Comments for Unplugging the Internet »
Posted By RedRiverJ 7 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsTwo Democrats and a Republican or perhaps I should say three Democrats in the Senate, have moved the ball further down the court to controlling and shutting down the Internet. What?!
Read Full Story at worldnetdaily.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 55
-
69%
RedRiverJ7 months, 2 weeks ago
-
-
75%
RedRiverJ7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Reply
Voltaire (1694-1778) French writer and historian.
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.
Thats what the politicians seem to think of us, all of us.......SHEEP. -
100%
jovial7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Add Mike McConnell to your list of Democrats because he was one of the ones to suggest this.
Reply
"10) According to the National Journal, Mike McConnell, the former Director of National Intelligence, told President Bush in May 2007 that if the 9/11 attackers had chosen computers instead of airplanes as their weapons and had waged a massive assault on a U.S. bank, the economic consequences would have been ‘an order of magnitude greater’ than those cased by the physical attack on the World Trade Center. Mike McConnell has subsequently referred to cybersecurity as the ‘soft underbelly of this country.’."
-SB 773
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michael_McConnel...-
63%
Endoscopy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that it flies in the face of legislation like HIPAA. There the government demands that privacy of information requires strong defensive measures against invasion by outsiders. Now the government will be the invader? This is a nonsense kind of law and will get a lot of people very upset. This law is not about protection but invasion by the government. Wron plan if in relation to 9/11.
Reply-
57%
nostalgia7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The problem is that it flies in the face of legislation like HIPAA. There the government demands that privacy of information requires strong defensive measures against invasion by outsiders."
Reply
Just imagine what they can do with health records if the Feds nationalize health care!-
-
100%
Pecossam7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DenCuddy,
Reply
Yes, the same type of insurance Fidel Castro has, the type where if one requires a Gastro-Intestinal operation, one must contact a CAPITALIST country to obtain a Specialist to perform the operation. Yeah, GREAT idea, DenCuddy!
-
-
-
67%
jovial7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's your statement barely 2 months ago, you hypocrite.
Reply
"ROTFLMAO
"Couldn't 9/11 have been avoided with better security?"
We fixed the problem of the Clinton created firewalls between the intelligence agencies and created the Patriot Act to defend the country by providing better security. The result is no successful attacks to date. But just listen to liberals rant that incoming calls from al Qaeda phones might be bugged. Horrors of horrors some one living here might be bugged. Trampling their rights etc. etc. etc. Listen to the idea that our right are being trampled in other ways."
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/02/03/afghanis...
-
-
-
100%
jovial7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why anyone would even use worldnetdaily as a source.
Reply
In 2000, it published a series of 20 attack articles by Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays that (it brags) cost Al Gore the election because they allegedly caused him to lose Tennessee, a state that, had he won, would have made the Florida turmoil moot. But the article contained false claims about a Gore supporter, Clark Jones -- a fact it was finally forced to admit more than seven years later to settle a libel and defamation lawsuit from Jones. Not only did WND admit that "no witness verifies the truth" of what was said about Jones, "the sources named in the publications have stated under oath that statements attributed to them in the articles were either not made by them, were misquoted by the authors, were misconstrued, or the statements were taken out of context." -
67%
jovial7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In 2004, WND uncritically repeated unverified rumors about a John Kerry affair and never apologized when they were proven false. It peddled every misleading or completely false claim made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- then hired Jerome Corsi, co-author of the book that first promoted those claims, as a reporter. WND published a Kerry attack book by the discredited conservative activist David Bossie, about whom WND itself asserted a few years earlier was "either extremely incompetent or was intentionally trying to sabotage investigations" in his previous role as an anti-Clinton investigator for a House committee. And WND editor Joseph Farah himself falsely claimed that money donated to a group by Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, went to "radical causes"; in fact, it was earmarked toward specific environmental projects.
Reply
Want to read more about the nefarious and deceitful goings on by Worldnet daily? Here's the link.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2008/wndliar...
You guys are pitiful, to associate with these clowns only tarnishes your reputation as well.
-
-
69%
RedRiverJ7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The administration seems worried over our security all of a sudden.
Reply
What about our wide open ports and borders?
We send people off to fight wars against terrorists and enemies that want to do us harm, they get killed and wounded to protect us. Yet we allow terrorist camps, allow anyone and everyone entrance to this country with no border security.
Seems like they consider free speech more of a threat than they do open borders.-
-
-
67%
RedRiverJ7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I am referring to the borders BUSH left open for years that I have raised sand about for years. He, McCain, Kennedy, Jon Kyle, Sen Graham, I was disappointed in all of them. Remember Ted Kennedy and John McCain wrote the McCain Kennedy amnesty bill that got everyone all fired up over allowing illegals to go to the front of the line and get instant amnesty over people that waited for years. Now they are being given jobs, good jobs while millions of americans are out of work.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
Loudnproud7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
YES! IMPEACH BUSH! Oh wait, what government position does he hold now? Really, Bush was not a good president, and I sincerely wish I had not voted for him the first time, but last time I checked, not much of a reason to impeach a former president. I tell you what, once we have paid the national debt all the way down, and we have a surplus, then lets use the 350 million dollars it would take this government to actually investigate something. Yes, I pulled that figure from my bootie, but you know it would cost every bit of it...
