Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

**SapiensErus** · 09-02-09, 04:35 PM

If there is any more name calling or finger pointing unrelated to the topic this thread will be locked.

**CivilWars** · 09-02-09, 04:42 PM

No shit. Bunch of 4th graders in here on both sides. If you want to state what you think to be true and why then so be it. If you want to push each other around on the playground, then cry when one of you scrapes your knee, do it somewhere else. I blame both of you, so don't drop to 2nd grade and say it was him, not me. Grow the fuck up and act like men.

**CallousDisregard** · 09-02-09, 06:04 PM

I can guess how it would destroy the country.
Combine the control over the internet with the new FCC and add in a few" emergencies " that shut down political blogs during or before an election.
People riot, the gov clamps down, we have a few Waco type incidents and then the 'necks come out of the woodwork with their guns and martial law is declared.

**SapiensErus** · 09-02-09, 06:07 PM

I thought the bill was specifically to allow the government to cut off sensitive services (utilities, FEMA, .gov's, etc) that could damaged by "cyber" attacks. Political blogs and my D&D website hardly fall under that category.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 09-02-09, 06:09 PM

Yeah, but that doesn't support the delusion that "They are taking control of my computer!!!"

**Thorsen** · 09-02-09, 07:29 PM

Well, this is interesting. Since obviously I haven't read the entire bill my information is incomplete, but here are my thoughts on the matter.

As a Libertarian I have great concern over issues of freedom. I was and am firmly against the Patriot Act and the so called "Patriot Act II." I never believe that the ends justifies the means when the means is any threat to personal liberty. That being said, I do have to agree somewhat with Hawg. This bill does not necessarily cross over the line into tyranny. Unfortunately what it does is present itself very unclearly. The first and most important thing would be to have the exact powers granted explained in good detail. A general rule when it comes to laws is to be specific.

Imagine we had a rule on CS:S that you couldn't snipe someone "around the start of the round." What if we left it vague like that? I imagine different people would interpret it differently, we'd have people ignoring it, people lowering their effectiveness by waiting too long, admins kicking and banning people who thought they'd waited long enough. Basically, laws and rules by their nature must be explicit about their intentions and uses.

I never consider safety a worthy trade for freedom, but I think the issue here is not one of freedom vs. government protection a la Patriot Act. Its actually an issue of, "Does this bill actually infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights?" So before further discussion on whether the government deserves or requires more powers we should first ask whether or not the powers are Constitutional, and further request a re-write of greater accuracy and detail.

**fly351** · 09-02-09, 07:35 PM

Hawg, I will get back to you on my points/views this weekend. It will take way to long to type right now and I don't have that much time atm.

**GReYVee** · 09-03-09, 08:19 AM

Simply put, there are a lot of Americans who would prefer to limit governement involvement, rather than grant more control. If you read the basic layout of the bill it seems more about establishing a damage control agency in the case of cyber-terrorism. However, also included, is the authority to basically shut-down anything considered critical -- and as always the whole bill uses an open-ended language thats up in the air for interpretation. This is why I hate bills.

Lets word everything, such that, within the event, but not limited to, under subject to change, of such rules, there in, under action deemed appropriate.. makes my head want to fucking explode. :5

**Blakeman** · 09-03-09, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by [SWC

Erik Thorsen ]
Well, this is interesting. Since obviously I haven't read the entire bill my information is incomplete, but here are my thoughts on the matter.

As a Libertarian I have great concern over issues of freedom. I was and am firmly against the Patriot Act and the so called "Patriot Act II." I never believe that the ends justifies the means when the means is any threat to personal liberty. That being said, I do have to agree somewhat with Hawg. This bill does not necessarily cross over the line into tyranny. Unfortunately what it does is present itself very unclearly. The first and most important thing would be to have the exact powers granted explained in good detail. A general rule when it comes to laws is to be specific.

Imagine we had a rule on CS:S that you couldn't snipe someone "around the start of the round." What if we left it vague like that? I imagine different people would interpret it differently, we'd have people ignoring it, people lowering their effectiveness by waiting too long, admins kicking and banning people who thought they'd waited long enough. Basically, laws and rules by their nature must be explicit about their intentions and uses.

I never consider safety a worthy trade for freedom, but I think the issue here is not one of freedom vs. government protection a la Patriot Act. Its actually an issue of, "Does this bill actually infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights?" So before further discussion on whether the government deserves or requires more powers we should first ask whether or not the powers are Constitutional, and further request a re-write of greater accuracy and detail.

Definitely, +1

Though there are problems that arise with specificity too in the fact that we have elected officials who are either too lazy or consider themselves too busy to read bills fully themselves and not just have the 'cliff notes' read to them. The 'aristocracy' of politics is a demon that I feel is only beginning to rear its head fully.