The Cybersecurity Act of 2009

[WoogieNoogie]

There is a new bill going through congress that will, in any case that the government deems, allow them to shut down all private internet functions and put anyone they want in a position to oversee any private "cyber" sector.

This seemed like the best quick summary of what can go wrong with this bill, and why it's a horrible idea. 96% of opencongress.org users do not approve of this bill, which seems to be what I think an accurate representation of what I would think America would think...if they knew about it. Apparently it's being snuck through, to hide from the public, because they know we won't like it.

This isn't an "anti-obama" thing. This is an "anti-I don't want my government to control my internet usage whenever they feel like it" thing.

Get informed, then let's discuss this.

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

I agree with you, government is a necessary evil that needs to be locked in a steel cage with high-security so it doesn't run rampant.

BUT, Adam Smith said one of the three jobs government should have is to protect it's people from outside forces that want to harm them

and build publics projects and police the public, those too

So if protecting the people is the core responsibility of the government, what would happen if some random nuclear-nation nation decided to DDoS our defense grid before blowing us to Kingdom Cum? We'd have no counter-measures to meet that threat, and we'd all be doomed.

There's my argument. Cross-examine if you please.

[WoogieNoogie]

I'll agree, there are certain situations, but unfortunately, it's too wordy to be that specific. It's basically just another step in the direction of government controlled everything, even if it doesn't appear that way at first, it does have the possibility. It only takes one incident for a chain of events to happen for a legal government takeover.

The idea in theory is great. In practice, it seems to be too dangerous.

Besides...if our defense grid can be hit by a DDoS attack, I'm kinda disappointed.

[Jon-86]

Another step towards the US becoming a police state. Not long now before you will be catching up on the UK although I don't think we have something like that just yet. They probaly just do it anyway and don't tell us.

All to protect us from dem bad ol' terrorists.....

[Elfer]

At 10/8/09 08:28 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: So if protecting the people is the core responsibility of the government, what would happen if some random nuclear-nation nation decided to DDoS our defense grid before blowing us to Kingdom Cum? We'd have no counter-measures to meet that threat, and we'd all be doomed.

There's my argument. Cross-examine if you please.

This isn't a movie about rollerblading hacker teens. Not everything is online.

[HahaISuckMoreThanYou]

At 10/8/09 08:28 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I agree with you, government is a necessary evil that needs to be locked in a steel cage with high-security so it doesn't run rampant.

BUT, Adam Smith said one of the three jobs government should have is to protect it's people from outside forces that want to harm them

and build publics projects and police the public, those too

So if protecting the people is the core responsibility of the government, what would happen if some random nuclear-nation nation decided to DDoS our defense grid before blowing us to Kingdom Cum? We'd have no counter-measures to meet that threat, and we'd all be doomed.

There's my argument. Cross-examine if you please.

FYI there is a very good way to do this without control of the websites we go on.

It is called...

wait for it...

wait for it...

wait for it...

OMG NOT CONNECTING VITAL INFORMATION TO THE INTERNET YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Counter argument complete, now i may enjoy watching everyone else jump off a cliff as I sit here on the computer.

[XenosiS]

oooOoOoOOoOoooh , Big brother is watching millions fap online and blog on NG. This means that there are people that will spend all of their time online and have even less lives than we do. This part makes me laugh.

Then there's the part where I know that I will be paying them to do this absolute waste of time, energy, and resources, not to mention little things like infringing on my rights. Then I stop laughing.

Seriously, what do they really expect to find? Every time a law is passed to "protect the public from evil" , it costs way too much money , infringes on our rights , and doesn't solve a damn thing. The only things worse than the problems our government can't fix are it's solutions to them.

[TheShrike]

At 10/8/09 08:15 PM, WoogieNoogie wrote: Get informed, then let's discuss this.

Look, this is just formalizing a plan to do damage control in the event of a major cyber attack.

Read through the bill. Think about it.

This isn't about controlling you. This is about protecting us.

[darkrchaos]

I don't like the idea of the bill. we're losing all are private-see. sooner or later there will camera following us around, and the government will say, it to protect u... Can't we protect ourselves? we're not kids we can take care of ourselves.

[TheShrike]

At 10/14/09 09:43 PM, darkrchaos wrote: I don't like the idea of the bill. we're losing all are private-see. sooner or later there will camera following us around, and the government will say, it to protect u... Can't we protect ourselves? we're not kids we can take care of ourselves.

I'll believe you're not a kid when you stop speaking like one.

[JeremieCompNerd]

Not exactly my favorite bill, but if the Patriot act didn't get Bush beaten on by a long line of irritated citizens with rubber mallets this isn't even going to make us blink.

[WoogieNoogie]

At 10/14/09 09:33 PM, TheShrike wrote: This isn't about controlling you. This is about protecting us.

I can see how that is. It's just not good enough for me. It's just like that amendment that was going through around the same time as the elections about the definition of life. It was a good idea, but the wording had too much wiggle room for extremists.

[Agentrok]

I think they should keep their hands off my internet. Its paid for,therfore my connection. They have no right to mess with it. What kind of freedom is that?

[MachShot]

This will do absolutely nothing on the matter of Cybersecurity.

Any needed "areas" of the internet are already in lead rooms, impervious to EMPs. They can be cut off from connection to standard internet.

This exists for the soul reason for not spreading panic. Which is retarded because I can guarantee you people will flip the fuck out if the internet doesn't exist. Imagine G-20 times 20.

[dySWN]

At 10/14/09 11:09 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Not exactly my favorite bill, but if the Patriot act didn't get Bush beaten on by a long line of irritated citizens with rubber mallets this isn't even going to make us blink.

But, if I recall directly, it did get him beat up = albeit at the polls rather than with sticks.

[dudewithashotgun29]

its meh interwebs, the government shouldnt take it from we when they seem it is "Necessary". Its just another thing that the government could use to become more powerful. The internet is a way to keep everyone connected throughout the world, and it could be used to help shut down communications in the U.S. to help curve the amount of information spreading through the U.S.

[BillyTh3Kid]

No more "to catch a predator" shows, all those pedos will be to scared to go into chat rooms.

[polym]

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/interne t-access-denied/

"The email is incorrect that the state of emergency allows the shut down of all private internet traffic," Granick told us in an e-mail."It allows the shut down of federal or critical infrastructure networks." This could include some private networks, Granick said, but they would have to be outlined as "critical infrastructure" in advance. "So the email is right that this could be unbelievably broad, but wrong that it targets all private traffic, specific websites or email senders."

[Warforger]

At 10/14/09 09:43 PM, darkrchaos wrote: I don't like the idea of the bill. we're losing all are private-see. sooner or later there will camera following us around, and the government will say, it to protect u... Can't we protect ourselves? we're not kids we can take care of ourselves.

Totally. If an armed robbery happens the people should deal with it themselves. If a country invades the army should ignore it and let the people deal with it.

This is only in a emergency, which is also why we have Marshal Law.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 10/24/09 10:54 AM, polym wrote: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/interne t-access-denied/

"The email is incorrect that the state of emergency allows the shut down of all private internet traffic," Granick told us in an e-mail."It allows the shut down of federal or critical infrastructure networks." This could include some private networks, Granick said, but they would have to be outlined as "critical infrastructure" in advance. "So the email is right that this could be unbelievably broad, but wrong that it targets all private traffic, specific websites or email senders."

If that is really the case then he should already have the power to do so. Saying something is critical is a bit misleading as well. If they think it's critical to stop the flow of panic, or ideas, they could use the bill to do exactly what they claim won't happen.