Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Should Obama Control the Internet?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should Obama control the internet?
Yes, it is needed to protect against security threats
11%
 11%  [ 2 ]
No, transparency and the free flow of information are the best guarantee of security
72%
 72%  [ 13 ]
Other (explain below)
16%
 16%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 18

Author Message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:21 pm    Post subject: Should Obama Control the Internet? Reply with quote

After all, he is the Obamessiah, right?

Should Obama Control the Internet?

A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.

�By Steve Aquino

Thu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST



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.


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."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."


Last edited by bacasper on Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Basically, yes he should.

We can only hope that Congress can write a final bill that responsibly handles the security issues involved. It's much better to deal with this now when there is no emergency and the various issues can be addressed rationally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmbfan



Joined: 09 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

never mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmbfan wrote:
never mind.

Never had one?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmbfan



Joined: 09 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Never had one?



LOL! Not in the sense mental midgets like you would see it.


dmbfan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DorkothyParker



Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: Jeju

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Frack.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmbfan



Joined: 09 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shocked
Quote:
Frack.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Intolerable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Basically, yes he should.

We can only hope that Congress can write a final bill that responsibly handles the security issues involved. It's much better to deal with this now when there is no emergency and the various issues can be addressed rationally.


I know you're a bit of a Democrat true believer, and that is fine. But you need to know that eventually the Republicans will run the show again. If the question was "Should Sarah Palin run the internet" would you still say yes?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris2007



Joined: 20 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Basically, yes he should.

We can only hope that Congress can write a final bill that responsibly handles the security issues involved. It's much better to deal with this now when there is no emergency and the various issues can be addressed rationally.



I'm sure you feel the same way about wiretapping. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I voted other.

First of all, the poll is misleading. This is not about the President controlling the internet. He'll have no power over viewpoint or even content expression. We're talking about emergency powers over certain sectors of the internet.

A few issues that haven't been mentioned:

a) the US administers the internet; the UN has called for it to be transferred to their control, but generally the US has done such a great job with absorbing the costs and allowing the free flow of information, that it upsets only the most anti-Americans that the US administers the internet. However, any act that would shut down the internet would raise the issue: should the US gov't have such control over the internet? The more heavyhanded the US is, the less likely the world will acquiesce to their administration

b) cyberterrorism is no small threat. The Chinese are said to have interrupted major US gov't servers on more than a single occasion. Moreover, the US gov't is heavily reliant on the internet, as is the private sector. Does anyone remember the earthquake in Taiwan that shut down the internet in China and parts of SE Asia as well? That was bad.

c) the law as it stands definitely leaves much to be desired. Personally, I do not think so much power should be given to the administration without defining the status quo; what is an emergency and what is the Executive power over the internet normally?

Its a tough and important issue, and I've come up with no easy resolution for this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
I voted other.

First of all, the poll is misleading. This is not about the President controlling the internet. He'll have no power over viewpoint or even content expression. We're talking about emergency powers over certain sectors of the internet.

Yes, but I don't think anyone takes it to literally mean that B. Obama will be at a computer all day watching the internet traffic.

Quote:

b) cyberterrorism is no small threat. The Chinese are said to have interrupted major US gov't servers on more than a single occasion. Moreover, the US gov't is heavily reliant on the internet, as is the private sector. Does anyone remember the earthquake in Taiwan that shut down the internet in China and parts of SE Asia as well? That was bad.

You mean, my government and Defense Department and all the others don't have an alternative way of communicating? I don't mean to sound Luddite, couldn't we, at worst, do things the way we did in the early 90's, i.e. pre-internet?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:

Quote:

b) cyberterrorism is no small threat. The Chinese are said to have interrupted major US gov't servers on more than a single occasion. Moreover, the US gov't is heavily reliant on the internet, as is the private sector. Does anyone remember the earthquake in Taiwan that shut down the internet in China and parts of SE Asia as well? That was bad.


You mean, my government and Defense Department and all the others don't have an alternative way of communicating? I don't mean to sound Luddite, couldn't we, at worst, do things the way we did in the early 90's, i.e. pre-internet?


Bacasper,

Like I said, I haven't at all made up my mind on this. But the Pentagon has electronic vulnerabilities. We're talking about a massive military-industrial complex losing its most vital information tool. In the case of an emergency, which would you rather have at your disposal, the internet or a phone switchboard?

This is the military we're talking about; you might as well be asking, "couldn't we, at worst, do things the way we did in the past, where we use hand-held weapons at medium-range, rather than employing state-of-the-art military tech?"

Why wouldn't we publicly discuss protecting our vulnerabilities. Remember, bacasper, this debate is going on in the open, and for that I am extremely gratified. Under the last administration that may not have been the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mises wrote:
Ya-ta Boy wrote:
Basically, yes he should.

We can only hope that Congress can write a final bill that responsibly handles the security issues involved. It's much better to deal with this now when there is no emergency and the various issues can be addressed rationally.


I know you're a bit of a Democrat true believer, and that is fine. But you need to know that eventually the Republicans will run the show again. If the question was "Should Sarah Palin run the internet" would you still say yes?


You're trying your best to ruin my Sunday morning, aren't you?

A point that I guess I didn't make clearly enough is that in an emergency the president will use any tools at hand to handle it and these days that includes the internet. It's far better to calmly work out just what constitutes an emergency and what a president can and cannot do. The Founders understood that you cannot prevent power from existing; you can seek ways to control and direct it into the safest channels.

PS: You're a Canadian--where'd you come up with the Republican way of using the noun Democrat as if it were an adjective? You sound like Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms.

PPS: When I said 'yes' above, I was not specifically referring to Obama, even though the OP framed it that way. I was thinking more in terms of the presidency as an institution, not a person. 'Salute the uniform, not the man' if you will.

PPPS: I'm going to ignore the Sarah Palin crack. The Party of Secession is not going to make her president. Her presidential prospects are getting dimmer by the day. The future of her party is looking dimmer by the day. The GOP may well be only a third party now. If the Libertarians can come up with a charismatic leader (who can avoid the wingnuts), they have a shot at becoming the new major party.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
moosehead



Joined: 05 May 2007

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:05 am    Post subject: Re: Should Obama Control the Internet? Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:


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.[/b]



seems Sen. Rockefeller has more to worry about w/the growing protests over mountaintop removal in his neck of the woods. this appears to be good ol' smoke and mirrors to take away from the controversy between the coal companies and the citizens.

see http://wvhighlands.org/wv_voice/?page_id=155

http://endmtr.com/2008/06/09/brushy-fork-sludge-impoundment/

http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/coal-destroys-mountains


this one has good pix:

http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio217/2005/seanb/conclusion.html


the CIA controls the internet, btw. it was originally designed to thwart a nuclear strike that would take out all of the U.S.'s nuclear weapons at once. yes, that's what the internet was originally designed for, and that's why it will always be up and running, unless and until, the U.S. govt decides otherwise.

do the people have a right to say different? well, a good first step would be contributing towards nuclear disarmament on a global basis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International