Well, THIS Explains Everything!
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on August 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM in Censorship, Civil Liberties, Congress (House & Senate), Crime, Current Affairs, Cyber Attacks, Flip Flopping, Freedom of Speech, Homeland Security, National Security, President Barack Obama
When I saw this at The Onion, I thought this was mighty plausible. Make sure you read the crawl at the bottom - even as a die-hard Yankees fan, I thought the first one was funny:
White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase
See?? Doesn’t that make everything make more sense? It sure does for me…
But what isn’t a joke is this recent revelation: “Bill Would Give President Emergency Control Of Internet” (h/t to Mary Ellen, aka, Nunly, for this). Yep, you read that right - Obama wants to be able to control the “internets” when he deems it necessary. Oh, I WISH this was an Onion piece too, but no:
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.
Isn’t this just such a comfort to you? Yeah, me, too:
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.
The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.
Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (”Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)
“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”
Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.
The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity (sic) perspective.”
Uh huh. Um, does it bother anyone else - besides us, that is - that Obama is the biggest micromanager on the face of the planet, especially since he is the most inexperienced leader on the face of the planet? Hey, I’m just asking here…
One last thing:
Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.
Unfortunately, I’m still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I’ll let you know if and when I get a response.
Oh, yippee!! Doesn’t the thought of Obama taking over the internet make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?? I know it does me. I just hope it doesn’t happen when he has one of his mood swings…
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
LOL!!! Too funny! Now we understand.
(I guess the Red Sox Nation will be pissed about that deal.)
some SERIOUS snickering going on here (sounds a bit sinister)
s n i c k e r squared
Rev. Amy got puppies yet?
There is and never has been any privacy on the internet, or shall I scrape the cookies from your machine and see where you go or examine the meta data in your emails and see with whom you communicate with? This is being done 24/7 by the NSA. Is it a violation of our constituional rights? Yes and No.
From a Richard Clarke article date May 8 2009 at “Huffing glue”
.
I have always felt that no matther what one does on the internet, it can be discovered by someone who wants to know. Thus, the need to be careful always on the internet.
I guess I just took the stance that if I wasn’t breaking laws, they could come after me and I would have protection under the law.
What frightens me to most is that I fear there is now very little concern about the law in government offices. The attitude is that the law is what we (govt.–those in charge at any point in time) want it to be.
I will also be concerned when we no longer have access to the internet–seems to be that is where this is heading.
I hear ya - and yes, I would rather err on the side of caution.
But the sense that our gov’t officials have a “devil may care” attitude abt the very laws they enact is problematic, to be sure…
Teak, I don’t need any more pups!! We have three dogs, 4 cats, and 1 horse. I think that’s plenty, don’t you?
(I have to admit, though, that when a friend sent a photo of a 3 yr old chocolate lab, and a 3 yr old yellow lab who need homes immediately, it sure did tug at my heart strings!)
I guess I just took the stance that if I wasn’t breaking laws, they could come after me and I would have protection under the law.
That is a VERY dangerous road Diana. No?
@Rev. Amy, I just thought puppies heal the heart.
You thought you were protected under the law?? Well, maybe at ONE point you were…(That is all snark, btw!)
LOL - true enough, Teakwoodkite - they sure do heal the heart. Thankfully, my animals are mighty affectionate, which sure helps (my cat, Punkin’keeps climbing all over my lap cuddling, so if there end up being any weird typos, I swear it’s her!).
And Teak, thanks for thinking of me. It’s hard to believe it’s been almost two weeks (I assume you are talking abt our recent loss). It is still hard to write/talk abt Sweetie, and the house seems very different without her (sometimes when our dog, Sasha, is getting up or I catch a glimpse of her, I think it’s Sweetie).
So, yeah - puppies would help - but then I’d be too tempted to KEEP one (after we just found homes for Lucy’s 7)!
OMG! LMAO! I personally thought he had NPD, but yes. Some form of mental issue does seem correct! Love that video!
The best part? Obama shuts himself off from people who remind him what a fraud he is! I wish that could happen in real life, then none of us would ever have to see him! haha.
Yet, we can’t know, unequivocally proven, any of Obama’s background. Ironic, isn’t it?
Indeed it is, Buzz!
And OSMC, yes, a thousand times, yes, it would be GREAT if we didn’t have to see him even once a day. How overexposed can one guy be??
Indeed,I would imagine his knowing what a fraud he is and fearing others will figure it out (I mean besides us here) probably IS depressing to him.
