According to Fox News, "A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties."
It's called the Cyber Security Act. My question would be, "Why does this president want so much control? Does the ACLU not question our civil liberties over this?
I don't want government control over the Internet. If there is an attack of any kind, I want information, not a lack thereof.
See the whole article below:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/
PS. Please don't use lame arguments slamming Fox News as we all know that Fox News is a right leaning news machine as the rest are left. Stop the paranoia, or I will not respond to such nonsense.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 193
How do you know there isn't government control involved with the internet as is? The internet was initially designed for the military as is a lot of the technological advances we enjoy today.
Would the Library of Congress be more Credible??? Go here and read the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.773:
B T W The report originated from Drudge
Look it already started way before Obama got in.... the Digital Tv what do you think that is ?? So they can control what is going to be on TV they will eventally have no Christian shows on TV its coming..
What are you, paranoid?
Thats not the point I was getting at!! Republicans do not like That OBAMA may have control of the internet..... I just said well look what Bush Did !!
hello
I'm not criticizing either side in this issue, but I do believe it's a serious issue to our privacy. We should be able to have liberal access to the internet.
I am not saying it is right for anyone doing it.....Its wrong to take away someone s privacy... I think you are attacking the wrong person here.
Cathi is cool. Trust me.
Don't you know that this is one way of controlling what will be on TV??
If you have the Micro Chips and now Censorship of what you can watch. Christian tv will be censored because it will be considered a violation of the hate crime bill. That is what you should be worried about more than if a bill passes about Obama having the right to kill the internet.
########Please do not attack me on this I am just answering Carol about this!!!!!********
What am I wrong at?
You can criticize who ever you want its a free country!!
Are you assuming I am a liberal !! You know what the saying is don't You???
The bill is real it was proposed by Senator or Congressman Rockefeller(I forget what position he holds) NOT by Obama.
And just because it is up for a vote doesnt mean it will pass.
Actually I think this bill was proposed in April but since Fox no longer reports or attempts to report news but has switched its focus to Obama bashing/Racist supporting then they will grasp at any straw even one months old.
Nellie starts to sing
Lori is my pretty meanie....lalalala
I think she is my pretty meanie....neener neener
(squealing at top of voice...children cry, cats growl and windows shatter)
MYYYY Meanie...LORI!
(checks again for Purrrr...and runs out of room)
Please hold me back I am going to go Postal on these Republicans...
There is a god.
Hello...........
Obama is the President and he has no more or less power than presidents before him did.
And again the bill has not passed and it may very well not.
I have less of a problem with the bill proposed by Jay Rockefeller than I do with all this crap.
If you are going to post an article at least do it accurately.
It is accurate, Obama is the PResident and it gives Obama the authority, just like the "red telephone" is Obama's now!
Ahmadinejad of Iran did it first and now Obama is copying his hero!
scott this was proposed by Rockefeller and it is a true bill but not proposed by Obama.
Lori, I distinctly heard Obama speak of this when he was campaigning last year. Didn't you hear it? I did. I think it would serve you well to get out of Gather for a bit and do your research before you say something untrue.
but you know you heard it.
Its not hard to research this.
Do you have a clue what we are discussing in this article?
How about Bush he does not think he did anything wrong??
Unless you believe that two wrongs make a right.. Bush is a mute issue.
If you are going to oppose something like this dont just spin more make your point with information....notice no where in Carols article is Rockefeller mentioned..and since he is the one that introduced the legislation it should have mentioned him and given ways to oppose it.
But the article contained nothing like that.
Bush Bashing is weak but Obama bashing is ok ??????????
No I wish Nora you would stop assuming that I am an idiot... I do not think 2 wrongs make it right.
No one's rights should be tampered with Bush or anyone else.
So please Stop bashing me..... No Nora you are on Mute. You like to assume too much >.. I wish I was more like YOu that you know all you must be smarter and more Powerful than God.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/sep/17/nation/chi-obama-mediasep17
*Taken from the site given for all to read and think about in my previous posting.
Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.
"In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency,' which they didn't define," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.
"We think it's a very bad idea ... to put in legislation," he told FOXNews.com.
Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.
"The current language is so unclear that we can't be confident that the changes have actually been made," he said.
The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users.
"As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told CNET News.
A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported.
Spokesmen for Senator Rockefeller and the Commerce Committee did not return calls seeking comment before this article was published.
But Rockefeller, who introduced the bill in April with bipartisan support, said the legislation was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records.
"I know the threats we face," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. "Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest."
The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures.
But many in the technology sector believe it's a job the government is ill-equipped to handle, said Franck Journoud, a policy analyst with the Business Software Alliance.
"Simply put, who has the expertise?" he told FOXNews.com in April. "It's the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard."
Clinton, of the Internet Security Alliance, praised President Obama's May science policy review, which he said would take cybersecurity in the right direction by promoting incentives to get the private industry to improve its own security measures.
