Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: I Don't Want Any President. . . .
Fanta46 Joined Sat 11/11/06 Posts: 29361	Sun 02/06/11 08:25 PM
Most of us understand so little about this that we hear the statement, 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." and immediately jump to the conclusion that this means they won't be allowed to access Mingle. LMAO That this would mean the same thing that the Egyptian government did to it's people. It doesn't. Nuclear Power plants for one example!

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Sun 02/06/11 08:27 PM
Ahhh! I didn't know about that little emoticon. There have been a couple of times I would have used it.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 02/06/11 08:30 PM


Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Sun 02/06/11 08:32 PM Edited by Spidercmb on Sun 02/06/11 08:37 PM
There are many fascists (layers) of the INTERNET Freudian slip? I think you meant "facets". okay! my bad! HTTP is not a critical information network. HTTP is not a network, it's a protocol. Your own article notes the following... The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president. So the President can make up the rules as he goes along. Also, you seemed very concerned about privacy when Bush was president, but now you don't seem bothered at all (also from your article)... 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. Overall, I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't want President Bush to have had these powers, so one has to wonder why you feel comfortable with the thought of President Obama having the power...

actionlynx Joined Wed 08/18/10 Posts: 5448	Sun 02/06/11 08:33 PM
So, in other words, Unconstitutional search and seizure.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 02/06/11 08:34 PM
There are many fascists (layers) of the INTERNET Freudian slip? I think you meant "facets". okay! my bad! HTTP is not a critical information network. HTTP is not a network, it's a protocol. Your own article notes the following... The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president. So the President can make up the rules as he goes along. Also, you seem very concerned about privacy when Bush was president, but now you don't seem bothered at all... 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. Like I said, those EP Leftists can only feel secure if they have a babysitter.

actionlynx Joined Wed 08/18/10 Posts: 5448	Sun 02/06/11 08:34 PM Edited by actionlynx on Sun 02/06/11 08:37 PM
Double-post... I want a better network connection....it changed recently and the old one was much more reliable.

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Sun 02/06/11 08:34 PM Edited by artlo on Sun 02/06/11 08:37 PM
Can't they do that now? I'm afraid we have already lost that battle, at least for the time being.

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Sun 02/06/11 08:36 PM
We're piling up on eachother with our posts.

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 02/06/11 08:37 PM Edited by willing2 on Sun 02/06/11 08:46 PM
Most anyone that could be picked up by the Federalies would only be missed by a few and for only a while.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sun 02/06/11 08:39 PM
As long as they can call it a threat to national security they can do what they want in violating civil rights right now.

Spidercmb Joined Fri 04/27/07 Posts: 13137	Sun 02/06/11 08:42 PM
As long as they can call it a threat to national security they can do what they want in violating civil rights right now. That's not true. Have you read the Patriot act? It grants the government the same powers they have under RICO to investigations into terrorist activity. It could be abused, yes. But so long as law enforcement is punished for unfair or unjustified uses of Patriot Act powers, I don't see why we should believe it to be very likely. What we do know is that it has prevents terrorist attacks in the US. It's saved lives and I think that should be removed from the equation.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sun 02/06/11 08:48 PM
So because you think it it should be? lol Not. If it is called a threat to national security the president can shut it down or whatever so it is even better then this bill that we are discussing when it comes to that,

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sun 02/06/11 08:49 PM
Hell no!

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Sun 02/06/11 08:54 PM
That's not true. It seems to me that they're doing it right now. Capturing our emails and and phone calls en masse seems like a pretty blatant violation of the 4th amendment. You say that the Patriot Act is like RICO. Doesn't RICO require a warrant for each intrusion into our persons, houses, papers, and effects? Whether or not it saves lives to do this is beside the point.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sun 02/06/11 08:56 PM
That's not true. It seems to me that they're doing it right now. Capturing our emails and and phone calls en masse seems like a pretty blatant violation of the 4th amendment. You say that the Patriot Act is like RICO. Doesn't RICO require a warrant for each intrusion into our persons, houses, papers, and effects? Whether or not it saves lives to do this is beside the point. But no warrants are needed for that which is a threat to national security already.

Fanta46 Joined Sat 11/11/06 Posts: 29361	Sun 02/06/11 09:01 PM
Most of us understand so little about this that we hear the statement, 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." and immediately jump to the conclusion that this means they won't be allowed to access Mingle. LMAO That this would mean the same thing that the Egyptian government did to it's people. It doesn't. Nuclear Power plants for one example!

artlo Joined Sat 01/29/11 Posts: 3085	Sun 02/06/11 09:03 PM
What is there in our lives that could not be construed as a threat to national security? This means Big Brother is completely unleashed into perpetuity.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sun 02/06/11 09:06 PM Edited by Dragoness on Sun 02/06/11 09:08 PM
What is there in our lives that could not be construed as a threat to national security? This means Big Brother is completely unleashed into perpetuity. You are correct. And Bush set it up.

Fanta46 Joined Sat 11/11/06 Posts: 29361	Sun 02/06/11 09:06 PM Edited by Fanta46 on Sun 02/06/11 09:08 PM
Most of us understand so little about this that we hear the statement, 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." and immediately jump to the conclusion that this means they won't be allowed to access Mingle. LMAO That this would mean the same thing that the Egyptian government did to it's people. It doesn't. Nuclear Power plants for one example! You'd have to be a pretty talented hacker.