I love The Onion - what funny, sassy people they are!
I was looking forward to Obama’s vacation as much as he was because I hoped he would give us a break from his omnipresence, but there was more of him than anticipated — and the week went by so quickly.
Here’s to hoping that Obama’s 15 minutes of fame are up. He’s on tv every single day. Does this guy ever sit in the oval office to do any work? He’s always in front of the cameras: tv cameras, posing for pics for magazines.
I don’t know if it was a poster here, but someone said that when they see Obama on tv being introduced as PRESIDENT Obama, it feels like an SNL skit.
I went to the mall this evening, thankful to be away from the “Teddy fest” on TV and saw a booth filled with Obama belt buckles. Tackiest things I’ve ever seen! There is no escaping The One.
It’s not like we can see his medical records.
There was rumor last year that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger. We will never know because his numerous records are sealed.
Yes, they have already taken social networking site like Twitter away from our military. They don’t want them to know just how bad it is getting here and other things like it will undermine the moral of our men and women there and families here.
They know that citizen journalists are more popular than the MSM and they wish to hide what they are doing.
Here is one for the good guys in Nevada, lets hope on lives in every state.
SHERMAN FREDERICK: Enough is enough, Harry
Stop the childish bullying
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/56171937.html
Wow - this is a great read! Thanks for posting this link. That’s the beauty of the town halls, too: once these Congresspeople have to start dealing with real people whose actions are affected by what they do, instead of just interacting with each other in the rarified atmosphere of Washington and with the talking heads on TV, the s— will hit the fan.
Instead of “Give ‘em hell, Harry” we now have “Give Harry hell,” as in the article: a phrase I’m likin’ a whole lot better!
Dang!! Good for them! Thanks, tzada!
Oh I was surprised to see a newspaper come out so strong. Maybe things are turning. You are both welcome.
Wow amy look at this. From the lefty wingers at AOL
FTC Plans to Study Journalism’s Woes — and That’s a Problem
more……
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/28/the-ftc-wants-to-study-the-media/
I feel a bit sorry for Reid cause I don’t believe him to be an Idealog. He has just figured out that he is a pawn in Obama’s power game and is taking out his frustration on the American People (evil mongers) and the Las Vegas Review Journal. It would seem to me that if Harry doesn’t want to bring up this bill up for a vote he doesn’t have to. Why all the angst Harry? If you’re going to get voted out anyway — then why not stand up for the people?
Wow, the article has 2887 Reader Comments, I bet that’s a record for that paper.
This bill is about shutting down access. It is blatantly and unmitigatedly unconstitutional.
Where is the judicial system on this issue? Why is this administration/Congress (and the previous one) allowed to get away with so many violations of our Constitution? (Even considering this bill is a slap in the face of Liberty.)
Crisis and Leviathan–government always creates fear and/or crises and uses the opportunity to seize more power. Either we stand up to it, make a ruckus, and cling to our rights with all our might, or we hand them over to our overlords on a silver platter.
Did you see the poll where they are asking people if they think the government should mandate circumcision? Something like 78% thought it was a bad idea. Gee I wonder why?
I find it gone now, but maybe it is just hiding.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/
I saw that headline, tzada - that they were thinking abt mandating circumcision. Holy toledo - WHERE would all of this end??
And your link to the AOL article on the FTC wanting to take a closer look into journalism is astonishing. If Bush had suggested this, I think we can all imagine the fireworks that would have, rightly, erupted.
That is one of my major frustrations with the Dems (along with all of the other stuff you already know) is that when they have the chance, they act EXACTLY like the Reps against whom they had been screaming. Just because they want to do it now doesn’t make it right - it makes it hypocritical at the very, very least…
“Mandate”?!?! The fact that this is even in the public discourse is disturbing!!!
Next we’ll be allowing them to implant chips in our necks–with our social security numbers, of course.
Okay, how about this? The government can mandate circumcision part of its comprehensive health insurance reform bill as long as these are performed by a licensed moyel (of the parent’s choice; and the billing code for the procedure includes the word, “bris” (or a reasonable facsimile).
How about a tattoo with our Social Security numbers on our arms? Nah been done.
I have to ask, male or female? (large snark)
You think there are enough doctors to give everyone a circumcision? The Obama ad campaign could be titled. GOOD WITH AN AXE?
