President will be able to shutdown the onlines!
 

http://www.cdt.org/headlines/1196

:Oh crap

Thats a scary thought.

shit .. not very good :

:Oh crap

hooray for "freedom"

That deserves to be posted in full..

April 01, 2009

Cybersecurity Bill Proposes Unprecedented Government Power Over the Internet - A cybersecurity bill introduced today in the Senate would give the federal government extraordinary power over private sector Internet services, applications and software. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would, for example, give the President unfettered power to shut down Internet traffic in emergencies or disconnect any critical infrastructure system or network on national security grounds. The bill would grant the Commerce Department the ability to override all privacy laws to access any information about Internet usage in connection with a new role in tracking cybersecurity threats. The bill, introduced by Sens. John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, would also give the government unprecedented control over computer software and Internet services, threatening innovation, freedom and privacy. CDT President and CEO Leslie Harris said, "The cybersecurity threat is real, but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

Most people here don't understand that the Internet is under full attack on ALL fronts. When Internet 2 is fully implemented, everyone here can kiss their Internet businesses good bye. Why, because under the plan major ISP's will convert over to a subscription based revenue model (similar to Cable) where you would purchase a subscription package and then only be permitted to visit certain websites included in the subscription package. Any other websites you would have to pay for. Guess what? No one is going to pay more to visit your porn site(s)! Traffic will be cut to 1/100th of what you have now. You will be put out of business. Don't cry when it's too late.

Most websites would disappear. Some might survive like ESPN and CNN which are site that are basically there as a compliment to their respective TV channels, but most sites are dependent on traffic to sell advertising and traffic in general will go down so most websites will disappear as well.

I don't think something like this will happen any time soon.

To bad he didn't pull the plug as soon as he was given the power to do so.

the Internets gone just like that

lol

These fuckers are out of control.

Before anyone else makes an automatic assumption that this bill is an infringement on the "freedoms" of US citizens on the internet, let me ask one question:

DID ANY OF YOU READ THE BILL?

I did...in its entirety.

As a professional in the field of I.T., it is my opinion that this bill is to be applauded, not frowned upon. Its focus is not upon having the ability to shut down the internet, or infringing upon users' rights, but is geared toward creating specific regional Cybersecurity centers that will assist the United States Government as a whole in securing its systems - systems that do send data over the same private networks that we all have access to.

While the bill only touches the surface of what is necessary at this present time of "cyber-insecurity", it is a noble start and the participants in the programs highlighted in this bill will include industry professionals, academic research centers, non-profit organizations and various advocacy groups.

This bill ensures that these varied groups from the public, private and government sectors have an fair and equal say in how the overall cybersecurity strategy of the US will be improved over the upcoming years. It focuses on educating US citizens (and even international bodies) about proper internet security and holds accountable IT companies who design government systems, software and critical network infrastructure (government certification for those who offer Cybersecurity services and products will be required a few years after the bill is implemented).

Instead of jumping on the bandwagon of misinformation, lamenting about hypothetical situations that are not even in the bill, those of us in the adult industry who have the technical expertise (and experience) should be massing together in an effort to apply as a participant in this program.

After all, if the adult industry does not step forward as part of the solution in securing the internet for our users, other participants in this proposed program who are not familiar with the in-ands-outs (pardon the pun) of this industry may no doubt consider it part of the problem.

We do not want that.

The adult industry collective needs to grow up and shake off the negative reputation and attitudes that seems to have been embedded in our minds. It seems as if psychologically this industry is like a person who has been told that they are bad/corrupt/wicked/(insert negative trait) for so long that many within our ranks almost feel it necessary to act accordingly. This must stop.

So yes, the President will be able to "shut down the onlines", but only if critical Federal infrastructure and the networks that they use to connect over are compromised or h4x3d. Someone read that bill, misinterpreted it and panicked.

Don't feed the fear, people. Be informed, make a decision and act accordingly.

thats a neat concept
 

The Rockefellers are behind it. Break out the tinfoil hats...

bullshit, there's no way they're going to go that route. that's some pretty paranoid shit to believe.

:321GFY

well thats just pootang

wanna see the USA get nuked? Have Obama turn off the internet... That's when the rest of the world will say FUCK YOU AMERICA!!! Sadly I'm American so i guess fuck me, maybe i will move to Canada and just freeze my ass off

Did you say the same thing the first time you read about The Patriot Act?

I'm referring to the outing of small business from the internet, and the packaged available websites. the internet grew on fact that anyone could get online and build an online presenced or put their small business online. they aren't just going to throw up internet v2 with 50 sites., or say, oh hey, no more internet guys, sorry.....

yeah... and look at how the average american was affected by that.

...er. well yeah, they weren't. but you know what i'm saying!




;)

:( :(

they will cut our freedom gushhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

They're against it because they(unlike you) have a feel for how things work. Long run, Rockefeller and friends wants the internet to be subscription based(cable), so it becomes a one-way communication media like tv. Rockefeller & co. know there will be maximum resistance if they just change everything in one step. So they make a plan to do things in stages, gradually passing bills. Every bill that passes will have several "excuses", which are sound arguments like: "for protection", "will help the economy" etc. That's how the system works, people like you and probably baddog, are over-sensitive to sound arguments, and fail to see the "big picture".

