internet kill switch
Above is a link to an article on the Huffington Post regarding a new senate bill geared to allow the president the seize control of or shut down portions of the internet in case of a national cyberemergency. It also would be responsible for creation of a new agency within the Department of Homeland Security, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC).
Cyberemergency? Aside from the absolute ridiculousness of the term and obvious frightening applications with regard to freedom of privacy let's look at the title of the proposed new department. The National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications; makes it sound like the Smithsonian doesn't it? Some new and exciting national monument meant to be a beacon to uphold all that is right and just on the webbernets.
Crap. Crap, I say, crap. This bill is vague and intended to do nothing more than expand the already ridiculous and unconstitutional levels of power the Executive office now holds. The first line of it states that it's to amend the Homeland Security Act and we all know that's not going away any time soon. So if they managed to get it through somehow there's no way we'd be able to get rid of it. Take a look at article 18 of the bill below:
"(18) RISK.—The term ‘‘risk’’ means the potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident, as determined by the likelihood of the occurrence of the incident and the associated consequences, including potential for an adverse outcome assessed as a function of threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences associated with an incident.
Hmm, not vague at all is it? Risk to whom, is the question here. Here's the link to the full bill if you're interested. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/show
The question is, whom is being threatened? Certainly not the current residents of the United States of America. Terrorists are tired of us and focusing on France and Russia. We are, quite literally, bowing to China and they're not bowing back. And what connections does Senator Lieberman have that are pushing for this to be beneficial to him? Or perhaps the current president? Potential for an "adverse outcome" indeed.
Wikileaks gets hit, then this constant back and forth over whether or not the president's birth certificate is available for public record. What else don't they want us to know?
Hello?
Above is a link to an article on the Huffington Post regarding a new senate bill geared to allow the president the seize control of or shut down portions of the internet in case of a national cyberemergency. It also would be responsible for creation of a new agency within the Department of Homeland Security, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC).
Cyberemergency? Aside from the absolute ridiculousness of the term and obvious frightening applications with regard to freedom of privacy let's look at the title of the proposed new department. The National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications; makes it sound like the Smithsonian doesn't it? Some new and exciting national monument meant to be a beacon to uphold all that is right and just on the webbernets.
Crap. Crap, I say, crap. This bill is vague and intended to do nothing more than expand the already ridiculous and unconstitutional levels of power the Executive office now holds. The first line of it states that it's to amend the Homeland Security Act and we all know that's not going away any time soon. So if they managed to get it through somehow there's no way we'd be able to get rid of it. Take a look at article 18 of the bill below:
"(18) RISK.—The term ‘‘risk’’ means the potential for an unwanted outcome resulting from an incident, as determined by the likelihood of the occurrence of the incident and the associated consequences, including potential for an adverse outcome assessed as a function of threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences associated with an incident.
Hmm, not vague at all is it? Risk to whom, is the question here. Here's the link to the full bill if you're interested. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/show
The question is, whom is being threatened? Certainly not the current residents of the United States of America. Terrorists are tired of us and focusing on France and Russia. We are, quite literally, bowing to China and they're not bowing back. And what connections does Senator Lieberman have that are pushing for this to be beneficial to him? Or perhaps the current president? Potential for an "adverse outcome" indeed.
Wikileaks gets hit, then this constant back and forth over whether or not the president's birth certificate is available for public record. What else don't they want us to know?
Hello?
You know too much. Now you will have to be "deleted". BWAHAHAHAHA!!
ReplyDeleteBut...but...NOOOOOO!!! *bzzzzzt*
ReplyDelete