It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Paul Ryan and internet security?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:39 PM
I heard that Paul Ryan made a comment regarding internet security in America. Something to the effect of it being sorely lacking. I'm curious to know exactly what he means by this, and what he intends to do to "fix" the issue. I'm also curious to hear how ATS members feel about it. I enjoy the internet as one of the few places that politics and other alternative topics can be discussed openly by the people. How would changes to internet security and privacy effect your internet usage? Given the ease of fraud online, the idea of the government having free reign over me online worries me, to say the least. Private sectors have often failed miserably at any kind of meaningful internet enforcement. How do you feel about closing down the last great frontier that the internet has become?

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:59 PM
You "Heard"?????

Need a link I'm afraid

This is what he actually said

The Internet is one of the most magnificent expressions of freedom and free enterprise in history. It should stay that way. While H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act, attempts to address a legitimate problem, I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse. I do not support H.R. 3261 in its current form and will oppose the legislation should it come before the full House.

Bold mine



That is how it is done

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by AnarchysAngel

The internet regulation war is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of the governments of the world getting pissed off because the internet is providing information contrary to the propaganda of the government controlled MSM.

Your OP pointing the finger at Ryan as a threat and my following information that shows it is NOT a partisan issue but an issue of a threat to those who are ruling over those of us who flock to sites like ATS, proves that the government controlled MSM is losing "the information war" should be enough to prove that those of us who fear and are preparing against a takeover by the elitests are indeed a threat to those who wish to enslave us!

The internet is a threat to the agenda of the elitest of the world, because it provides people with critical thinking skills, the tools to dig thru the BS, of those who wish to control us! Plain and simple!
edit on 7-10-2012 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

"Oh yah, I believe that"

In other words no he hasn't made a real declaration with a real explanation. How do you feel about big brother watching you in a place where evidence is easily falsified by anyone with a third grade education and a spell check Semperfortis?

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by AnarchysAngel

You have trouble believing a direct quote and yet want us to believe that you "heard something"?????


As to the rest of your post, I never get mad dog rabid over rumor, supposition or "I heards" so I pretty well stay even tempered.. I also check voting records and if you will, you will find that one party and only one party always comes down on the side of Internet regulation..

And it is NOT the GOP


posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:17 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Semperfortis is right! I kinda didn't agree with his/her last post but did some looking up and found this......

As you might have heard, the United Nations is trying to “take over the Internet.” That characterization is not accurate — but the consequences remain the same: Member states of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a 100-year-old organization that is now part of the UN, want to have more control over the global Internet. Some want to impose fees on websites. Others want the ability to more tightly censor the Web. If ITU member states choose to go this route, the governments of the world will have unprecedented control over the Internet, its underlying technology, and the Web itself. All in all, this is a risky — if not downright terrible — prospect for the global Internet as we know it.

Read more about the ITU proposals here.

When the GOP says it “will resist any effort to shift control away from the successful multi-stakeholder approach of Internet governance and toward governance by international or other intergovernmental organizations,” this is what they are talking about. And it’s reassuring to know that this is their stance — but it’s not a particularly surprising revelation. Nearly all interested parties in the U.S. — Republicans, Democrats, telecommuncation networks, and Web content providers (like Google) — are against these ITU proposals. Expect the Democrats to issue a similarly hard-lined stance against the ITU.


edit on Sun Oct 7 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: EX TAGS

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

That quote has no more sustaince than a rumor and was a complete waste of airtime. If it even got airtime. Politicians that refuse to explain real expectations and refuse to ellaborate are bad news. It means they aren't going to tell you the real answer because you wouldn't like it.

Then again when was the last time that anyone gave a real answer in this country? I can't even get one out of you.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by seeker1963

The other side of the coin is that it breeds many lies. It is a meaningful place to openly discuss and express opinion though. With the real world becoming full of angry and armed people, the need to keep it free and open is greater than ever. Although locking it down might force the people to regain social skills.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by AnarchysAngel

The other side of the coin is that it breeds many lies. It is a meaningful place to openly discuss and express opinion though. With the real world becoming full of angry and armed people, the need to keep it free and open is greater than ever. Although locking it down might force the people to regain social skills.

Do you not think that one of the reasons so many people are angry, is because we have allowed our government to divide us into multiple factions who selfishly defend our needs while saying, "To hell with those who don't believe in the same team as I do!"?

What social skills can be beneficial to mankind, when they are forced upon us by those who rule over us?

Why are we angry? Why are we armed?

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

Instead of lies do we not deserve the truth?

Isn't it because of "We the People" allowing our government to take over our lives and not allow us a voice part of the reason we as a country are in such turmoil and division?

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:45 PM
Any Government worth their salt would be concerned about the world wide interweb.

It's a gift to us to enable us to share thoughts and opinions. However, if those thoughts and opinions are expressed against said Government, it could become a WMD!!!!

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 05:46 PM
Both candidates have said they will sign any cybersecurity law that comes across their F both of them.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by MidnightTide

That is the type of statement I would like to hear coming from the mouth of our presidential candidates. It's honest, it's opinionated, and it's to the real point. Three cheers for you!

I have very little problems with republican people. It's more republican politicians that bother me. More accurately, just about all politicians. Republican people have their own set of beliefs, most of them don't go against mine. I respect that. It's off topic but feeling like the parties have to be opposite on every issue is a bad idea. The partys are supposed to feel the same about the outcome, but disagree on the means. That is how a bi-partisan government is supposed to work.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 06:13 PM
Decisions,Decisions what someone heard or what someone presented as evidence.

Not a tough call to make after all.

t was a somewhat bizarre approach: instead of targeting one of SOPA's 32 sponsors or one of Protect IP's 41 sponsors, the Reddit-ers mounted a campaign against a lawmaker who was neutral on the legislation.

Pass on the smear Ryan thread.

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by neo96

You vote according to who is going to give you lowest tax bracket, like nearly every other republican supporter. Mitt has 40% of the population on his side. That's 40% of nothing but overpaid aging baby boomers that want their taxes cut.

Those of us young folks that can't even get fair taxation, are getting tired of it. Social security is taxation for us, because we're never going to see that money again. How about we cut social security deductions for anyone under a certain age until they can tell us with honesty that they're going to give it back?

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by AnarchysAngel

Sorry don't even know me I vote based on a myriad of issues, and what the hell does tax brackets or SS have to do with internet security?

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by neo96

Nothing. I made a new thread about that gripe.
I should make one thread for each gripe. Then ATS would be overrun with threads.
I'll sum it up by saying this. I am sick and tired of the CRAP that flys for representation of Americans in this country under the age of 40. If you are under 40 and do not feel represented, put your vote in the undecided column and stop choosing the lesser of two evils. They will get the point sooner or later. The 20% or so that are currently in that boat hasn't clued them in yet.

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:08 AM
Either babies first interwebz forum and can't stay with topic or someone let the SPED class into the computer lab.

With that said, anyone who cares about the sanctity of internet sovereignty should care that Ryan is merely neutral, and not a staunch defender of liberty in context of the internet. But that's hardly a line to attack him on, and there are far many more individuals you could and should go after.

new topics

top topics


log in