Whether this goes through or not it should really open up the debate of where limits on government intrusion end. I can't believe anyone would think this is ok... What's next? Cell phones?

Can you imagine if this idea had been floated during the last administration... Shutting down the net?! Bush buttered us up with the Patriot act and now the power grab is going to the next level. Amazing what is going on in the US.

It really comes down to whether you trust government with this kind of power. I for one don't. They have already broken trust and abused power on so many levels that it should be a wake up call to everyone in the US when they continue to try and take away freedoms. Especially the one device that has given some level of power to ordinary citizens, the net.

Don't make this about me. Stay focused on the topic at hand. I'm far from being "oversensitive" to sound arguments and I do believe that I have a more advanced view regrading the "bigger picture" here than you realize.

Carrying on...

The network security infrastructure that is presently being utilized by the government of the United States is drastically insecure. This is fact, not fiction. Steps need to be taken and this bill, as drafted, will make a nationwide call for the best and the brightest to assist in designing, implementing, maintaining and future proofing a strategic Cybersecurity platform. It also strengthens the potential for a more secure internet future for US citizens by providing educational opportunities and scholarships.

That is the bigger picture here. Not one of paranoia and mistrust.

What is ironic is that if these steps are not taken and a major cyberattack does occur, everyone will then ask, "Why didn't they do something to protect our systems sooner?"

Read the bill, there is nothing in it that presents a glaring threat of freedoms for commercial entities or US citizens. All that the bill is asking for is the potential ability to be able to have control over PORTIONS of the internet infrastructure that government data and systems run on and over. Even the act of doing such a drastic step will be monitored and recorded closely by the individual Cybersecurity Centers.

This thread is a vehicle of misinformation, deceiving those who need/want an excuse to mistrust their own leaders and highlights exactly why it is important for persons to properly educate themselves and be involved in these systematic processes so that they can be fully aware and capable of implementing change from within.

In any event, I see that there are others here who are willing to merely dwell on the surface of this issue, so perhaps I'm just wasting my time sharing intellectual discourse on this matter.

Again, READ THE BILL yourselves, people. Do not be sheep. The sky is not falling.

Fuck all the gov morons who want to take our freedom! Australia already is in the deep shit of their fucked up government.

I've been saying this was going to happen for a long time.. The ISP's are going to steal the internet right out from under everyone. It's why they have been pushing so hard to do away with net neutrality.

The cable companies along with Microsoft (ie M$ owns the patent) are going to end up pushing set top boxes like your current cable box that give you internet via your TV. Hence the reason they are so big on IP TV these days.

This way they can just rent you a internet access box and sell you a subscription plan. Makes it easy for non internet savy people and cheap being they don't have to keep buying new computers. At that point the cable companies will have it set up something like old school AOL, where everything is under one roof.

Mark my words this "IS" going to happen and while it might not be able to outright take full control of the net, it will damn sure take away a ton of traffic from normal sites allowing the big dogs to get even bigger.

Yes, on the surface the bill seems like it is well intentioned (it ALWAYS does). In the wider context, it's not hard to see where this is leading.

I found this. I think it explains better the concerns many civil libertarians have.


Thu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST

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. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

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."

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

Article here..

The bill outlines specifically that the development of regional Cybersecurity Centers (composed of public, private, research and advocacy groups) will assist in defining the parameters of a "critical information network" or a "cybersecurity emergency".

The manner in which this bill is written shows specifically that they are aware that this is uncharted territory. The bill states that the CyberSecurity Center groups will be the defining parties for present and future scenarios.

It is symptomatic of simplistic thinking to assert that the President and his advisors are willing to take the responsibility of Cybersecurity on their shoulders alone, knowing that without the expertise (and support) of the entire tech community, they will be akin to "sitting ducks".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dcat (Post 15709598) 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.

Deceptive and misleading to boot. The Secretary of Commerce, according to that bill, can only perform their duty with the permission of an advisory committee, who in turn relies upon the Cybersecurity Centers to define, monitor, prevent and future-proof against cyber attacks. The way that quoted section of text is worded makes it seem as if the Secretary of Commerce can act alone. That notion is ridiculous as even more damage than a cyber attack can be done by acting in haste and without the right information. No Secretary of Commerce is going to shut down key sections of the Internet without making sure that the decision has been throughly and adequately consulted. A wrong move could set the US back decades in terms of technology otherwise.

He speaks truth.

Allow me to quote that last paragraph again.

"Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

Exactly what Nojeim stated that they are assisting with actually is included in the bill. They, along with the EFF, et al will make sure that they are appointed to these regional CyberSecurity Centers. Those entities will be the defining bodies in the final outcome of things.

In other words, this is a collaborative effort.

In the field of CyberSecurity one thing is absolute, if you don't recruit the best and include the right people from the break, you are vulnerable. The EFF civil liberties director has it right. They cannot possibly put such power in the hands of one entity - thus the Cybersecurity Centers outlined in the bill. The reflex action that persons outside technology are having against this bill's proposal only shows their lack of understanding such matters.

Now who is going to head up the Information Tech consulting group for the adult industry? The time is now to start planning who will be on board, in a rational and logical manner of course.