focus some of the money on a national security plan for cyber security.


reply posted on 31-8-2009 @ 03:09 PM by shanerz
reply to post by Mak Manto


It really wouldn't take a lot of money to do this stuff. Get an offline cluster, fill it up with information. Don't connect any computers that are connected to the WWW to these clusters. Hell, if they do this they don't even have to worry about legit hardware, as long as there's no wireless signal from the bunk hardware.

Stop prosecuting hackers. Start hiring them to watch over systems. Or give them some money for finding flaws in the system and make them sign a contract that says they will only search for holes or else face jail.

Start putting passwords on stations.

But really. it doesn't matter. Congress and other higher ups are not working for our interests. They sell state secrets, then use State Secrets to gag those of us who expose them. Our nuclear facilities are safe from outside sources. It's the insiders you have to be worried about... you know this. The mass doesn't, thats why crap like this goes through all the time.


reply posted on 31-8-2009 @ 08:56 PM by shanerz
reply to post by Mak Manto


Sure you can. It's called DVDs, USB drives, external HDs, etc. It's called secure phone lines. You don't need ONE node. Put them all over in our military and gov facilities.

Admin A in Wash DC calls up Admin B in San Fran. A needs info on specific something in Iran. B, who is specialized in this area, gives file info on whats going on. A looks it up and pulls it. A gives info to superior. Hackers can't get the info and there is accountability.

Pretty sure our most classified secrets are kept and shared in this manner. I learned about it, on the ATS thread, back when the FBI was hacked because they had junk routing hardware from China.

I know damn well wartime information isn't on the www. That's common sense.


reply posted on 1-9-2009 @ 07:13 AM by Mak Manto
reply to post by shanerz


But what you're stating is that we should put the information things like USBs or CDs and then ship the information to whatever location they need to go to.

So, like you said, if Facility A in New York needs information from Facility B in Los Angeles, the only way we should ship the information is externally, not on a computer?

That defeats the whole purpose OF computers.


reply posted on 1-9-2009 @ 06:29 PM by CharlesMartel
Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by deadbang


Yes, that is exactly what I meant. "The Internet" would still function, whether AT&T and Verizon were shut down or not.

Granted, consumers in the US and people trying to access US hosted websites might have a hard time surfing for porn or the latest conspiracy, but the rest of the world would carry on quite merrily, so in effect "the internet" couldn't be shut down, taken control of or otherwise interferred with unless every carrier in every country was under the jackboot.

I too work in SDH/SONET for a telco in the UK, so I am somewhat familier with the workings of such.

EDIT: 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, some countries may regard any attempt at shutting down "the internet" as an Act of War.

[edit on 28/8/09 by stumason]

He isn't interested in shutting down the whole Internet, just those who oppose his policies.


reply posted on 1-9-2009 @ 11:13 PM by Mak Manto
Originally posted by shanerz
Originally posted by Mak Manto
No, they're not. That's right-wing propaganda.


LOL. Right wing propaganda pushing a bi-partisan bill through. A bill that further makes decisions for you. If that aint telling enough.... A bill A-okay'd by mass-wealth-accumulating mega-corporations. They sure as hell aint helpin' their competition.

Right wing: Deregulation of mortgage and other loan issuing.
Left wing: Economy is screwed if we don't bail out big fail louts.
Banksters: I'm rich, b****!!
Masses: Were SAVED!!! YAY!
Minority: There goes the half-ass prices of well... everything.

You may want to point fingers at 'Bush' for the patriot act, but 'Obama' aint doin a thing to get it (what did he say? Something about it being totally unamerican) scrapped - like he said he would. You may blame the 'right' for instigating the war in the ME, but the 'left' sure seems to be enjoying it's ability to keep troops over there - even after saying they are coming home.

There is no this party, that party. They are both sellouts. They are both working in big business' interest, thus their wallet's interest. They are both working to reduce citizen's freedoms. And they get away with it by making tools blame eachother for what their rulers do to them.

Middle America is a ghetto, just one that is "safe."


Hah, you never listen to the full story...

I've had it up to here with this whole attitude on ATS that's "There are no parties! We need to revolt!"

That's a defeatist's attitude. That there are no differences, and that whoever is in control, no changes will come.

First off, Obama never said he would crap the Patriot Act. He actually voted in favor of the 2006 version of the Patriot Act. He voted AGAINST the additional parts for it.

As for the war, we need to go back to the original war: Afghanistan. We need to find, and bring to justice, Osama Bin Laden.

Iraq was a MESS that the Right instigated on no other part then pure and simple GREED.


reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 12:58 AM by Donnie Darko
Originally posted by Mak Manto
Originally posted by shanerz
Originally posted by Mak Manto
No, they're not. That's right-wing propaganda.


LOL. Right wing propaganda pushing a bi-partisan bill through. A bill that further makes decisions for you. If that aint telling enough.... A bill A-okay'd by mass-wealth-accumulating mega-corporations. They sure as hell aint helpin' their competition.

Right wing: Deregulation of mortgage and other loan issuing.
Left wing: Economy is screwed if we don't bail out big fail louts.
Banksters: I'm rich, b****!!
Masses: Were SAVED!!! YAY!
Minority: There goes the half-ass prices of well... everything.

