Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a
Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?
Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.
"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
Look, I don't want people reading my email any more than the next person. But the fact is, a HUGE amount of crime is commited over the internet. Couple that with the internet's tie-ins to almost every industry on the planet and you have the recipe for disaster if there is no oversight. To expect ISP's to be the final authority over traffic is like allowing AT&T to set the laws for what can and can't be legally done over the phone. This bill primarily only consolidates existing government authority under a single umbrella rather than distributed among the FCC, FBI, DHS, etc... as it is now. DHS already has the the authority to pull the plug on an ISP in a crises as it sits, and phone conversations have been monitored in this country for the last 4 decades, so how is that different than monitoring internet traffic?
I figure if I'm not doing anything illegal I have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if someone is planning to blow someone or something up, and uses the internet to plan it, I WANT them caught. All the conspiricy theorists who think that it's just another step toward Orwell's 1984 scenario, just need to go take their anxiety meds and calm down.
__________________
If it never breaks, you're not playing hard enough.
Current Toys: 1990 RC10 Gold Pan buggy, 1991 RC10 Team Buggy, AE TC3, Diggity Designs XLR8, Tamiya TRF 415, Losi Mini Late Model, Losi Mini Slider, AE RC18MT, Storm GS, Kyosho Inferno MP6, Kyosho Inferno MP7.5, 2 Jammin X1X CR's, 2 Jammin X1 CRT Pro's, HPI Savage XL, Building a Jammin based 1/8 Dirt Oval car
Section 14 of the bill essentially revokes all privacy safeguards on Internet use for all networks. The Fourth Amendment would go straight out the window with the explicit inclusion of “private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.” While Section 18 limits jurisdiction to federal networks, Section 14 allows the government to go after private networks without search warrants. The section also doesn’t limit the jurisdiction to acute attacks, either. That jurisdiction exists at all times.
The big problem isn’t that Obama might shut down the Internet. It’s that the bill essentially repeals the Fourth Amendment.
Then after the 0 team repeals the Fourth Amendment, the Repeal of the Second Amendment will be just a formality.
__________________
The original point and click interface: Smith & Wesson.
Look, I don't want people reading my email any more than the next person. But the fact is, a HUGE amount of crime is commited over the internet. Couple that with the internet's tie-ins to almost every industry on the planet and you have the recipe for disaster if there is no oversight. To expect ISP's to be the final authority over traffic is like allowing AT&T to set the laws for what can and can't be legally done over the phone. This bill primarily only consolidates existing government authority under a single umbrella rather than distributed among the FCC, FBI, DHS, etc... as it is now. DHS already has the the authority to pull the plug on an ISP in a crises as it sits, and phone conversations have been monitored in this country for the last 4 decades, so how is that different than monitoring internet traffic?
I figure if I'm not doing anything illegal I have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if someone is planning to blow someone or something up, and uses the internet to plan it, I WANT them caught. All the conspiricy theorists who think that it's just another step toward Orwell's 1984 scenario, just need to go take their anxiety meds and calm down.
No, I agree with you that internet traffic should be monitored for things like crime or terrorism. This is different. This gives the President the power to shut down the internet whenever he thinks it's necessary. So if a bunch of us want to organize, let's say a tea party, and we all agree to look to the internet for time and place, the big O can just shut the internet down, claiming "it's an emergency." That's a little too Orwellian for me.
Go back 30 years, and tell people it will be virtually impossible to smoke cigarettes anywhere in public, and a pack will cost ten dollars. See how fast they put you in the funny farm!
Just how much power do you want to surrender to the Government?
__________________
ROAR Region 1 Director (expires 12/31/09)
No, I agree with you that internet traffic should be monitored for things like crime or terrorism. This is different. This gives the President the power to shut down the internet whenever he thinks it's necessary. So if a bunch of us want to organize, let's say a tea party, and we all agree to look to the internet for time and place, the big O can just shut the internet down, claiming "it's an emergency." That's a little too Orwellian for me.
Go back 30 years, and tell people it will be virtually impossible to smoke cigarettes anywhere in public, and a pack will cost ten dollars. See how fast they put you in the funny farm!
Just how much power do you want to surrender to the Government?
It will never happen. Heck, there are alot of things that a president COULD do. He could invade Canada if he wanted to. But any president ultimately serves at the pleasure of the people. There is no way that a president is going to unilaterally do something like disconnecting the country from the internet without there being a true PROVEABLE emergency of epic proportions. A president who did that would not only NEVER be re-elected, but would probably see his party in general lose horribly in the next elections as well.
