Do you want Barack Hussein Obama to have the power to shut down the internet?
According to news reports, two new Senate bills -- S. 773 and S. 778 -- "would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared 'cyber emergency.'"
These two new bills are both part of what's being called the "Cybersecurity Act of 2009."The Act would create a new bureaucracy, the "Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor,"which would be charged with "defending the country from cyber attack"... and would report directly to Barack Obama.
But that's not all it would do: it would also grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be "critical"to the nation's infrastructure, "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."
Did you read that? The Secretary of Commerce, reporting directly to Mr. Obama, would be able to snoop through ANYTHING connected to the Internet that a President decides is "critical"to look at. And it doesn't matter what the law says -- they get to do this whenever and wherever a President wants them to.
Are you willing and able to give up your constitutional rights?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Why should Obama and his administration have their own computer hacking army?
Why you say? Because knowledge is power!
DefendUSx can tell you right here and now that the primary goal of the Obama administration, is to consolidate all US networks into one single network, modeled after the Chinese network. We can already start to see this under the guise of the "Cyber Security" bill, that the administration is trying to hurry through Congress. The most pressing evidence, though, of this to date, is in the Porkulus I Bill which gives the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) nearly unprecedented authority over all Internet communications, and traps the States into providing and consolidating their networks into this single network. DefendUSx knows this, because she actually read that part of the bill.
What is the advantage to having one network as opposed to a Heterogeneous network (many different networks that communicate to each other through Subnets)? There is no advantage to you or me, just those who want to control and inspect all the data going in and out of that single network. It is next to impossible to get this kind of control with Heterogeneous networks. To the end-user of the network, everything appears and functions the same.
The danger of this? Mass censorship (as if it isn't bad enough already starting with the Mainstream Media), but also getting access to anything and everything that you have private on your computers. Nothing would be private.
There is more to this though. Google, who is tightly coupled with the Obama administration for data collection, censorship (as during the Campaign), and analysis, hope to have everyone on "dummy terminals" connected to the Internet where all your data is stored on Google's servers. Your operating system (web-based operating system provided by Google) would connect right to Google's servers and everything would be stored there.
Google's CEO has meant with Obama personally off and on since the year 2000 to discuss these "partnership" plans, along with George Soros, who has his son high-up on Google's management staff for Youtube.
- Ralph TLv 71 decade ago
I don't like the idea either,but you can't count on the courts to protect the people from the government any more.
A Cyber emergency can be anything real or imagined and with the government able to access your information without notice?
Watch the Sandra Bullock movie "The Net" and see what can happen.
The world uses the INTERNET,but use China as an example: The government controls the INTERNET there and they shut down and unacceptable websites.
The INTERNET started in the U.S. and branched out around the world.
As I understand it,it will apply to all servers including privately owned servers.
- 1 decade ago
I was so happy when Bama got elected, my whole family was for Mccain, but I thought it was a complete and total breakthrough for our country. I was so excited, now only a few months into the election I get picked on everyday! I do not know what I missed, but he is messing things up!! He gave the queen an ipod! An ipod! I have an ipod, he gave the queen something that every teen in America has. I mean it's just insane. I was so let down. I hope it gets better, and no i don't want that to happen at all. Let the few freedoms that make us America stay our freedoms.
- 1 decade ago
I'm not sure what the Bill entails. But it appears that the executive branch would need legal justification and court approval for such an action.
If some cyber kook could 'hi-jack' the internet and use on line banking info to loot the worlds accounts, it would be catastrophic.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Hell-2-da-no.......... The only time I can remember being censored was back during the Clinton years. This project is a step up from basically and effectively pulling the plug on free speech.
- TATLv 71 decade ago
For socialism to lead to communism the media and expression of thoughts must be controlled. I think it is funny that the man who talked about he patriot act being a violation of privacy could come up with something so much worse.
- 1 decade ago
- TubbyLv 51 decade ago
That bill refers to the Government's own Web servers and websites. The Internet belongs to the world, and as such, can't be "shut down" by Obama. You fail.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
you are pulling content out of the bill to present an argument that is not valid.
the reality is that our banking system can be attacked thru the intenent.
imagine a country waking up tomorrow with all our money wired overseas,
the possibility of chaos is unimaginable.
Its not about stuff like facebook, internet porn and YA
I support the bills
- BarbwiredLv 71 decade ago
They're both terrible presidents.