You may want to point fingers at 'Bush' for the patriot act, but 'Obama' aint doin a thing to get it (what did he say? Something about it being totally unamerican) scrapped - like he said he would. You may blame the 'right' for instigating the war in the ME, but the 'left' sure seems to be enjoying it's ability to keep troops over there - even after saying they are coming home.

There is no this party, that party. They are both sellouts. They are both working in big business' interest, thus their wallet's interest. They are both working to reduce citizen's freedoms. And they get away with it by making tools blame eachother for what their rulers do to them.

Middle America is a ghetto, just one that is "safe."


Hah, you never listen to the full story...

I've had it up to here with this whole attitude on ATS that's "There are no parties! We need to revolt!"

That's a defeatist's attitude. That there are no differences, and that whoever is in control, no changes will come.

First off, Obama never said he would crap the Patriot Act. He actually voted in favor of the 2006 version of the Patriot Act. He voted AGAINST the additional parts for it.

As for the war, we need to go back to the original war: Afghanistan. We need to find, and bring to justice, Osama Bin Laden.

Iraq was a MESS that the Right instigated on no other part then pure and simple GREED.


How can you explain then, the obvious friendship between the Bushes, Clinton and Obama?


reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 01:12 AM by shanerz
Originally posted by Mak Manto
Hah, you never listen to the full story...

I've had it up to here with this whole attitude on ATS that's "There are no parties! We need to revolt!"


Then what do you propose as a quick fix to get my gov back to, "of the people, by the people, for the people"?


That's a defeatist's attitude. That there are no differences, and that whoever is in control, no changes will come.


Well, look at health care. You have big pharma propagandizing the 'right' to get the public option out. The option that was supposed to help people who are in desperate need. Hear the talk of the 'left', of late? Corporatocracy. Greed.


First off, Obama never said he would crap the Patriot Act. He actually voted in favor of the 2006 version of the Patriot Act. He voted AGAINST the additional parts for it.


Oh, yes... he voted against the executive orders, not really part of the act. The 2006 revision, though, along with the 2004 revision, reenabled the wiretapping clauses that were to sunset in 2005. But, yes he moved against many executive orders, such as conflicts with habeus corpus, or so he says. Yet, they still passed, and he hasn't used his newly-obtained celeb status to revoke them... That seems telling to me.

Most of the modified content is an increase in time period for surveilling many facets of terrorism, as defined by the patriot act. Most every provision, dealing with information surveillance, was set to expire.

One part was to reduce the time frame FBI could withold information from a suspect of warranted search and seizure of papers, computers, etc. (The time frame the search and seizure didn't have to be reported to a suspect)(most of these items of seizure had been increased.)

It also set higher penalties for crimes such as train, plane, port sabotage; as well as other types of domestic terror acts.


Iraq was a MESS that the Right instigated on no other part then pure and simple GREED.


Passage of Iraq War Resolution]

Though, I agree it was instigated on greed, and highly through a false-flag incident, at that. That still does not change the fact that 70% of congress gave the ok. (39% D-HR, 58% D-Senate - said gogo).

Sure, a lot of the 'right' was in on it. It's clear as day the higher ups were in on it, but I wouldn't say they did it out of any real political stance. They did it for their corporation's profit margin. Greed, like you said, even at the cost of the economy. And the left, obviously, didn't say boo.


As for the war, we need to go back to the original war: Afghanistan. We need to find, and bring to justice, Osama Bin Laden.


Exactly, look at invasion of Afghanistan, then look at where we are today.

The left, to this day, are following the tenets of the Wolfowitz doctrine. Neglicted by Clinton, then basically reinstated with Bush - as the Bush doctrine - in 2000. Preemptive invasion, of any nation, to protect the safety of the US is part of this doctrine. I thought it was illegal for the US to declare war... hmm.

Also, Osama was seen by CIA, while he was top ten FBI, on a hospital bed.

Bin Laden is a farce. He is just a face you can hate - created, officially, by those you hate, the 'right'. Yet his spectre lives on as the current enemy of our nation, by your words.

I doubt he's even alive.

I agree that, oh you know, wars the people are constantly getting sick of are started by the 'right'. Honestly, though, where is the 'left' when we go? Why are we still there when we have massive movements on the streets? Why aren't people still protesting war (Afghan), en masse?

Did they finally just realize their voice isn't heard in this country? Mass coverage = mass protest. Mass protest = mass ignore button. Mass ignore = mass sleep. Mass sleep = mass reap.

Defeatist, I guess. I'm still trying to figure out what I can do. Preaching is all I can come up with, sorry.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by shanerz]


reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 01:15 AM by Mak Manto
reply to post by shanerz


And if you remember, when we originally went to War, Obama was one of the senators who disagreed with Iraq from the beginning. He voted against the war.


reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 02:17 AM by shanerz
Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by shanerz


And if you remember... He voted against the war.


No, actually, he didn't.

But he did get us out, put us right into the other end of the desert, lied that our enemy was using poppies to make money, and just flat out doesn't want people to know who trained, equipped, and labeled them "Freedom fighters" oh-not-so-two-decades-long-ago. aka Heroine use skyrocketed in US recently. aka He follows orders.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^