Current Article

Disturbing: Do you want Obama controlling your Internet access?

By SusanUnPC on April 4, 2009 at 1:45 AM in Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Commerce, Current Affairs, Cyber Attacks, President Barack Obama, Terrorism

Truthteller sent me this shocking story in Mother Jones, one of the growing number of intelligent left-leaning publications questioning Obama and his “unitary executive” power grab that exceeds that of George W. Bush, if that were possible. READ “Should Obama Control the Internet?” (“A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.”). Let us all contact our senators and representatives. There is NO way that President Obama or the Secretary of Commerce should have UNILATERAL POWER to halt or access our Internet reception and data, even during crises (with very narrow exceptions, e.g., if I’m Osama bin Laden). And I do want to hear Larry Johnson’s thoughts on this. Here comes Big Brother:

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. [MORE BELOW.]

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.” …

I can’t quote the entire article, but wish I could. So please READ “Should Obama Control the Internet?” (A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.).

And let us all contact our senators and representatives.

This bill strikes me as not only a threat to privacy and the free flow of information but also as exceedingly CLUMSY and CRUDE. Surely the specific targets of investigations can have their service interrupted through cooperating ISPs. But all of us? No. No way in hell. You and I are no threat to the U.S., and we count on our free flow of information to innocently communicate with each other.

There are already odd disruptions in communications amongst the members of our writers’ list, which I’ve noticed in the past when I was a list “mommy” for a group of people opposed to whaling, who the feds, rather ridiculously, thought might be a threat.

It’s notable that our new Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke — who would be granted this sweeping authority — was governor of the state of Washington during the anti-whaling protests (for which I was only a list “mommy” and, because they bore me to tears and I figured that photographs would be taken that would lump us all together as “threats,” I didn’t attend any protests. Then-governor Locke bought the media hype that the anti-whaling protestors were such a dangerous threat that he called out the National Guard. The NATIONAL GUARD! That was a great surprise to the couple dozen aging hippies who held signs about 15 miles from the whaling operation. In other words, he’s an excitable sort and a square who didn’t get the distinction between the hype about anti-whaling protests and who the real protestors were. We don’t want him to have this massive power.

kudos383

Damn I wish we could ever get him outta office here.
TexasMirth

This fills me with despair. The Obama Administration is determined to insert its tentacles into every area of American life. Big Brother, yes, indeed.
http://www.hillaryorbust.com Hillary or Bust

I am reminded of a plan I heard years ago whereby people could create their own “Internet” via peer-to-peer wifi. It would bypass the need for wires and cables…and it would be beyond government control.

I feel confident that the genius computer geeks who created the Internet will find a way to keep it going even if tyrannical forces try to shut it down.

elise

My husband knows how to do that with a dish on the roof, but it will just go to neighborhood. But, then it can pass from one neighborhood to another. Sort of an Underground Newspaper.

http://www.hillaryorbust.com Hillary or Bust

Exactly!

elise

I wondered how long it would take to get around to the Internet. Funny how little Mother Jones complained about the FISA court being abused and how many stupid bots have made stupid excuses for that vote. Do you remember a few years back Sen. Rockefeller, the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, made the statement he knew the intelligence on Iraq was cherry picked by the administration, but couldn’t tell the American people because of his position? He didn’t have enough integrity to risk his job to be truthful with those who elected him and the rest of the country. He also made sure the FISA bill got through his committee and to the floor of the Senate where Obama voted for it and a few days later, he endorsed Obama. He and Obama both received campaign donations from AT&T and Verizon. What passes for ethics in Washington? I hope BO supporters know they will be caught up in this data mining and fishing expedition. Thanks Susan.

cynic

I’ve assumed that all internet and e-mail traffic has been monitored by the NSA for the past year, at least.

When AT&T’s San Francisco Room 641A first went into use is unknown. Its existence became public knowledge in 2006, but plans were evidently drawn up as early as 2002. All optical cable traffic is mirrored by using a beam splitter, which allows a duplicate stream to be redirected. A PBS report a couple of nights ago suggested there may now be as many as 30 such installations–more than enough to monitor all digitalized traffic, both voice and non-voice. If they have the capability, you know they’re using it.

