Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license
Friday, August 28, 2009
Walks like a duck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Epaminondas,
What Emergency could possibly justify using this new power the bill is supposed to give the president?
the emergency of political oposition to "the ones" political power and agenda.
why people are making up thier own minds independently of the msm wing of the dem party. we cant have that!
I also heard that cell phone communications may be covered under the same power. E-mail your land line numbers to those in your circle who may only now communicate with you over the 'net.
why is it that the leftards screamed loud and clear that bush was a fascist, yet could produce not one example of individual rights lost?
yet individual rights have been trampled like a heard of horses came through in just the few months "the one" has been in office.
examples:
private property rights
(like those of bond holders)
contract law, which protects individual rights such as the ownership of property
the right of ownership over our own bodies, if obama care passes and we end up down the road in a one payer system the government will eventually decide what medical services you deserve. and if you decide you want to pay out of pocket becuase they have denied you, you will find you dont have that freedom. (in canada you could be dying, if you try to find a doctor to treat you instead of waiting in line or being a good little serf and dying, the government of canada can and will prosecute you and put you in prison.)
none of the losses of personal freedom seem to bother libs.
as long as these rights are lost under thier dear leaders watch.
right of ownership over your own body translates as personal liberty.
you have no personal liberty if you cant even spend your own money to keep yourself alive. if the decision of what care you will get rests not with you but with the government then they defacto have ownership over you.
and now they will have the ability to silence speach with this insidious legislation?
its the equivalent of saying the government will decide who may own a printing press
Well said, Rumcrook.
A friend and I were just wondering today at the same thing. How is it that everyone was screaming about losing their personal liberties, but now that we really might, no one is saying anything?
yeah - where the HELL is code pink???
Where the HELL is the ACLU, for pity's sake?
This is like the converse of Atlas Shrugged. Instead of the producers just fading away, the loudmouth liberty activists just get co-opted or bought or somehow muzzled. Weird and scary.
Ro
Post a Comment