CCCToad on 29/8/2009 at 04:34
I take the same issue with this that I did with all of Bush's executive orders.
Exactly who defines "emergency?" Like I've said before, it doesn't much matter if you trust the current president not to mis-use it. Sooner or later, one who you don't trust will get elected.
belboz on 29/8/2009 at 06:43
I dont think they could do it as most of the internet servers are not in the 'US', maybe they just want a way to shut the 'US' off from the rest of the world, or the rest of the world from the 'US'. But it wont keep the best hackers out, reguardless of the FBI and CIA thinking they have the best ones working for them, usually thats not true, as the best ones just never get caught.
In the UK the governments idea for cyber security is to insist that everyone buys wireless modems, so they can then sit outside your house in unmarked white vans and intercept the wireless communications between your modem and the computers in your house.
raevol on 29/8/2009 at 08:02
Quote Posted by dethtoll
blah blah links blah blah
Much appreciated for the infos. I'm still gathering insight on this to see how strong a stance I want to take. Definitely looks all kinds of fishy to me, I'm especially interested in how quickly "intellectual property" is mentioned in the bill.
june gloom on 29/8/2009 at 08:14
Quote Posted by belboz
I dont think they could do it as most of the internet servers are not in the 'US', maybe they just want a way to shut the 'US' off from the rest of the world, or the rest of the world from the 'US'.
That worked real well for Iran.
Kaleid on 29/8/2009 at 09:53
Nothing new with this really. Its a continuation of "full spectrum dominance". And internet is part of it..
raevol on 29/8/2009 at 10:19
Quote Posted by Kaleid
Nothing new with this really. Its a continuation of "full spectrum dominance". And internet is part of it..
Can you elaborate?
Kaleid on 29/8/2009 at 10:27
Quote Posted by raevol
Can you elaborate?
Well, its pretty much dominance in all areas. Space, water, air, land, internet, military etc..
Google "full spectrum dominance". There's plenty to read (but just like with anything on the internet not everything will be correct - or up to date).
Melan on 29/8/2009 at 12:44
Quote Posted by Kaleid
Nothing new with this really. Its a continuation of "full spectrum dominance". And internet is part of it..
Yes. It pretty much codifies what has always been something a government would do in case of all out war, to the best of its ability.
Kaleid on 29/8/2009 at 12:50
Quote Posted by Melan
Yes. It pretty much codifies what has always been something a government would do in case of all out war, to the best of its ability.
Not so sure about that, this is about Pax Americana, peace under US terms.
In order that no can challenge USA its even been reported that (
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070524/66025416.html) Pentagon reaffirms U.S. right to deny adversaries use of space (granted the source might not be the best, but thats all I have energy to look up now).
Starrfall on 29/8/2009 at 14:36
Quote Posted by heretic
If the cybersecurity act had been brought forth during the Bush Admin's reign TTLG would likely have imploded...and for good reason.
This stuff goes at LEAST as far back as Lincoln so you're going to have to try a little harder here.
Quote:
You ask, in substance, whether I really claim that I may override all the guaranteed rights of individuals, on the plea of conserving the public safety—when I may choose to say the public safety requires it. This question, divested of the phrasology calculated to represent me as struggling for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is either simply a question who shall decide, or an affirmation that nobody shall decide, what the public safety does require in cases of rebellion or invasion. The Constitution contemplates the question as likely to occur for decision, but it does not expressly declare who is to decide it. By necessary implication, when rebellion, or invasion comes, the decision is to be made from time to time; and I think the man whom, for the time, the people have, under the Constitution, made their Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, is the man who holds the power and bears the responsibility of making it. If he uses the power justly, the same people will probably justify him ; if he abuses it, he is in their hands, to be dealt with by all the modes they have reserved to themselves in the Constitution.
