« Human Rights Lawyer Calls Suicide "A Marvelous Possibility" | Main | Open Thread »
April 6, 2009
Obama to Be Handed Control of the Internet
The frenzied grab for power that has characterized each day of the catastrophic Obama Administration continues. The groundwork is now being laid by his toadies in Congress for Chairman Zero to seize control of the Internet:
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.
Once again we see that the meaningless R must be removed from after the name of liberal apparatchik Olympia Snowjob. She is a Democrat for all intents and purposes, and allowing her to pose as a Republican only provides propaganda cover to the enemy by creating an illusion of bipartisanship.
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.
It was nice knowing you, Fourth Amendment. This after liberals screamed like stuck pigs because the Bush Administration authorized listening to overseas calls made to al Qaeda operatives. W's motive was to make us safe. Not so with the Dems.
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."
Our current rulers' mad lunge for totalitarian powers is so lacking in subtlety that you have to wonder if they expect to have to run for reelection. Given the rhetoric they spewed during the War on Terror, it's surprising they aren't worried that the vast authorities they keep claiming on behalf of the federal government won't be abused by future Republican administrations. They also seem unconcerned that Americans' traditional fondness for liberty will cause us to rebel at the ballot box.
On a tip from Oiao.
Posted by Van Helsing at April 6, 2009 7:10 AM
Comments
Omg...did you ever watch the show "Jericho"? It was a good show...this story reminds me of that show...this is a bad story. "So, California, Georgia Here. We are having some issues with Military Police in our small town. You? Hello? California?"...
Then what?
Posted by: Merrihands at April 6, 2009 7:27 AM
The way they are acting you think that they don't wan't to be re-elected. Ever.
Posted by: Big_Daddy at April 6, 2009 7:36 AM
Well, they could just declare a "national emergency" and "postpone" (cancel) either the 2010 or more likely the 2012 elections.
Chairman Zero could just explain that we need to maintain a consistent leadership in the face of this national emergency.
Rumors have flown about this happening in the past - with Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II. Guess what - it didn't happen.
Yet it seems more likely with a Democrat. Why is that? It couldn't be because they love power so much, could it?
Posted by: on-the-rocks at April 6, 2009 7:48 AM
In the meantime, the David Horowitzes and Charles Johnsons of the "right"-wing blogosphere warn us against Obama Derangement Syndrome...
I hate RINOs. I hate all those "voices of reason" telling us to be moderate (read: disarm ourselves) in a time of national crisis. I hate those "Let's not stoop to their level" self-righteous pundits. I hate them, not because I'm a hater, but because I'm a lover--of freedom and democracy and all the other sublime things I see being taken away, step by step, right in front of my eyes. If these sights don't derange you, then you're either dead of heart or on the enemy camp.
Posted by: Conservigilant at April 6, 2009 7:49 AM
The left are the real danger.
They constantly project their own violent fantasies of the right; hence, all the conspiracy theories re 9/11 and the recent absurd claim by Cynthia McKinney of 5000 people executed after hurricane Katrina.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if all the things the left have been accusing the right of now happen under Obama.
Posted by: Mike_W at April 6, 2009 8:02 AM
Ok let's be clear here. I will assume you supported the Patriot Act, warrantless wirtapping, profiling, premptive war etc. Right?So this ought to be right up your alley.
Posted by: Anonymouse at April 6, 2009 8:21 AM
big daddy - could this be the last election this nation sees?
he'll probably turn our cell phones off also.
Posted by: nancz at April 6, 2009 8:36 AM
JERICHO was a great series until the left wing loon writers ruined it in Season 2 after they turned Kansas into Iraq, US troops into goons operating at the whims of some bald guy resembling VP Dick Cheney who ran a company resembling Haliburton and black uniformed paramilitary goons resembling Blackwater USA ( most of whom are ex-US military) who went around gunning down deaf girls over some book. Then it was revealed it was Americans working for some evil military corporation who nuked 2 dozen US cities - the old Americans blowing up their own country is a favorite left wing fantasy - though to be fair, right wing survivalist crazies also believe some of the same things. TV Ratings crashed after that.
I was furious that CBS ruined such a great show.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2009 9:02 AM
Posted by: Anonymouse at April 6, 2009 8:21 AM
Ok, let's be clear here. I will assume that you ranted and raged against all sorts of imagined injustices stemming from the Patriot Act, such as warrantless wiretapping, profiling, pre-emptive war (?), etc. Right? So when's the next get-together amongst you and your hippie douchey friends to go protest this latest power grab at the hands of an increasingly erratic and corrupt government?
Oh, never?
