Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rockefeller attaches cybersecurity bill to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2014

page: 1
59
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+34 more 
posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   


Jay Rockefeller (D WVA) has attached a cyber-security amendment (attached below) to the NDAA 2014 bill in Congress to mandate that precautions be taken to protect America’s cyber infrastructure and private entities. Those of us who represent private entities, will soon find our free access to the internet eliminated. The fact that this internet control bill is attached to the NDAA is no accident because this means that anyone who they deem as a dissident for posting anti-government rhetoric on the internet can be snatched off the street and held indefinitely, without due process, for their “terrorist” views.

Rockefeller attaches cybersecurity bill to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2014

This needs to be addressed, discussed because it seems concerning, and further acted upon if warranted as a concern. If anything at least we'll know what to expect. Attached is more information, the bill, and informing your senators on voting no.

IMO they are taking this all a step farther because at this point they can.


Sorry if already posted, I haven't found it yet.
edit on 10-12-2013 by dreamingawake because: sp




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Not sure how this will be fought this time. Aaron Swartz is dead.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Star, Flag and a shameless bump for the thread.

I've said it before Our "politicians NEED to be reminded who the are supposed to be working for.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

RedmoonMWC
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Star, Flag and a shameless bump for the thread.

I've said it before Our "politicians NEED to be reminded who the are supposed to be working for.


Yes, thank indeed they do. Hope this spreads around.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Bump~

The most relevant part, I feel.



the NDAA is no accident because this means that anyone who they deem as a dissident for posting anti-government rhetoric on the internet can be snatched off the street and held indefinitely, without due process, for their “terrorist” views.


Well now... What a predicament~



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
This is just so so bad. America is a shadow of what it once was.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Just finished reading the bill and I didn't see anything about snatching people from the street for posting anti-government stuff. Maybe it's in the NDAA but they can already disappear you with that anyway.

BILLS-113s1353is



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


This has been circuling around for couple of weeks already. If I remember it was also posted in RT, as well as different investing portals.

I will take a look at the bill myself, currently do not have time for it, although based on what is written in the hill:


The measure is far more modest than legislation that Rockefeller and other Senate Democrats backed last year. That bill would have pressured critical infrastructure companies, such as banks and power plants, to meet minimum cybersecurity regulations.

After opposition from Republicans killed last year's bill, President Obama issued an executive order instructing the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to craft voluntary cybersecurity best-practices for critical infrastructure companies.

Rockefeller's amendment would codify the executive order into law. It would also boost cybersecurity education, research and development for cyber threats.


thehill.com...

Article describing the EO:www.federalnewsradio.com...

Executive Order 13636 from February: www.gpo.gov...

Well I personally do not see anything abnormal in these bills. Cybersecurity is becoming more and more a risk, considering how much damage can be done via cyberattacks. A small loophole in the security of some corporations can get the data from millions to the hands of some individuas. These bills just seem to be requiring the largest corporations in certain fields more critical to set higher standards for their cyber-security. But well, I might be wrong as well, my legal reading skills are not the best.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Thanks for the replies all. I'm looking into more details now and for later.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Write a letter to Justin Amash or Rand Paul's office, they have consistently shown support for internet freedom in the past.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


I went to the website and checked out the arguments and they seem legitimate, depending on the actual wording of the bill. Even if we personally are not someone able to make a change when the government becomes tyrannical, there are people out there who *could* make a difference -

But if their views are suppressed and they are arrested before being able to join Democratic discussions, they won't be able to. This is not how a Democracy works.

People with legitimate opposing views, or even views that are not legitimate but are simply opinions and things they wish to express, are not criminals or terrorists. People who call them terrorists are tyrants. That's just the way things are.

It is called freedom of speech and freedom of press and it is a patently different area of study than terrorism or criminal activity. When the discussions start to overlap, we are talking about a society that is becoming way too sketch.

Why would someone be held indefinitely without a trial? Could it be because there is nothing to try them for? We used to be innocent until proven guilty.

In my opinion, the system is being set up so that people who criticize it have no legitimate Democratic outlet.

This could be used as a trick - because people have no Democratic outlet for their legitimate concerns, they have to address them in non-Democratic manners if they wish to - and that makes it easier to justify locking them up.

In the end, if freedoms can be edited out of our societal structure, that seems... troublesome.
edit on 10pmTue, 10 Dec 2013 17:51:11 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


I find it funny that they think they can regulate the internet anyway... I think the government has become paranoid (even moreso) then ever before in history...

Got to remember it's for your safety. *eyeroll*

-SAP-



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


The internet is the last thing that all these families need to control in order to shut "we the people" down. We have the means to spread the truth about them, and have for a little more than a decade now, and these families, the Rockefellers included, are becoming scared and paranoid. Which is why they want what they want and stick their garbage in other bills. Their garbage being the destruction of our freedoms and the control they so desperately seek.

It's funny how after years of finally learning about the atrocities certain people have caused from inside the very government that makes the rules we live by, that now a push to make things more "secure" is top priority. People are waking up, the information is out there...although flooded with shills, trolls, and disinformation, the truth is still out there. Now they have to shut it down before our kids learn the truth.

Wouldn't want to have a few more generations know about their malicious intent and actually do something about it...





posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I declare here and now that based on my PSI ability, I somehow see Jay Rock head's future, him being grabbed by vigilantes and promptly beat to death for treason against this country. (this in an ideal world, but we don't live in one). So, the prior staements are useless. ( he hopes).
edit on 10-12-2013 by alienreality because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

eLPresidente
Write a letter to Justin Amash or Rand Paul's office, they have consistently shown support for internet freedom in the past.

Thanks, good advice to add to writing to senators, etc.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Hey look here comes a comet1

Everyones head turns.

Big government gets a little bigger.

Hey look planet X!

Everyones suckered again

Bigger Gov.

Hey look an asteroid!

Anyone see'n the pattern yet?

Been the same routine for thousands of years.



Why change what works?
edit on 10-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Exactly what they want. Move along nothing to see here but tentacles.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


Can the sheeple in his state wake up and kick this guy out of office?

The you tube speech he gave on "The internet should never existed" ... was well thought out on his part..

www.youtube.com...
edit on 11-12-2013 by R_Clark because: Grammar



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I've been saying it all along. The Rockefellers, Rothchilds and Morgans----THESE families need to be shut down PERMANENTLY!



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
This law, is the exact thing our parents, grand parents and great-grand parents died to prevent.

Now it is being passed and everyone is politely applauding the end of our freedom.

Anyone who does not oppose this, fully deserves the repercussions that will follow over the next 10 years.





new topics

top topics



 
59
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join