Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password? Create an account to share your experiences and more! E-MAIL   PASS   Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).

Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.

Porn Users Forum » Bill In Congress: Internet "Czar" Can Shut Down Internet

1-15 of 15 Posts

Page 1

Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

04-03-09  06:12pm - 5741 days	Original Post - #1
Monahan (0) Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA	Bill In Congress: Internet "Czar" Can Shut Down Internet OK, guys, start downloading whatever you can. UpChuck Schumer promised this would happen if Obama was elected when he was on the stump during the Presidential Campaign that fall. Now it looks like it's just a matter of time when our access to the Internet will be limited to whatever the Obama Administration decides we should have. Originally Posted by Network Workd Magazine: Bill would give Obama power to shut down Internet, networks during cyber attacks Federal legislation introduced in the Senate this week would give President Obama the power to declare a cybersecurity emergency and then shut down both public and private networks including Internet traffic coming to and from compromised systems. The proposed legislation, introduced April 1, also would give the President the power to "order the disconnection of any Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security." Some critics of the bill say that phrase needs to be more clearly defined. "We are confident that the communication networks and the Internet would be so designated [as critical infrastructure], so in the interest of national security the president could order them disconnected.", said Leslie Harris, president and CEO at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), , which promotes democratic values and constitutional liberties for the digital age. Harris and the CDT don't think such sweeping power is good news for anyone, including private networks that could be shut down by government order. Those same networks would be subject to government mandated security standards and technical configurations. The bill says the president must have a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy in place 12 months after the bill passes. "This is pretty sweeping legislation," says Harris. "Seems the President could turn off the Internet completely or tell someone like Verizon to limit or block certain traffic" she said. "There is a lot to worry about in this bill." In addition, an agency appointed by the President would control how and when systems are restored. For more of this article click HERE Edited on Apr 03, 2009, 06:16pm
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-03-09  10:33pm - 5741 days	#2
Jeffrey99 (0) Active User Posts: 106 Registered: Nov 04, '08 Location: Good Ole Midwest USA	Why not? They censor everything else. Why not the internet now? It's kinda impossible for him to turn off the internet, since it's not exactly a US thing. I guess he could turn off all the Americans access to it. I thought the democrats where suppose to be the liberal ones? Just another 1 of the million examples of ways our government seems to think they need to babysit us. Even though the government was never made to do it that way. But it's kinda late now. We have already let them get away with so much, that it's kinda like that little snowball rolling down the hill. Right now it's the size of a huge boulder and almost impossible to stop. I realize we got alot of dumb people in America but I'd really be surprised if that gets passed without some kind of huge uproar.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  12:46am - 5739 days	#3
turboshaft (0) Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08	Originally Posted by Jeffrey99: Why not? They censor everything else. Why not the internet now? It's kinda impossible for him to turn off the internet, since it's not exactly a US thing. I guess he could turn off all the Americans access to it. I thought the democrats where suppose to be the liberal ones? Just another 1 of the million examples of ways our government seems to think they need to babysit us. Even though the government was never made to do it that way. But it's kinda late now. We have already let them get away with so much, that it's kinda like that little snowball rolling down the hill. Right now it's the size of a huge boulder and almost impossible to stop. I realize we got alot of dumb people in America but I'd really be surprised if that gets passed without some kind of huge uproar. But the PATRIOT Act was passed pretty easily, and it took a while for the uproar to build, what little uproar there was. If they can give it a catchy name and spin it as legislation that is somehow necessary for our "security" (isn't that what lawmakers use for everything now?) I would not be too surprised if it was passed. Well if he ever did shut down the Internet we would still have our hard drives and DVDs -- until he shut off the power. At least they cannot shut off our minds...yet. I sure wouldn't mind if they shut down all the cell phone networks though. Where's that bill? I am really hoping this was just a big April Fool's joke since it was introduced on the 1st. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  04:40am - 5739 days	#4
Jeffrey99 (0) Active User Posts: 106 Registered: Nov 04, '08 Location: Good Ole Midwest USA	Originally Posted by turboshaft: But the PATRIOT Act was passed pretty easily, and it took a while for the uproar to build, what little uproar there was. If they can give it a catchy name and spin it as legislation that is somehow necessary for our "security" (isn't that what lawmakers use for everything now?) I would not be too surprised if it was passed. I think the only advantage the Patriot Act had was that it was pretty close after 9/11 and the American people thought it was needed. However I really don't see how they can try and tell us they need to be able to turn off the internet for security reasons. I think even they would understand it'd be easier just to turn off/unhook the government computers.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  05:00am - 5739 days	#5
RagingBuddhist (0) Disabled User Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07	Originally Posted by Jeffrey99: I think even they would understand it'd be easier just to turn off/unhook the government computers. That's assuming that they're actually attempting to restrict or cut-off access for security reasons, which I seriously doubt. It's just more abrogation of freedom. The less we know and the less we see, the better for the people running the show. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  06:59am - 5739 days	#6
Monahan (0) Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA	Originally Posted by RagingBuddhist: That's assuming that they're actually attempting to restrict or cut-off access for security reasons, which I seriously doubt. It's just more abrogation of freedom. The less we know and the less we see, the better for the people running the show. Given that the Obama Administration has already taken over the auto and banking industries without any uproar, it's no stretch at all to see them take over everything else. And as the Administration creates more and more "czars" to run everything it's no stretch at all to see a "Cyber Technology Czar" who will run MicroSoft, Apple, Intel, etc. Then the information and communications czar who will decide what information we sheeple are allowed to know. That's when access to the web will be totally compromised in the USA as it already is in China. Remember one of Obama's campaign promises was access for everyone to broadband. How will he do that except by setting up the government as the internet provider with the ability to control (limit) all web activity.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  07:51am - 5739 days	#7