The article linked below caught my attention a year ago January. It occurred to me then that in all probability something was being revealed–not contemplated. Somewhere there’s probably one of those secret Presidental Directives.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/feds-must-exami.html

elise

This is the way it’s being done, cynic. Ani mentioned above the book by Naomi Klien, Shock Doctrine: The Economics of Disaster. Begin with a concept which can be used to instill fear, build on it, hammer it into the heads of voting public and after you have convinced them of the necessity, so what you want. It’s always the Big Lie. Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda came up with the idea to use it in Germany. Goebbels said, “If you repeat a lie long enough and often enough, it is excepted as truth.” But the idea has been around longer than Nazi Germany. The idea is being re-introduced now about cyberspace being a dangerous tool, claiming someone in China is hacking computers in Europe. It’s the prelude to more rules on the Internet and more warrantless eavesdropping. Anyone who believes this mined data will only be used to catch terrorist hasn’t paid attention to history. The media is owned by conglomerates for the most part and newspapers which have provided news for more than a century are closing shop. There is too much tunnel vision. Even if you trust Obama (which I don’t) he will not be president forever and who ever follows him will have the same power and will probably expand them more because that’s the way power is. There is never enough of it.

cynic

The reasons we should all be very concerned about internet monitoring and any capability to shut down or seize control of portions of the internet are obvious. There’s a fundamental dilemma, of course: Vulnerability to clandestine monitoring and seizue of control are inherent in digital information and communication systems by their very nature. Any sufficiently sophisticated and well-funded organization with internet access has the ability to exploit that fact.

We’ve recently discovered that unknown parties in China–or at least operating through China–have utilized GhostNet to access computer systems world wide, and were able not only to download files but to turn on and off webcams and microphones undetected; we’ve learned that Google, which we all know and love, has maintained full, identifiable histories of every Google Search we have ever made; we’ve come to understand that everything from the national power grid to a single New York City traffic signal is theoretically vulnerable to cyber-attack.

Obviously the government needs the capability to counter the threat that’s inherent in the system. The dilemma is how it can be empowered to do that effectively without becoming an even greater threat itself. Administrations we trust or distrust come and go. New powers and capabilities remain, however, and become available to whoever is next to take the driver’s seat.

Ferd Berfle

I’ve assumed that all internet and e-mail traffic has been monitored by the NSA for the past year, at least.

And is more than likely still being monitored. So much for hope and change. Monitoring: Bush bad; That One good.

Fortunately I have more than one computer and maintain only one on-line. That One/Whoever can’t monitor what they can’t make a connection to.

ME

And us real classical liberals you weeny leftists call “conservatives” have been warning you of the Dem Party and Obama as it has become the most evil ever…you mocked us, hated us, maligned us. We saw it coming…and you thought Bush was bad! You spent all that time being led by the nose by the fascusts in the media and the Party against us “conservatives”…made to focus on the stupid things Bush was doing when the real threat was mounting against us all.

You thought you knew better…so now you will have to live with the result of your ignorance, and naivite…and the result of ostracizing the only people who tried to help you. God Please don’t abondon us in our time of need! Please wake all the people up…..

You people obviously don’t have a clue about the true meaning of Fascism…you’re about to find out.

PS: at least go to the Tea Party in your area on the 15th of April.

FLDemFem

Bush and Cheney are the ones who started us down this road with their “Unitary Executive” power grab. If that weren’t already in place, thanks to Bush, then Obummer wouldn’t have that power base to build on. Thanks a lot. Some “conservatives” you turned out to be!!

Ferd Berfle

Why do you continue to blather? This site and the regulars have been against That One since the beginning. In addition, we knew that the Dick and George show should have been cancelled after the first episode.

Ferd Berfle

Sorry, FL, that was meant for the troll “Me”.

Solara 7

ME are you sure you are at the right place???? No Quarter has always been concerned about ultra liberals and an Obama presidency.

I think you belong at MYDD or Kos or Huffipoo rather than here. Please…

KintheNorthwest

Obama is becoming everyone’s worse nightmare–Even for the majority who voted for him.
TeakwoodKite

SusunUnPC, this act would codify in law what has been occuring since before 911.

It is beyond belief that the DOJ can’t a FISA warrent or NSL for any investigation they choose. These two Senators are sick puppies.

The day the music died. Can anyone please tell me how to make any disctinction between China or North Korea and the US if this passes?

No internet? No email, no ecommerce? NO blackberry ot VOIP? This would be like someone fired off an EMP.

You think Rockerfellr ever got to the bottom of who it was that hacked the “new” shuttle engine designs from a contractors computer at NASA, several years back? NO! billions in RD up in smoke.

Good catch Truthteller.

http://www.hillaryorbust.com Hillary or Bust

So many people rely on the Internet for their livelihoods…

I see how people freak out when their webhost goes down for a few hours. Can you imagine what might happen if the Internet gets shut off for days on end? Massive rioting and unrest, that’s what.

heather

I dunno. Maybe if it shut down my husband’s crackberry, I might go along with it because I would be so dazzled by getting some eye contact. That, and if anyone can figure out how to bamboozle the bluetooth that I stupidly got him so that he could at least be a little bit useful while he’s talking. Seriously. My children call it the lifesucker. It’s worse than that.

