• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

Forums New posts
Don't worry man, Obama and the government love us and are only looking out for our best interests, sort of like a mother.

Warm hug for all :)
 
DamnDirtyApe said:
Don't worry man, Obama and the government love us and are only looking out for our best interests, sort of like a mother.

Warm hug for all :)
Click to expand...

ZIIIIINNNGGG!!!!!

10csv9i.jpg



LoL, just kidding :D
 
It's not like the internet exists solely in America...

Seriously fellas, your high-horse: get off it.
 
CapnG said:
It's not like the internet exists solely in America...

Seriously fellas, your high-horse: get off it.
Click to expand...

Well, you're right. But the point here is that the government can potentially block your access to any network or site that it deems unsuitable. Just look at China or Iran.
 
The government could potentially rain nuclear death down upon us at any moment. But are they likely to? Doubt it.

Same thing with the net. After all, how will Barry use his blackberry?
 
CapnG said:
The government could potentially rain nuclear death down upon us at any moment. But are they likely to? Doubt it.

Same thing with the net. After all, how will Barry use his blackberry?
Click to expand...

This is true. It's more of a "chilling effect" to make the annoucement rather then to actually do it. DARPA could probably kill the web if they wanted to, after all they created the damn thing.
 
CapnG said:
The government could potentially rain nuclear death down upon us at any moment. But are they likely to? Doubt it.
Click to expand...

Lol, that would be stupid. Would you burn your own farm (if you had one) with all the animals? Nope. How would you get your eggs, milk and fresh meat then? You would go hungry. But greater control over your farm, now that's something else...
 
CapnG said:
The government could potentially rain nuclear death down upon us at any moment. But are they likely to? Doubt it.
Click to expand...


How can you compare the two? Eroding of individual rights over time has nothing to do with a nation suddenly nuking itself.

I thought everyone was all up in arms over Bush and the patriot act taking away citizens' rights through the slippery slope of "its just a small thing here and there for your own good"?

The same thing is still happening with the Dems in Congress to some degree which just goes to show that both parties are intent on gaining ever more power centralized at the federal government. This is not the first story of its kind I've seen lately either.

It used to be viewed that the Federal government has certain explicit rights given to it in the Constitution and anything not directly stated there goes to the state governments and the citizens. But in the past decades it seems to be the push has been to reverse that and now the attitude is that ALL rights are supposed to be given to the government to regulate our lives and only a select few are explicitly granted to the individual.

This is more about the mindset of people like Rockefeller than anything else. Isn't he the one who said the invention of the internet was a mistake (I'm guessing because it gives the proletariat stew more power and knowledge which can be burdensome to the plans of the enlightened elites such as himself)

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ct9xzXUQLuY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>
 
DamnDirtyApe said:
How can you compare the two?
Click to expand...

Relatively easily, actually.

DamnDirtyApe said:
Eroding of individual rights over time has nothing to do with a nation suddenly nuking itself.<object height="344" width="425"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ct9xzXUQLuY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>
Click to expand...

Individual rights? You think that'd be the only consequence? This is a little bigger than you not being able to check out your favourtie website. In fifteen short years our world has gone from saying "Inter-what?" to being wholly and totally dependant on the internet for trade and commerce. From personal banking to online business to e-trading, if you pulled the dotcom plug you would effectively destroy the world. Not hyperbole, not misrepresentation; demonstrable fact. You think the housing crisis damaged the economy? Compared to a net lock out it'd be like a bug hitting a windshield.

So yeah, like a nuke. It's fucking suicide, ergo they'll never do it.
 
CapnG said:
Relatively easily, actually.



Individual rights? You think that'd be the only consequence? This is a little bigger than you not being able to check out your favourtie website. In fifteen short years our world has gone from saying "Inter-what?" to being wholly and totally dependant on the internet for trade and commerce. From personal banking to online business to e-trading, if you pulled the dotcom plug you would effectively destroy the world. Not hyperbole, not misrepresentation; demonstrable fact. You think the housing crisis damaged the economy? Compared to a net lock out it'd be like a bug hitting a windshield.

So yeah, like a nuke. It's fucking suicide, ergo they'll never do it.
Click to expand...

Well I agree its a big deal.. but who says they would do it to everyone all at once. The next step along this slippery slope is to turn off or filter/restrict access to the net from people deemed suspicious or whoever they decide is a problem for them or for "the children" as they already do in Australia.

I don't want the government deciding what web sites I should and should not be able to visit (aside from something truly legitimate like child porn). What on Earth is the justification for this type of power anyway? If Obama or the next president decides that radical websites criticizing the government pose a "cyberthreat" to the nation should they be allowed to black them out? I'm guessing theer are a lot of posts on this website harshly critical of the government. Perhaps the Paracast presents a threat to cyber security?

Saying that the government will never misuse this sort of power is like saying the government will never misuse the Patriot Act. The risks to individual rights outweigh any potential benefit and I'm surprised this isn't drawing more attention. I guess everyone somehow thinks its OK now that "their guy" is in office. "The slippery slope" effect is a very real phenomena in politics and I personally think this is a big deal. I'm sure congress has a ton of ways in mind how these sort of laws can be expanded upon in the quest to regulate people.


from the article:

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.)

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.
 
I rarely accept slippery slope arguments as so much of the slope and the degree of slippage is dictated by the person making the claim. If the slippery slope were true then legalizing gay marriage would mean we were all now forced into gay marriages which were consumated by sodomizing statues of Jesus and consecrated by drinking blood from an aborted fetus... at least according to the more radical evangelicals.

Not that I'm comparing you to them DDA, I'm just saying it's not a strong form of argument. Besides, reality seems to be comprised more of a gentle incline that's relatively dry. Oh we're still going down, just nice and slow so nobody notices... ;)
 
The internet is too important to Darpa et al (including corporate America et al) for determining social mood. Twitter is probably the most inventive and important tool for that now as views have to be whittled to short messages with impact and bottom liners.

Social mood affects markets and actually creates fundamentals. Social mood is THE indicator for when the economic jig is up. Someone is always watching to see how the wind is going to blow and the most effective way to do that is with an open internet.
 
Back
Top