Jeffrey99 (0) Active User Posts: 106 Registered: Nov 04, '08 Location: Good Ole Midwest USA	Originally Posted by Monahan: Given that the Obama Administration has already taken over the auto and banking industries without any uproar, it's no stretch at all to see them take over everything else. There's a big difference between the two though. The American people are pissed to see people like AIG get a bailout and blow the money or for GM to get bailout money and then need more months later. And I think most people in America didn't want either bailouts. And there was quite a bit of uproar about it. But now that you've already given them the bailout, I think most taxpayers would rather the government take it over then for them to need another bailout months later.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  08:42am - 5739 days	#8
Monahan (0) Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA	Originally Posted by Jeffrey99: There's a big difference between the two though. The American people are pissed to see people like AIG get a bailout and blow the money or for GM to get bailout money and then need more months later. And I think most people in America didn't want either bailouts. And there was quite a bit of uproar about it. But now that you've already given them the bailout, I think most taxpayers would rather the government take it over then for them to need another bailout months later. That's exactly my point. Instead of jamming the government into the process both AIG and GM should have been left totally alone and allowed to go bankrupt instead of throwing huge amounts of taxpayer money into the bottomless pit. But the agenda was not a bailout but to exploit an opportunity to use the crisis to permit the Obama Administration to take over the two industries to further his objectives. That's why I referred to his campaign promise to have the government provide free broadband internet access to everyone. That way his czar will have total control over all internet communications, won't it?
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  11:06am - 5739 days	#9
Wittyguy (0) Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA	x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 02:56pm
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  11:58am - 5739 days	#10
Monahan (0) Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA	Originally Posted by Wittyguy: ... What's the rush? The rush is with the Obama Administration which wants control of all communications media, not necessarily to control internet porn but to control the political message.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  02:18pm - 5739 days	#11
Jeffrey99 (0) Active User Posts: 106 Registered: Nov 04, '08 Location: Good Ole Midwest USA	Originally Posted by Monahan: But the agenda was not a bailout but to exploit an opportunity to use the crisis to permit the Obama Administration to take over the two industries to further his objectives. Uh, wasn't the first bailout (AIG/banks & and GM/Ford first time) under Bush? As for first amendment censorsip stuff, it started a long time ago. And not under Obama. The government has been trying to censor shit (from radio, tv to print media) for a long time. This isn't anything new.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  02:40pm - 5739 days	#12
Monahan (0) Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA	Originally Posted by Jeffrey99: Uh, wasn't the first bailout (AIG/banks & and GM/Ford first time) under Bush? As for first amendment censorsip stuff, it started a long time ago. And not under Obama. The government has been trying to censor shit (from radio, tv to print media) for a long time. This isn't anything new. Nope. Obama was the first to impose conditions on the compensation and management of AIG/Banks and GM/Chrysler. (Ford got no bailout money.) Remember, this isn't about bailout money. This is about the government imposing itself into the management of banks and car manufacturers. No one has done anything remotely close to that in the recent past. (The government took over the railroads during World War I and failed miserably at it.) And we're not talking about censorship. We're talking about the government controlling the internet via an Internet czar. This administration is the first in history to fire a CEO by Executive Order and to directly establish compensation guidelines for banks and car companies.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  02:48pm - 5739 days	#13
turboshaft (0) Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08	Originally Posted by Jeffrey99: Uh, wasn't the first bailout (AIG/banks & and GM/Ford first time) under Bush? That's what a lot of people seem to forget; of course the bailouts have increased considerably under Obama. And a lot of the government snooping, spying, tapping, etc. (which this bill also covers) were expanded under Bush, and will probably be even more prevalent with this bill and the new administration. I do worry greatly about the government ever bailing out the media industry (TV, radio, Internet, newspapers) because that puts them dangerously close to controlling what people see, hear, and read. Granted, the vast majority of the media is already controlled by only a few large corporations but they are still separate from the government. If the government wants to control the auto or finance business that's one thing, because those industries do not deal in free speech, but the media does. It seems this bill would allow them to step in where they normally would with a "bailout." "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  04:04pm - 5739 days	#14
Wittyguy (0) Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA	x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 02:56pm
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

04-06-09  07:24pm - 5738 days	#15
Jeffrey99 (0) Active User Posts: 106 Registered: Nov 04, '08 Location: Good Ole Midwest USA	Originally Posted by Monahan: Nope. Obama was the first to impose conditions on the compensation and management of AIG/Banks and GM/Chrysler. (Ford got no bailout money.) But that was only after Bush had already given the banks and auto market the bailouts. So in that extent, I can't blame him. Why should the government just keep handing them money without some kind of stipulations? Of course, I'd prefer they didn't give them money period but kinda too late for that.
Register or Log-In Above to Reply.

1-15 of 15 Posts

Page 1

Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Cookies - DMCA - 2257 - Porn Review - Webmasters Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site. DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER. To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor. Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource. All Rights Reserved © 2003-2024 PornUsers.com. Loaded in 0.02 seconds.