More on topic, this worries me because I have stopped reading newspapers or watching the news for my information. I can not and will not rely on the people who led ignorant Americans down the path to the election of Mr. Obama. Removing my access to the internet (and sites like this) would leave me only the television to rely upon for my information, and at that point, I may as well just drink the kool-aid and go quietly.
Tess

…and probably a baby boom 9 months later…

AF catfish

Great, there goes my job. This is insane.
devildog666

Like this is a surprise? Anyone who read Obama’s books and read what was available on his brief life could see what this guy is. I used to hope he was just a Marxist, then a Leninist, but if you really follow what he’s doing you can see he is following The National Socialist (Hitler) guidelines almost to a tee.
Kiss the 1st, 2nd and 22nd amendments goodbye.

http://donnadarko.wordpress.com donna darko

You’re right, Obama is a fascist not a Marxist for what has he done for the people? He has not given us health care or funded any programs but has given all the money to banks. PUMAs predicted this all along.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism

Fascists considered the economy to be of little importance, and did not have clear economic views. One significant fascist economic belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening. Often, different members of a fascist party would make completely opposite statements about the economic policies they supported. Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals.

The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism. They favoured corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial.

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

Fascism operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote allegedly superior individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because “the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise… Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social.” Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.

In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade; fascists believed that too much international trade would make the national economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments.

Fascism was highly militaristic, and as such, fascists often significantly increased military spending.

kat in your hat

What will Oblow be called if suddenly there is healthcare and programs funded?

What would it take before you change your mind about Oblow being a neocon/ fascist/ corporatist, etc?

And what will he be called when his actions appear to be both marxist and fascist simultaneously?

Or will he just be an authoritarian dictator…? Or what?

The man has only been in office for a few months.

http://donnadarko.wordpress.com donna darko

The right thinks he’s a communist and the left thinks he’s a fascist. But like the definition of fascist economics says, Obama makes completely opposite statements about economic policies:

Fascists considered the economy to be of little importance, and did not have clear economic views. One significant fascist economic belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening. Often, different members of a fascist party would make completely opposite statements about the economic policies they supported. Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals.

The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism. They favoured corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial.

http://www.sonicninjakitty.wordpress.com Sonic Ninja Kitty

The one thing fascism and socialism/communism have in common: they are both centralized forms of government. Power and liberties are removed from the individual and placed with the state.

Call it whatever you will, but the direction Obama is taking the government is towards more a authoritarian, totalitarian state.

http://donnadarko.wordpress.com donna darko

Exactly. PUMAs know from the way he ran his campaign he is a totalitarian.

DAB

Another left-leaning magazine, Utne Reader has run a series of articles about the dangers of an Imperial Presidency. One article is entitled “Presidential Power to the People” and the following excerpt is from “Supreme Warlord of the Earth.” (Go to utne.com and type in these titles or just “Imperial Presidency” to access full article availability.

“The United States appears to be stuck with an imperial presidency, an office that concentrates enormous power in the hands of whichever professional politician manages to claw his way to the top. Americans appear deeply ambivalent about the results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot. But executive power will continue to grow, and threats to civil liberties increase, until citizens reconsider the incentives we have given to a post that started out so humbly.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. The modern vision of the presidency couldn’t be further from the view of the chief executive’s role held by the framers of the Constitution. In an age long before distrust of power was condemned as cynicism, the founding fathers designed a presidency of modest authority and limited responsibilities. The Constitution’s architects never conceived of the president as the person in charge of national destiny. They worked amid the living memory of monarchy, and for them the very notion of “national leadership” raised the possibility of authoritarian rule by a demagogue ready to create an atmosphere of crisis in order to enhance his power.”
Elizabeth

There is NO way that President Obama or the Secretary of Commerce should have UNILATERAL POWER to halt or access our Internet reception and data, even during crises (with very narrow exceptions, e.g., if I’m Osama bin Laden).

If bin Laden were on the brink of launching a cyber attack that threatened to otherwise paralyze or hack into significant portions of the network, maybe. But the American people are not going to accept a takeover of the entire civilian side simply to prevent potential terrorist communications. It’s a ridiculous bill that will never pass as currently written.

lorac

But according to the theory, once you achieve enough of an economic shambles, the people are so desperate, they’ll accept what the government offers up. (And of course, more and more people will be having to cut off their internet access to save money, so rules like this would be less of a priority to them.)

FLDemFem

That bill is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Perhaps we can send Rockefeller some copies of this Amendment, or better yet, a copy of the entire Constitution. He seems in need of one.

politicalidentitycrisis

Our congress threw out the constitution a long time ago! They just didn’t hold a news conference about it.
JozefAL

But, according to the hardcore conservatives who call themselves “strict constructionists”, the First Amendment does NOT apply to things like radio, television or the internet since they didn’t exist during the time of the Founding Fathers.
Maybe we should also send copies of the Constitution to the 4 living jackasses at the Supreme Court who put Dubya into office in 2000. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that even refers to the Supreme Court being involved in the election of the President. Nothing that even remotely IMPLIES such action.

