DescentBB

It would appear those merry maestro's of mean are once again trying to play like Caesar Chavez has all the right ideas. Not content with such communication control like the \"Fairness Doctrine\" that would kill any voices of opposition to the liberal largess, we now have this being secretly planned:

\"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 of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.\"

So the question is, what defines a cybersecurity emergency? Too many anti Obama bloggers? Too many emails to politicians from constituents against the health care bill? Don't complain when someday you log on and all you get is a caption pic of Obama's smiling face saying, \" all your info R belong to me\" because at that point in time....no one will hear you.

It just shows that leaders in power become corrupted by said power and fall into the trap of squelching any criticism of their policies, even those leaders who pontificated on and on about change and transparency in government.

Wood, the topic title doesn't convey the alarm this should raise, so I'm starting a new one.

ThunderBunny wrote:Wood, the topic title doesn't convey the alarm this should raise, so I'm starting a new one.

Dang, now I have to go to yet another "Obama is bad" thread.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Wood, the topic title doesn't convey the alarm this should raise, so I'm starting a new one.

Dang, now I have to go to yet another "Obama is bad" thread.

Bee

Dont worry Bee you've stiil got a long way to go before you reach the same number of Bush is bad threads you visited


TB starting another thread because it doesnt have a scary enough title for you is a waste. just because woodchip beat you on to the punch. beside sometimes your chicken little approach get's tiring.

tunnelcat wrote:It just shows that leaders in power become corrupted by said power and fall into the trap of squelching any criticism of their policies, even those leaders who pontificated on and on about change and transparency in government.

TC I think your confusing transparency with slight of hand

Transparency for a liberal = you just don't see it.

ThunderBunny wrote:Wood, the topic title doesn't convey the alarm this should raise, so I'm starting a new one.

Which I have closed. Don't do it again.

So after a bit of thinking, lets say a cyber attack occurs and Obama shuts the internet down...haven't the attackers just won big time?

Depends on their objective, but a shutdown of the internet would certainly be a victory for attackers.

Honestly, though, I'd be surprised if this legislation passes.

woodchip wrote:So after a bit of thinking, lets say a cyber attack occurs and Obama shuts the internet down...haven't the attackers just won big time?

History has shown time and time again that isolationism (which is what that would achieve) never accomplishs good in the long run.

As for shutting down the Internet ... Obama can't do that. The Internet is global and does not require any one location to keep it running (it did originally, but not anymore). If Obama tried to "shut down the Internet" all he could actually do is ask for the U.S. portion to be shutdown or "disconnected" which in itself would be difficult because of the thousands (millions?) of connections that currently exist.

Anyone who even threatens to "shut down the Internet" really doesn't understand how the Internet currently exists.

All hail the unstoppable Beast that is the Internet. I bet he could slow it down a bit maybe. Could you imagine trying to unplug the billions of machines that go into running the net.