+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 70

Thread: The Government and the internet..

  1. #1
    Member Rhiannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    kenton
    Posts
    1,352

    The Government and the internet..

    Lieberman Introduces Bill Targeting Internet Freedom



    Senator Joe Lieberman wants to give Obama and all future installed teleprompter readers in the Oval Office the power to shut down the internet. In order to hype the supposed national security threat posed by a decentralized internet, the independent Lieberman — meaning both establishment parties don’t want him — has spoken in near-apocalyptic terms.




    The “technoignoramus Liarman and his fellow kleptoplutocrats” are attempting to scare the plebs into accepting this First Amendment destroying legislation.

    “For all of its ‘user-friendly’ allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” said senator Joe. “Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.”

    The “technoignoramus Liarman and his fellow kleptoplutocrats,” as Scott Evans describes them, are attempting to scare the plebs into accepting this First Amendment destroying legislation — not that it matters because, as Jim DeMint has revealed, these corporate and bankster commissars pass legislation in secret without the consent of the plebs they supposedly represent.

    Cybersecurity is simply another stratagem contrived by the government to shut down the free flow of information. In a non-bizarro world where globalist control freaks would not be allowed to run roughshod over to Constitution and the Bill of Rights, network security would be the responsibility of the owners of those networks.

    The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act was introduced by Lieberman, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE). It follows a similar bill introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) which would allow the federal government to unilaterally “order the disconnection” of targeted websites. Rockefeller opined at the time we would all be better off if the internet was never invented.

    Senator Joe’s bill is nothing if not another example of totalitarian government on steroids. “The bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the ’security status’ of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries,” writes Andy Chalk. “Companies would be required to take part in ‘information sharing’ with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that ‘relies on’ the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure’ would also be ’subject to command’ by the NCCC under the proposed new law.”

    Imagine if you can what sort of “security status” this website would merit.

    “It is alarming that so many people have accepted the White House’s assertions about cyber-security as a key national security problem without demanding further evidence. Have we learned nothing from the WMD debacle? The administration’s claims could lead to policies with serious, long-term, troubling consequences for network openness and personal privacy,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a Belarus-born researcher and blogger who writes about the political effects of the internet.

    Joe has called for government control and censorship of television, so we can assume his “cybersecurity” jihad will not stop with the government micromanaging network security. He has a keen interest in deciding what the plebs can watch and presumably read on the internet.

    It is not just Joe. It is also the FCC. Under the guise of protecting consumers, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted 3-2 to open an inquiry into how the broadband industry is regulated. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed to place broadband services under the same regulatory framework as telephone service, which is more strictly regulated than broadband. In other words, more government control of the internet.

    Finally, Lieberman’s bill would allow the government to force internet providers to “immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed by the Department of Homeland Security.”

    The Department of Homeland Security?

    We know who these folks consider a threat to national security — constitutionalists, gun owners, returning veterans, and militias.

  2. #2
    Member Rhiannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    kenton
    Posts
    1,352
    Will we have to be wary what we talk about on this forum?? I would like to know "who" they were refering to when the statement was made about we would have been better off if the internet as never invented?

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,066
    your paranoid
    I believe in the Constitution, maybe you should too.

    I get points for speaking the truth

  4. #4
    Member Mindcrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,412
    Just out of curiosity, what possible emergency could justify limiting communications among US citizens? Nuclear? Biological? Zombies?
    Your focus determines your reality.

  5. #5
    Member Rhiannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    kenton
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhiannon View Post
    Will we have to be wary what we talk about on this forum?? I would like to know "who" they were refering to when the statement was made about we would have been better off if the internet as never invented?
    Whay am I paranoid? I didnt write the article.. you dont see any sort of problem with this? It's not like governmental interference has ever cause a problem?? Come on...

  6. #6
    Member 300miles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    8,207
    I agree that control over the internet should not be taken lightly. On the other hand, our enemies are constantly looking for ways to cause chaos or disarm us via the internet... so I can understand the intent of the bill.

    I was having trouble understanding what Lieberman's intent was, from the original article posted. Here's a simplified article about it:

    Lieberman (I., Conn.) is a co-sponsor of a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate last week that would give the president authority to implement “short-term emergency measures” to protect U.S. Internet networks from attack.

    Critics, including bloggers, some privacy advocates and some technology executives, have lashed out at the bill, saying it would essentially give the president a “kill switch” to shut down the Internet.

    Asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday whether he was trying to “seize control or shut down” the Internet, Lieberman answered “no way” and added that “the government should never take over the Internet.”

    Lieberman said the Internet was “constantly being probed by other countries for weaknesses and that “we need the capacity for the president to say to an Internet service provider, ‘We’ve got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from this country.’”

    He cited China, which has long been criticized for its Internet censorship, as an example. “Right now, China can disconnect parts of its Internet in times of war. We need to be able to do that too.”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...internet-bill/

  7. #7
    Member Mindcrime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    3,412
    I would submit that every freedom we enjoy also bears a cost. We want the freedom to bear arms, but that means some people will abuse that right and shoot up a school.

    Likewise, we want the freedom of speech the internet can provide, but that means someone will post instructions on how to build bombs.

    I don't think I want the government to have the power to simply turn off the greatest communications tool since the telephone. And I certainly don't want such technology controlled by people who barely understand it.
    Your focus determines your reality.

  8. #8
    Member mikenold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    7,321
    You will notice that the same people who screamed against the Patriot Act will now support the Internet Freedom act. Why is that? It couldn't be that it only depends on who wants to take our rights away could it?
    "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
    ---Ronald Reagan---

  9. #9
    Member Rhiannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    kenton
    Posts
    1,352
    It is true that other countries do block certain things off the internet access to their people, just look at that crap we were discussing about facebook and Pakistan .. The pakistani's were blocked out of Facebook. But how far will it go? It makes me shudder to think that when I want to researchsomething on line i might be getting an edited version that is government approved. I dont trust the government to approve anything i think or learn thank you!

  10. #10
    Member 300miles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    8,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhiannon View Post
    It makes me shudder to think that when I want to researchsomething on line i might be getting an edited version that is government approved. I dont trust the government to approve anything i think or learn thank you!
    The bill isn't about censorship though... it's about cutting off international access during a crisis.

  11. #11
    Member mikenold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    7,321
    There is a simple explanation. The government wants to control what is said and what is discussed anywhere these activities can happen. Want to stop people from disagreeing with what you want. SHUT THEM UP!!!
    "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
    ---Ronald Reagan---

  12. #12
    Member Rhiannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    kenton
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenold View Post
    There is a simple explanation. The government wants to control what is said and what is discussed anywhere these activities can happen. Want to stop people from disagreeing with what you want. SHUT THEM UP!!!
    sounds like censorship to me!

  13. #13
    Member 300miles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    8,207
    *sigh* OK you're right. It's about censorship.

    Honestly I have deeper conversations with the shower curtain sometimes...


  14. #14
    Member Rhiannon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    kenton
    Posts
    1,352
    Quote Originally Posted by 300miles View Post
    *sigh* OK you're right. It's about censorship.

    Honestly I have deeper conversations with the shower curtain sometimes...

    Im sure you have alot of things with your shower curtain..

  15. #15
    Member cheekman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,001
    Quote Originally Posted by mikenold View Post
    There is a simple explanation. The government wants to control what is said and what is discussed anywhere these activities can happen. Want to stop people from disagreeing with what you want. SHUT THEM UP!!!
    hummm..... just like china. control

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts