• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet....

Ricky87 said:
If they want to control the content of the internet, than yes that is insane and unjust. My interpretation is that they just reserve the right to a kill switch in case a cyber attack is launched. Makes sense to me, and it would protect out internet and more importantly our security. Iranians are separate and they weren't allowed to create any content for the outside world due to political constraint. I just think this is another one of those bills that is so vague that it makes people fill in the blanks with their own wild conspiracies, and it becomes something so twisted from it's original intent; that's all!!.
Click to expand...

What's the likelihood of a cyber attack requiring shutting down all private access to the internet, leaving all government systems connected and vulnerable?

What's the likelihood of the government cutting off an entire nation's access to the internet in the event of a massive demonstration of civil disobedience?

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The above has never rung so true as in this thread.
 
The_Thunderer said:
I tell you... stuff like this is just scary. How people can NOT see it simply boggles my mind.
Click to expand...
What's there to "not see"?. I don't feel like this is some government attempt to fence us all in for the final slaughter. Freedom is everywhere, and in America we're only too free. We're only being robbed of fictitious liberties, and we can still type or say anything we want. I don't see anyone boycotting CS.com, because we can't say everything we want to say. To me it just makes no sense. If people don't like Obama then everything he does is going to be labeled a conspiracy; how realistic is that?.
 
Ricky87 said:
What's there to "not see"?. I don't feel like this is some government attempt to fence us all in for the final slaughter. Freedom is everywhere, and in America we're only too free. We're only being robbed of fictitious liberties, and we can still type or say anything we want. I don't see anyone boycotting CS.com, because we can't say everything we want to say. To me it just makes no sense. If people don't like Obama then everything he does is going to be labeled a conspiracy; how realistic is that?.
Click to expand...

For one, CS.com is a privately owned web server, so the owner is under no obligation to provide people with a soapbox and as such, can enforce whatever rules they wish. That is not an issue of freedom.

The government restricting everyone's access to the internet? That's an issue of freedom. It's not about Obama, or liking him, or not liking him - it's an issue of preserving the safety of essential liberties. Shutting off private access to the internet is the same thing as telling people they are not allowed to assemble in a public place.

I'm not necessarily accusing Obama of a conspiracy, but this opens the door way too wide to abuse. And the cyber attack issue is such a small one. Come to think of it, how is shutting off all private access to the internet (In the US, of course) supposed to prevent cyber attacks? Why would it?
 
Nova_C said:
For one, CS.com is a privately owned web server, so the owner is under no obligation to provide people with a soapbox and as such, can enforce whatever rules they wish. That is not an issue of freedom.

The government restricting everyone's access to the internet? That's an issue of freedom. It's not about Obama, or liking him, or not liking him - it's an issue of preserving the safety of essential liberties. Shutting off private access to the internet is the same thing as telling people they are not allowed to assemble in a public place.

I'm not necessarily accusing Obama of a conspiracy, but this opens the door way too wide to abuse. And the cyber attack issue is such a small one. Come to think of it, how is shutting off all private access to the internet (In the US, of course) supposed to prevent cyber attacks? Why would it?
Click to expand...
Ya, I suppose your right!. I just don't worry about it in the grand scheme of things. Mainly, because the American population is still so much more powerful than our government to the point we don't need to fear legislation like this.
 
Any governmental control over the internet, no matter how small or for whatever reason, would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Period.

Makes me want to read 1984 again. It has been a long time, but I'm curious to see just how many things have actually come to pass.
 
I can't believe I looked at this thread right after eating. I feel ill...

LEAVE ME ALONE, OBAMA!
When I want your "help" I'll ask.
Thanks, signed me.
 
Ricky87 said:
Ya, I suppose your right!. I just don't worry about it in the grand scheme of things. Mainly, because the American population is still so much more powerful than our government to the point we don't need to fear legislation like this.
Click to expand...

Get a clue! The government has become much more powerful than it ever was supposed to be, and is getting more so every passing day! And the worst part, people like you just don't see it and let it continue. It needs to be stopped NOW!
 
Ricky87 said:
Hey, it's no "Patriot Act".
Click to expand...

You are right, Michael. Potentially controlling how the average American person thinks by controlling the information that they have access to IS nothing like giving the enforcement branch a little more leeway to investigate people (especially FOREIGN communications) that are believed to be terrorists. I mean, we can't have a couple hundred suspected terrorists monitored to save lives but it is OK stopping ALL OF AMERICA from reading what the current administration-in-power doesn't want them reading. You are right. They are nothing alike at all. I just think your idea of scale is upside down on its head!

I HATED the idea of the patriot act (and it was heavily supported by democrats when passed!) - I still do. However, your idea that this new bill is LESS intrusive into civil rights just makes no sense in the real world where the rest of us are forced to live. B.O. just plain stinks. Don't make me smell it and tell me it's a rose.
 
Ricky87 said:
in America we're only too free.
Click to expand...

Please explain, Michael, how were are TOO free.

What is TOO free? What freedoms do YOU want ripped away from you? I don't want any ripped from me. None. All Rights Reserved. ALL OF THE!

...or maybe I'm just too free for your tastes, so you only want freedoms taken away from OTHERS. (I don't mean me personally - I mean people that enjoy things that you don't.) That, after all, is what all politicians seem to want. They love taking things from us while lining their pockets with the sweat from our brows.
 
Susan said:
Get a clue! The government has become much more powerful than it ever was supposed to be, and is getting more so every passing day! And the worst part, people like you just don't see it and let it continue. It needs to be stopped NOW!
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was saying; people who take stuff like this WAY too far. The "anti-crist's" are probably only a few posts away I'm sure!.

KJUN said:
You are right, Michael. Potentially controlling how the average American person thinks by controlling the information that they have access to IS nothing like giving the enforcement branch a little more leeway to investigate people (especially FOREIGN communications) that are believed to be terrorists. I mean, we can't have a couple hundred suspected terrorists monitored to save lives but it is OK stopping ALL OF AMERICA from reading what the current administration-in-power doesn't want them reading. You are right. They are nothing alike at all. I just think your idea of scale is upside down on its head!

I HATED the idea of the patriot act (and it was heavily supported by democrats when passed!) - I still do. However, your idea that this new bill is LESS intrusive into civil rights just makes no sense in the real world where the rest of us are forced to live. B.O. just plain stinks. Don't make me smell it and tell me it's a rose.
Click to expand...
YAY!!. More KJUN going off pm a tangent!!. As for the "real world" reference; please. Life is as miserable as you make it. No surprise this is another issue taken way farther than it should be!!.
 
We have Norton, Mcafee, and other such security systems for our "safety". Having power to control the internet in any way violates people's freedom of speech, ability to be informed, ability to communicate, and do business...this goes waaaaaaaay to far!!
 
danielle said:
We have Norton, Mcafee, and other such security systems for our "safety". Having power to control the internet in any way violates people's freedom of speech, ability to be informed, ability to communicate, and do business...this goes waaaaaaaay to far!!
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's just speculation!. It's like it's the Swine Flu or something. Our internet is fine, our liberties are fine. There's too many positives to be frenzied up by stuff like this all the time. Santa say's chill!!. :santa: "Chill"
 
Nova_C said:
I'm not necessarily accusing Obama of a conspiracy, but this opens the door way too wide to abuse. And the cyber attack issue is such a small one. Come to think of it, how is shutting off all private access to the internet (In the US, of course) supposed to prevent cyber attacks? Why would it?
Click to expand...

I haven't read the article, but most 'cyber attacks' are launched from virus infected home computers, aka botnets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
 
I'm betting that Ricky87 and his alter ego will be first in line for the microchip/bar code tattoo/whatever Big Brother decides to use when the time comes.

Call me whatever, but I shall refrain from calling you the most appropriate name you deserve.
 
Hey, China blocks the internet from it's peoples and they seem to be doing alright in the "freedom" department. :shrugs:

D80
 
Susan said:
I'm betting that Ricky87 and his alter ego will be first in line for the microchip/bar code tattoo/whatever Big Brother decides to use when the time comes.

Call me whatever, but I shall refrain from calling you the most appropriate name you deserve.
Click to expand...

But...but...but Susan!!
Don't you know that Bammers loves us and only wants what's best for us?
 
starsevol said:
But...but...but Susan!!
Don't you know that Bammers loves us and only wants what's best for us?
Click to expand...
Who are you to talk and get so sassy you greedy self righteous independent business owner. You are the first that should be permanently banned from the internet!!!!!111 :nyah:

;)
D80
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top