At least we have the freedom to say what we want on the internet. Look at countries like North Korea or China. They can't and don't. OK, I know the next post will be "Well, this is the first step in that direction", but that's just BS. I've been involved directly with the internet as a network propessional almost since the DARPA days, and I've always felt that the internet was WAY too much like the wild west. It NEEDS more controls. The fact that internet crime in the US alone costs us over 200 BILLION dollars each year SHOULD be a wake up call. The ability of the president to shut down portions of the internet should be viewed as the same kind of control that he can exercise in declaring martial law and mandatory curfews. How often has THAT happened?
__________________
If it never breaks, you're not playing hard enough.
Current Toys: 1990 RC10 Gold Pan buggy, 1991 RC10 Team Buggy, AE TC3, Diggity Designs XLR8, Tamiya TRF 415, Losi Mini Late Model, Losi Mini Slider, AE RC18MT, Storm GS, Kyosho Inferno MP6, Kyosho Inferno MP7.5, 2 Jammin X1X CR's, 2 Jammin X1 CRT Pro's, HPI Savage XL, Building a Jammin based 1/8 Dirt Oval car
It will never happen. Heck, there are alot of things that a president COULD do. He could invade Canada if he wanted to. But any president ultimately serves at the pleasure of the people. There is no way that a president is going to unilaterally do something like disconnecting the country from the internet without there being a true PROVEABLE emergency of epic proportions. A president who did that would not only NEVER be re-elected, but would probably see his party in general lose horribly in the next elections as well.
At least we have the freedom to say what we want on the internet. Look at countries like North Korea or China. They can't and don't. OK, I know the next post will be "Well, this is the first step in that direction", but that's just BS. I've been involved directly with the internet as a network propessional almost since the DARPA days, and I've always felt that the internet was WAY too much like the wild west. It NEEDS more controls. The fact that internet crime in the US alone costs us over 200 BILLION dollars each year SHOULD be a wake up call. The ability of the president to shut down portions of the internet should be viewed as the same kind of control that he can exercise in declaring martial law and mandatory curfews. How often has THAT happened?
That is why I said that this is a desperate attempt to insert paranoia agmonst the masses. The Internet has had its big break out during the beginning of the Clinton Era. After 9/11, there were no talk of this and when the Patriot Act was established during the Bush "Error" (Era)...again nothing was even spoken of it. Now we have a new President and those "who like things the way they were" are flinging all kinds of nonsence into the air.
Like Captn said.....if this is to prevent terrorism, and cyber crimes, then only those indivisuals involved should be monitored.....with the approval of the Judicial System. Other than that....this would be something that those extreme right-wing nutjobs will say.
Last edited by GundamWZero; 04-04-2009 at 02:46 PM.
I like the Wild West. As far as the money lost? Well too bad. That the breaks for using the net. This trusted computer BS gets to me.
I agree with CO in idea. I do not agree with him trying to make this somehow our current presidents agenda when it was not him who has pushed this forward. It was scardey cat dems and rep.
CO, if your going to start such, you need to loose your bias and be more neutral such as saying more government control.
No, I agree with you that internet traffic should be monitored for things like crime or terrorism. This is different. This gives the President the power to shut down the internet whenever he thinks it's necessary. So if a bunch of us want to organize, let's say a tea party, and we all agree to look to the internet for time and place, the big O can just shut the internet down, claiming "it's an emergency." That's a little too Orwellian for me.
Dude, thats not how it works. Captain gave you the low down. Do you really think now that you have made it a personal attack on Obama, when again it had nothing to do with him. That, he would stop ALL business online in America and cripple the net internationally just to stop a protest he wont agree with? My god man, speaking about the funny farm. That outlook goes beyond conspiracy and borders on schizophrenia.
It doesn't matter to me who's in office, I don't want to give the government the power to shut down the internet because they feel "it's an emergency."
__________________
ROAR Region 1 Director (expires 12/31/09)
I like the Wild West. As far as the money lost? Well too bad. That the breaks for using the net. This trusted computer BS gets to me.
I agree with CO in idea. I do not agree with him trying to make this somehow our current presidents agenda when it was not him who has pushed this forward. It was scardey cat dems and rep.
CO, if your going to start such, you need to loose your bias and be more neutral such as saying more government control.
My "bias" is towards the Constitution
and if you don't like my "bias" you know what part of my anatomy you can kiss
If the pres has the power to shut down the internet at his liking, it would seem reasonable that he would also have the power to shut down portions of the internet, think that over.
__________________
The original point and click interface: Smith & Wesson.
Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a