Posted by: cowlove at April 6, 2009 9:03 AM
On the the Rocks...
It's already happening here in New York with our exalted Mayor/ king Bloomberg. Because we need a stable continuous governorship or of soon to be not-so-great city... He got term limits eliminated.
If Bloomberg can do that. Obama certainly can and will.
We're screwed.
Posted by: Mark Demon at April 6, 2009 9:54 AM
From the article:
"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."
Anon, the Patriot Act and warrentless wiretapping are completely delimited and for a specific purpose and were upheld as Constitutional. They didn't give the government these kind of powers. And by the way, calling the invasion of Iraq a preemptive war is playing with words - it wasn't a preemptive war. Saddam Hussein violated the cease fire agreement that ceased (not ended) the Gulf War and thus the cease fire agreement became null and void.
Posted by: Kevin R at April 6, 2009 10:05 AM
Hitler and stalin never had the internet but they would have controled it for their own if they had it
Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at April 6, 2009 11:29 AM
"Anonymouse at April 6, 2009 8:21 AM"
I'm waiting for an answer too.
"Kevin R at April 6, 2009 10:05 AM"
Thanks. I hope Anonymous ACCUSER tries to answer your post, it should be a fun read.
Posted by: KHarn at April 6, 2009 1:27 PM
First off, let's talk about almighty power in a preemptive war. Violating a cease fire was not what the country was told in the run up to the war, and by declaring war the U.S. Government violated not just just Constitutional law, but International Law. Feel how you may about "International law", but we signed, as a country signed into "laws". That said, why do you think there are a handful of countries moving forward with charges of war crimes, and human rights violations amongst members of the Bush Crime Family.Further, the practices that we pretended that were Patriotic were nothing but a recruit tool for amongst the Muslim communities across the globe, not to mention a violation of the Ford Executive Order of 1976.
The Patriot Act gave the previous White House unlimted power while they attempted to scare the shit out of the country, apparently it worked here at Moonbattery. The wiretapping was a violation of the law.While passing up the laws that FISA protected innocent citizens, Bush and his cronies, as well as 1/2 wits around the country said "If you're not doing anything wrong..."
Kevin, I am a bit surprised you would use arguments from Jennifer Granick,a former public defender attorney. The violations of life, humanity, privacy, and law ran amuck for the last 25 years, and this paranoia that it happened in the last few months is as ridiculous as it is foolish. While you continue to accuse the Democrats of "power grab", you fail to mention where the tax cuts have gone, the no bid contracts, what President actually ordered a weapons consfications, who is in jail, etc. While many of you deserve some applause for your diligence, I suggest you look at your own reflection or the party you champion.
Is there corruption in the U.S. Government? Absolutely! Is demonstrating paranoia a remedy? Likely not, as we see how well it worked for the 9/11 theorists.
Posted by: Anonymouse at April 6, 2009 5:31 PM
Anonymouse, the Patriot Act didn't give the "the previous White House unlimited power." Nor did it "scare the shit out of the country."
The UN resolutions culminating in UN resolution 1441 had everything to do with the invasion of Iraq. These resolution were about the violations of the cease fire agreement. And yes, they were the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.
Feel how you may about "International law", but we signed, as a country signed into "laws". This isn't a complete sentence.
The wiretapping was a violation of the law. No. It wasn't.
I've never heard of Jennifer Granick.
The tax cuts went to everyone that pays taxes, so you may not have noticed.
The violations of life, humanity, privacy, and law ran amuck for the last 25 years, and this paranoia that it happened in the last few months is as ridiculous as it is foolish.
That is a straw man argument. And quite idiot as well.
...what President actually ordered a weapons consfications, who is in jail, etc.
Is this all you really have is innuendo? Weapons confiscations? Who is in jail?
Posted by: Kevin R at April 6, 2009 7:14 PM
A friendly request: Can you please use "Snowejob", as that's how she spells it? We "snow"s don't want anything to do with a snob who needs a silent "e" on the end of a perfectly good name. ;-)
Thanks,
Snowman
Posted by: Snowman at April 6, 2009 8:18 PM
Posted by: Anonymouse at April 6, 2009 5:31 PM
Adding on to Kevin's response, the fact remains that you're still here with idiotic conspiracy theories about the evil Bush administration and saying not one damn thing about this current power grab by the guy who was supposed to change all that awfulness.
Is it because you're stupid that you do this, or because you're a hypocrite? Or, is it some combination of the two?
Face it, "but Bush..." is not an acceptable argument anymore. There is a Democrat in the White House and Democrats have substantial majorities in both the House and the Senate. Own it.
Posted by: cowlove at April 7, 2009 5:53 AM