It seems to me that instead of mandating circumcisions, which is choice best left to parents, we should mandate lobotomies for all bots. Oh, they’ve already had them. Silly me–never mind.
Thank you for posting this. I have been emailing about this many many months ago and it was silent. Thankfully the big guys started talking about it to get attention.
Oh yes, so good to know Obama is fully supportive of this. A president that has powers to protect America and Americans is not the same as seizing control of communications/press and personal communications and financial interests…ie the INTERNET.
Gee, hObama really does want to be Stalin Hitler
Now if Obama could just shut down all opposition then everyone would love him and his poll numbers would go up. Nice paranoid fantasy but WRONG
LMAO. That is an oxymoron. The internet isn’t truly securable because the government doesn’t own it and professional is the last term I would use to describe those who should be actually manning a helpless desk in a dimly lit room, performing a useful SERVICE such as maintaining what they are currently in control of. These are the sorts like those I have to deal with at work who spend countless hours monitoring internet activity but fail to actually keep the company intranet from terminal bogging down. They can tell the bean counters every single keystroke made but can’t keep a server running for 24 hours in a row. So they put all this crap in place only to discover that, because they didn’t actually test their little spybots, the drives where we are supposed to maintain all our documentation is always down because the program can’t discern intranet from internet. And the kicker is that we NEED to constantly access the Internet to perform our multi-company, multi-agency jobs.
Cyber-security, like Homeland Security is a two-letter word for another bloated government fiefdom. If these bozos want to control the internet, they can have it. I’ll go back to writing letters via snail mail. Since they’re too physically lazy to actually get the necessary paperwork to intercept my mail and too intellectually compromised to understand the Queen’s English written therein, I’ll be completely safe. These control freaks aren’t smart enough NOT to telegraph their silly intentions, which only goes to demonstrate that enabling the terminally stupid to make policy is no way to run a country.
Wow Ferd–then I guess you won’t be standing at attention and saluting the new Cyber-Security-Czar . . .
Hmmmm–think of all the new jobs that will open up under the CS Czar! I’m sure the Virus Comissar will need a small army of cheeto-munchers to keep us safe, as will the Trojan Horse Commissioner, the File-Sharing Gestapo, the Porno Politburo, the Spam Licensing Board, and of course the Blog Bureaucracy. Make America Cyber-Safe!
A couple of weeks ago Obama wanted laws to force people to eat properly. Now he wants every male to have a circumcision. Is this what an administration needs to concern itself with? North Korea was shipping Nuclear material to Iran till the Emirates stopped them but Obama is only concerned with penis length.
Then of course there is an economy in free fall–oh yeah that’s Bush’s fault. CHANGE IN 10
Details, details!!!
Ahem.
And yes, you’d think there would be more important issues on Obama’s plate. Thank heavens Hilalry is there to do the heavy lifting…
Oh, and Ferd, we’d come visit you in prison after you failed to salute the CS czar, but then we’d get tossed in there for, well, nothing, really, because Obama believes in “Prolonged Detention” without actually having to CHARGE us with a crime…I think we’ll just be mailing you some care packages. If the Post Office is still operational, that is.
2 Samuel 3:14 “And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul’s son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.”
So there is lots of biblical precedent for a King recognizing the value of this commodity. Let’s allow Thee One to mandate whatever He deems is righteous and just!
100 ? Now that is a “two state” solution!
LOL Teak–I just noticed that King David’s wife “Michal” didn’t come cheap–a real trophy wife at 100 foreskins! I wonder what “Michal” would cost in today’s market. I think the price of foreskins might have gone down through the centuries. I know there was a punk band called “The 4 Skins” who would play for a six-pack of beer.
I assume he’ll need to appoint a Circumcision Czar to supervise this campaign.
HE is the Circumcision Czar, in so many ways.
LOL - good one!
I guess because he was an only child, he’s always longed to be “Big Brother”…
Of course Mr. Sinclair can tell confirm if he is or not, Rev Amy, since the Senate is now irrelevant.
Good one oowawa.
look obama couldn’t buy a house within his range and couldn’t just do it the old fashioned way you know make loan app like joe six pack and then wait for the results. naw, he had to fix the sytem. this is the guy we want to straighten out our housing mess? please.
RRRA, that video is a riot! Seriously though, can all this be true?
And what’s this about possible mandatory circumcision? Does the administration view the US as a Third World country? No wonder the POTUS is down to 47% approval in the latest Rasmussen poll. This adds new meaning to the expression “stimulus package”.