how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
708 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
2 edits | hmm If a major cyber attack occurs, they'll grill Obama.
If he trys to protect us, they'll grill Obama.
Anyone want to grill Obama?
If it was Bush saying it back when the AUMF was written, i'm pretty sure these same people wouldn't be talking.
The government should not be allowed to take over private computers or networks. I agree with that.
I read the bill and I just don't see clearly where a reasonably intelligent person could possible imply that from.
| |
|  | | Re: hmm said by longstreet:I read the bill and I just don't see clearly where a reasonably intelligent person could possible imply that from. That's just it.... your giving people too much credit. It's harsh to say but there really aren't that many intelligent people in the world.... least of all, the ones who use common sense on a regular basis. | |
| | | said by longstreet:The government should not be allowed to take over private computers or networks. I agree with that. I read the bill and I just don't see clearly where a reasonably intelligent person could possible imply that from. AUTHORITY
SEC. 201. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AU-
THORITY.
(2) in the event of an immediate threat to stra-
tegic national interests involving compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network—
(A) may declare a cybersecurity emer-
gency; and
(B) may, if the President finds it necessary
for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and
the timely restoration of the affected critical in-
frastructure information system or network;
(3) shall, in coordination with various critical
infrastructure industry sectors, develop detailed
cyber emergency response and restoration plans for
each critical infrastructure industry sector;
Now this doesn't say outright that Obama will take away your interwebz (ones!) but it is pretty vague and open for interpretation.
What does he mean by direct the response? Your computer is infected. I order you to take it offline to protect that nation's national security.
It may very well be that the Government has good intentions, but like I said, I don't trust them. | |
| | | said by longstreet:If a major cyber attack occurs, they'll grill Obama. If he trys to protect us, they'll grill Obama. Anyone want to grill Obama? So no one in the past 8 years grilled Bush over:
The USA Patriot Act
9/11 and its aftermath
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
No one, right? | |
| |
4 edits | Re: hmm All of the things you listed should not have happened and most definately nobody wanted to happen.
I see nothing wrong with the wording in the bill.
As the headline points out, it's fantastically overstated.
The only people that would care otherwise are those people that want to hear things spun in the manner they like. They are the same people that would grill Obama if he didn't do anything about cyber attacks.
If you want to talk about a real eye-opener, it's the fact Obama has adopted Bush's policies. Many people whom believed his campaign promises got burned. | |
| | |
2 edits | Re: hmm said by longstreet:All of the things you listed should not have happened and most definately nobody wanted to happen. Really?
Vote on the Patriot Act
»educate-yourself.org/cn/patriota···te.shtml
No one wanted the war in Afghanistan?
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizat···rrorists
Iraq?
»archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITIC···iraq.us/
The complaining about this isn't about the executive branch having the power to take over the internet, its the double standard libs have. I could see Olbermann crapping his pants now about this if it were Bush. It truly is amazing how you libs have done a 180 on the ability to allow the state to take care of you and now take over the internet at their will.
Where are you nutjobs now, when GE is set to make billions from cap & trade & health care and the CEO is an advisor to the president (oh don't forget they also own the leftist media outlet, NBC)? Can you imagine the uproar if the CEO of Halliburton was a presidential advisor? | |
| | | | | | Re: hmm said by Go Tarheels:said by longstreet:All of the things you listed should not have happened and most definately nobody wanted to happen. Really? Vote on the Patriot Act » educate-yourself.org/cn/patriota···te.shtmlNo one wanted the war in Afghanistan? » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizat···rroristsIraq? » archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITIC···iraq.us/The complaining about this isn't about the executive branch having the power to take over the internet, its the double standard libs have. I could see Olbermann crapping his pants now about this if it were Bush. It truly is amazing how you libs have done a 180 on the ability to allow the state to take care of you and now take over the internet at their will. Where are you nutjobs now, when GE is set to make billions from cap & trade & health care and the CEO is an advisor to the president (oh don't forget they also own the leftist media outlet, NBC)? Can you imagine the uproar if the CEO of Halliburton was a presidential advisor? Uh...I don't know if you've been paying attention to the world around you, but even liberals have been critical of this bill's vagueness. That's why they changed the original bill. Jeez. Get over yourself man. | |
| | | | | | My take on the Patriot Act is that it was hurried through congress. The president said 'we're at war' and the whole country fell in lockstep.
That's dangerous. That's government power & control (nevermind healthcare! pfft) Upon investigation, it was filled with all kinds of abuses that grew the government enormously. The excuse was that it kept us 'safer'. Perhaps it has had some effect, but for the amount of effect versus the expediture of money and loss of personal freedom it required, i'd like it to go away.
I was in the military when all of this went down.
Thirdly, Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes this country ever got itself into. If anything, we should have been focusing on Afganistan.
Fourth, the executive branch isn't taking over the Internet, (lolz?!?) The previous administration (Bush) did a hell of alot more under taking over everything under the pretext of war and national security than the current has. | |
|
 C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Define major cyber attack.
Hell, for all we know, it could just be as simple as buying out 4chan from under its existing domain owners. Or the government issuing a command from its internet-connected systems to black-hole the IP at the DNS level.
As AT&T has certainly seen for itself, all you have to do to see a "major cyber attack" is piss off the dregs of the internet by denying them their access - they'll mobilize almost immediately. 
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever | |
|
| |
|