(Talk about an eerie coincidence: I tried posting this a few minutes ago but my internet connection was briefly disrupted and, even though I never lost *full* connection, I couldn’t get this to post nor could I make a connection with other websites.)

I’m a Linda too

OUTRAGEOUS. But OUTRAGEOUS CONTROL AND LIMITS is exactly what I predicted from Obama.

I said this many times last year that he would not be giving a “free internet” which is also why he changed his position on telecomm immunity.

Gee, Obama, I really wish you wouldn’t be proving me right all the time and so quickly.
oowawa

Controlling the internet? Hey–here’s a cool idea for another round-robin tournament: Sites Most Likely to be Shut Down By Executive Order During an Emergency. I give No Quarter a number one seed. Off the top of my head, Confluence, Reverend Amy, Texas Darlin’, Uppity Woman, Flopping Aces, Market Ticker, Obamamessiah, you’re all IN. I’m afraid Huff-Po and DK are out of the running.

Ferd Berfle

That would be a good one, for sure.
http://ksclematis ksclematis

Don’t forget ‘toonist Pat Racimora…She has very timely and thought challenging articles on NQ.

penguin

How could Americans not see this coming! With the exception of no quarter readers that is.
http://ksclematis ksclematis

Two thoughts:
Since the gross use of the Inernet for news has caused the failure and collapse, not to mention bankruptcy, of a number of large-city newspapers, and IF the ‘givernment’ closes down the Internet, who will warn us to get duct tape and sheet plastic to surround our living space safe from nucUlar fallout???? (Egads, after 8 looooonng years, GW never did learn to pronounce that word!)

Some federal lawmakers need to bump heads and get the current provision outlawed, which now gives the prez full authority to close down the entire country. Heaven forbid! But who knows what the Idiobots have on their pea brains….

Oh, yes, how did BO use the Internet to collect his campaign funds, entice prospective voters to believe in Hope and Change???
Ross wolf

NSA Illegally Wiretapped Your Phone, Fax and Private Email Communications? Now Your Internet?

In 2008 Telecoms were granted government immunity after they helped U.S. Government spy on millions of Americans’ electronic communications. Since, Government has not disclosed what happened to NSA’s millions of collected emails, faxes and phone call information that belong to U.S. Citizens? Could those wiretaps perhaps illegal, become a problem for some Americans? Neither Congress nor the courts—determined what NSA electronic surveillance could be used by police or introduced into court by the government to prosecute Citizens.

In 2004, former Attorney General John Ashcroft asked government prosecutors to review thousands of old intelligence files including wiretaps to retrieve information prosecutors could use in “ordinary” criminal prosecutions. That was shortly after a court case lowered a barrier that prior, blocked prosecutors from using illegal-wire tap evidence in Justice Dept. “Intelligence Files” to prosecute ordinary crimes. It would appear this information, may also be used by government to prosecute civil asset forfeitures.
See: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5452 

Considering that court case, it appears NSA can share its electronic-domestic-spying with government contractors and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate the arrest and forfeiture of Americans’ property—-to keep part of the bounty. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax, phone call or web post out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture.

There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. In the U.S., private contractors and their operatives, work so close with police exchanging information, to arrest Americans and or share in the forfeiture of their assets, they appear to merge with police.

Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. With such a weak statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to NSA and other government wiretaps perhaps illegal and Citizens’ private information U.S. Government agencies glean monitoring the Internet, to arrest Americans and to seize their homes, inheritances and businesses under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police and government contractors become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to pay their salaries and operating costs?

Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses including government contractors can be kept hidden while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited. The Patriot Act specifically mentions using Title 18USC asset forfeiture laws: those laws include a provision in Rep. Henry Hyde’s 2000 bill HR 1658—for “retroactive civil asset forfeiture” of “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning “property already tainted by crime” provided “the property” was already part of or “later connected” to a criminal investigation in progress” when HR.1658 passed. That can apply to more than two hundred federal laws and violations.

Alarmingly the Obama Government recently employed a vendor to search Internet social networking sites to collect information about Americans that could potentially be used by this government to injure Americans, for example, if you apply for a federal job, your name might be crossed referenced by the Obama Government with comments you made at Websites against Obama; or if you make application at a bank for a loan the Government has control since the financial crisis, could your Internet comment(s) prevent you getting that loan? Obama’s monitoring of the Internet sites can too easily be used by Government to intimidate Citizens from speaking out.