But he faulted the Senate bill, which he said would centralize regulations for an industry that is too varied to fall under the control of a single set of rules without endangering the economy and security.
"We think a lot of things need to be done to enhance cybersecurity," he told FOXNews.com, but this bill is "not something that we could support."
This is the article that Carol links to and apparently NO ONE decided to read the fact that Rockefeller proposed it and it was greated with bipartisan support. This is also not uncommon legislation in a state of emergency the president can declare martial law meaning the military is in charge of the country aka all our basic services. This just adds to them. In addition, while the president cannot directly introduce legislation, he can play an important role in shaping it, especially if the president's political party has a majority in one or both houses of Congress. While members of the executive branch are prohibited from simultaneously holding seats in Congress, they often write legislation and allow a member of Congress to introduce it for them. The president can further influence the legislative branch through the annual constitutionally mandated State of the Union Address, which outlines the president's legislative proposals for the coming year. If Congress passes a bill that the president disapproves of, he may veto it; the veto can be overridden only by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, making it substantially more difficult to enact the law.
Why are they even wasting time with this? Have I missed a recent rash of successful hacker attacks on government, infrastructure, or military systems?
I am sure that when the aviation industry was "new" and whatever president wanted the power to be able to ground planes during an emergency had the internet been around then it would have caused just as much uproar as this.
Ahmadinejad of Iran did it first and now Obama is copying his hero!
You are an ignorant racist.
And yes I am name calling and yes you deserve it.
Anther reason why I am once again refusing to try and have anything close to a debate with Nora Carol and Berf....you have no reasoning beyond Obama is a black, uppidy muslim.
How is that racist? Ahmadinnawhatever did do it first (this year) ... and it's quite possible Obama will follow suit. Whether or not Ahmadinnawhatever is Obama's hero is a point up for debate but nothing in that sentence is racist.
Bringing out the namecalling and the race card in the same comment .... double whammy.
Lori you said: ....you have no reasoning beyond Obama is a black, uppidy muslim.
Lee says: Where does that come from? Seems like you are the one obsessed with his race and Ahmadinnawhatever's religion.
In any case, layin the race card down here is like what I've said before somewhere: it's like playin an Ace of clubs to finish out a run of 8, 9, 10 of hearts. It's either the wrong card, the wrong game or simply a lack of cards. Whichever it is, it's certainly irrelevant to this topic and the comments so far.
Come on now with the Racist I do not think anyone in here is a Racist Do You??
This is not Russia or China, and we will be glad to cross state lines and "participate" in their next election if they persist with this un-American bill.
If you oppose this than I would recommend following Randy's advice.
The whole point to what I was saying is that sitting on gather bitching about Obama doing this and that is a waste of time you need to make your feelings known to the people who propose the legislation.
If the republicans cared more about the people then their pocketbook maybe McCain might be President.
There is nothing the "Chicago Machine" won't seize control of.
Omnipotent government is the common thread here, and instead of fearing it like the Founders, people are sprinting toward it hoping for handouts.
It had nothing to do with the "republicans caring more about the people then (sic) their pocketbook".
Can you put aside partisan politics and talk about what is best for our country. Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-ME) sponsored the bill so it is bipartisan.
I was talking to Nora she was bashing me !!
I know McCain stood for nothing I know he thought he was a Mavrick !! lol
Not disagreeing with you ... except ... so far all I've seen Snowe do leads me to believe if she is co sponsoring something with a democrat, it's not bi partisan; it's more like a dem/wannabe dem bill. Snowe seems more lib/dem than repub/conservative. If you see what I mean. I might be wrong, that's just the impression I've gotten of Snowe.
Randy W. Aug 28, 2009, 11:08pm EDT
Janet, McCain stood for nothing and ran a pathetic campaign.
It had nothing to do with the "republicans caring more about the people then (sic) their pocketbook".
Can you put aside partisan politics and talk about what is best for our country. Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-ME) sponsored the bill so it is bipartisan.
EEEW! Why do I have to have such a visual imagination? I'll never get that image out of my head now.
In all seriousness, I have to agree that McCain was a lousy candidate. Last election, the Dems had Kerry... I guess this election it was the Repubs' turn.
Maybe next election they will wise up and run someone with some ba... er, political fortitude.
It will be OK.
"nd they are going to hand over all the Fruit Loops and Coco puffs..., hurry to the store before they are all sold out!! "
No one wants to have their privacy invaded no matter who is doing it....
Randi, you have no idea what Daffy Duck has been doing, who he has been hanging around with or what his political beliefs are! This is important you know! How dare you have sense on this!
Let Senator Rockefeller and Senator Snowe hear from you, and tell them you don't want the government controlling the Internet or invading our cyberspace.
This is not Russia or China, and we will be glad to cross state lines and "participate" in their next election if they persist with this un-American bill.
The will make them all confused and give them a sick headache!