No, Obama Isn't Taking Over The Internets > Baffling

Baffling

To: NOVA_Guy
ObamaCare Euthanizing America

I wonder if we can sign up people claiming untrue things about the healthcare debate to the procedures they claim are in it.

Love how a Dr. talking to elders about end of life choices that most children don't want to talk to thier parents about is killing grandma.

I guess it's like Forest Gump.. They are not smart people.

We live in a society that calls you an "elitist" if you're educated and lauds people for their mediocrity. What do you expect?

The biggest threat to the politicians is an educated populace.

reply to Matt

said by Matt:

It is baffling to me that people want to deny our government the ability to protect critical communications infrastructure and gloss over the entire first sentence.

---
In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
---

You're right, let's not allow our government to respond to attacks launched from compromised private networks. While we're at it, we should probably take steps to allow anyone to shoot at troops while on US soil, as long as they are shooting from their own private property of course.

reply to Matt

said by Matt:

It is baffling to me that people want to deny our government the ability to protect critical communications infrastructure and gloss over the entire first sentence.

---
In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
---

You're right, let's not allow our government to respond to attacks launched from compromised private networks. While we're at it, we should probably take steps to allow anyone to shoot at troops while on US soil, as long as they are shooting from their own private property of course.

reply to Matt
Where does it say anything about an off switch for the internet? Karl even mentions this falsehood in his last paragraph.

reply to Matt

said by Matt:

It is baffling to me that people want to deny our government the ability to protect critical communications infrastructure and gloss over the entire first sentence.

---
In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
---

You're right, let's not allow our government to respond to attacks launched from compromised private networks. While we're at it, we should probably take steps to allow anyone to shoot at troops while on US soil, as long as they are shooting from their own private property of course.

reply to fifty nine
Actually, the government has the power to do this already as has already been pointed out.

Compare a cyber attack to a real war:

1. The government needs to protect basic infrastructure so societ can function. Things like power stations, roads for access for emergency vehicles (including ambulances and police), communications to allow those same.

The internet in the future is one additional factor they need to secure those same resources for civilian as well as gov't survival. In the real world you would see troops blocking access to roads. Since you can now use the internet to impede or shut down civilian resources already, that are NOT part of the government network, then it is mandatory to protect those same non-government resources for public safety.

And if you do not think the president does not have that authority, then look into the concept of martial law which would be implemented if not nationwide at least regionally. And our president does have that authority.

The question is do you think that a country like North Korea or Iran would not use cyberattack? Think about it, no country in the world anymore poses a credible sustainable threat to our homeland (short attacks definitely, not sustained) would not use cyberattacks to disrupt our strategic resources like fuel, electricity, phone service transportation since they can't bomb us or send a constant stream of missiles our way?

Just because they havent been able to mount a truly effective cyberattack yet (or have chosen not to) does not mean they have not been trying. Think they will say "Let's not mess with people's internet. That is too cheap an option. Let's build multibillion dollar bombers instead."? Take a look at those pictures of war you see and imagine those in your own backyard. That is war. And you can bet that as soon as our enemies that we are at war with find an effective way to hurt us (read effective as something more than a scratch or a black eye) then they will.

Have the government have there own network not connected to the internet? You think they are stupid? They already have that. They do not need the internet to keep running on critical government resources and you can bet it is separate.

the problem is if you cut their communication off with us then you have just isolated yourself from they help you will be screaming for then.

The internet is a highway. In the real world, our troops would restrict our highways to essential traffic. Doing the same in a true cyber attack would not only make sense, but be imperative. The same people complaining now would be the first ones complaining if they didnt in an emergency. History has proven that out.

And remember, the president the power of martial law, always has. In that case, all those laws you put in to restrict him? or to give him more power? Moot point. Until Congress can convene to revoke his decision.

Guess what? if we are under attack, then we may not be able to even convene congress. hmmm. Sounds like a national emergency to me.

I am all about restricting government power to what it needs (also read that as small government, left or right has major major problems in that regard). But for laws that impact on national security, you have to take into account they may have to be implented in the extreme situations. Look at those war pictures and see if any solution presented will work in that situation or not.

reply to Andy S
What part of my statement is untrue? This is the first time in history that I believe our government is openly advocating the eradication of a generation of people, based solely upon what some bean-counter with his own agenda thinks ought to happen.

Obamacare will ration health care for the masses, creating an HMO like option for everyone. The "benefit": some without care will get care. The failure: many more with care will be forced into worse coverage and actually lose benefits.

But that's not really the topic of this particular discussion, is it? I guess pro Socialism nut jobs are everywhere these days. Perhaps I should also be as rude and ask if it would be proper to euthanize them?
--
Trusting the Democrats to fix our economy and give us health care is like trusting the fox with keys to the henhouse, a brand new gas stove, and a pantry full of goodies for side dishes. In the end, all will be dead and nothing but lies will be told.

reply to manfmmd
If the government network is under attack, wouldn't it just be easier and more logical to suspend outside access to the government network by taking it offline until its defenses can be shored up?

It seems to me that taking one attacker offline only breeds the likelihood of people moving to another private network to start their attacks all over again.

If you are assigned protective detail for someone, and your assignee starts getting shot at, what do you do first-- remove your protectee to safety, or start shooting back in a number of random directions? The most logical response is the first one: remove the target from harm's way.

Why should the strategy change because it's an online attack? Take the affected assets offline to ensure they are totally protected, then go after the attackers once you know they can do no more harm to their intended target.
--
Trusting the Democrats to fix our economy and give us health care is like trusting the fox with keys to the henhouse, a brand new gas stove, and a pantry full of goodies for side dishes. In the end, all will be dead and nothing but lies will be told.

reply to NOVA_Guy

reply to Matt

said by Matt:

said by Mr Neutron:

Once the government specifically defines the exact circumstances that constitute "an immediate threat to strategic national interests," I can take their purported desire to "protect" me seriously.

This seems to be the crux of most arguments against this idea and I think it's hand tying. An immediate threat to national interests seems specific enough to me. There is no way you can plan for every possible attack or contingency, so you word it vague enough so the people in charge can make the decision.

After all, that's sort of why they are in charge in the first place. As Dr. Evil might say, "I'm the guy in charge, need the info to make the decisions."

reply to GlobalMind

reply to puck0114

• keep them confused


• keep them ignorant


• keep them invested


• keep them entertained

reply to NOVA_Guy

reply to Mr Neutron

reply to sonicmerlin
Those other countries have already been assimilated. Government programs, once initiated, don't ever get retired.

Canadians in border cities routinely come to the US for care for a reason....and the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association was quoted as recently saying their system is ready to implode.

reply to nixen