Reply -
86%
nostalgia7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like this??
Reply
It's Actually Possible... The Patriot Act Gets Worse
Last Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.
First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.
It's an especially disappointing argument to hear from the Obama Administration. As a candidate, Senator Obama lamented that the Bush Administration "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." He was right then, and we're dismayed that he and his team seem to have forgotten.
Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.
This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/111477.html
You just must love this!
-
-
-
-
-
85%
_-m-_7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nonsense. Try actually reading the bill. (Bold emphasis added.)
Reply
SEC. 14. PUBLIC–PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
(a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.
(b) FUNCTIONS.—The Secretary of Commerce—(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;
(2) shall manage the sharing of Federal government and other critical infrastructure threat and vulnerability information between the Federal government and the persons primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the networks concerned; and
(3) shall report regularly to the Congress on threat information held by the Federal government that is not shared with the persons primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the networks concerned.
To translate:
As clearly specified in subsection (a), this would provide to access to relevant cybersecurity threat and vulnerability data for Federal government and private-sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.
That does not provide for access to non-threat-and-vulnerability-related data, nor does it provide for access to such data for any non-Federal system or those not designated at 'critical infrastructure information systems'. (The later systems have yet to be defined and identified, which does provide for the possibility of an expansive definition of systems. It does not, however, provide a requirement for nor the authority to demand non-related data.)-
-
80%
jovial7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They never actually read these things they talk about. They just believe whatever worldnetdaily, hotair, or other nefarious blogs tall them. Then they go on for hours about, not realizing they don't even know what they're talking about.
Reply -
63%
Endoscopy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you ignored is the parts you did not highlight that is what people are complaining about.
Reply
"without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;"
This give then a license to hack into any computer for the nebulous reason that it might be a cyberspace threat. And you liberals went bonkers over the intrusions of the Patriot act. This give the government mush broader powers than that legislation.-
75%
epiphannyy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Weren't you one of those up here defending the Bush administration's right and authority to conduct the roving wire taps, breaking the rules and laws regarding privacy and ignoring the protections in place to prevent unwarranted spying?
Reply
I'm not defending this bill because I tend to read it the same way you do, and seeing the danger in that non-highlighted section specifying "without regard to any provision of law, etc..." The difference is that it doesn't matter to me that Obama is "my guy" and Bush wasn't. To me, BOTH are wrong here. I just find it incredibly ironic that you would pick up on this and see the fault in it when you couldn't defend Bush enough when he was the one ignoring provisions of law, etc.-
-
50%
epiphannyy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Funny though how RedRiverJ "negged" this comment, even though I actually agree with his stance on the subject matter. That's really the difference between "us" and "them" on this forum........WE don't have a problem seeing the forest for the trees and don't attack each other when one of us sees something from a different angle, while THEY can't handle dealing the facts of a situation and critically evaluate each topic independently. For them, it's all about who agrees with you and who doesn't - which side of the line you stand on is all that counts. While we can and do accept that things aren't always black and white (as much as some of the anti-Obama crowd wants it to be reduced to that), and no one is perfect. I have no problem criticizing Obama's mistakes and praising the good things accomplished by the right. It's called using your brain and making your own decisions based on values, logic, etc. They just don't get it.
Reply
Bottom line.......it shouldn't matter which side of the line you stand on or vote for when it comes to specific situations. Each decision has a right and wrong, based on our own criteria. It would be nice to see a few more of them willing to admit when someone from "the other side of the road" makes a point, or at least not neg them as they slink silently out the back door like they almost always do. If what I said to Endoscopy is wrong, RedRiverJ should be able to articulate what was wrong in his view. That never happens though. They just turn into two-year-olds and hit the neg button based on the "color" (red or blue) we happen to wear at the polling booth. THAT'S what's wrong with America today.........petty differences and sniping have replaced reasoned debate and rhetoric. I'm sure our founders would be so proud if they could see what their country has become, huh?
-
-
-
67%
_-m-_7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. It does not. It's scope is specifically restricted to what is highlighted.
Reply
The language could certainly be improved, yes, (and it loks like we all think it should be -- it's a draft -- language will change, and not necessarily for the better) but, even as currently worded that does not provide a carte blanche ticket for the Secretary of Commerce to get froggy cracking whatever systems and networks they like -- "access to relevent data concerning such [Federal government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information] systems and networks" does NOT mean 'access to those systems and networks'.
There's a big difference there.
(And, yes, PATRIOT was and still is hugely problematic, and large sections of it should be rolled back, as should the entirely unnecessary and entirely negative update to FISA.)
-
-
-
55%
jakesguile7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow, I was actually scared of this bill for a minute until I read what Jovial said. I feel much better now in saying every news story on that page was utter crap. They don't want the internet - if they do, impeach their asses. The HHS bill is a travesty to law - "if yew dun liek it [that it's being repealed], den git outttt." Get over the Bow to the Saudi Arabian King - a bow is a sign of respect and mutual comradere, but you ******** don't really know much about "respect" do ya? I would think not, looking at your idol Bush. Now if all of you can be good little repugnatans for a minute and confess the bow wasn't a big deal I'll let you off on the stupid comment. Go on, it's not hard. Just learn some of that "respekt" you try to beat into your litle innocent six year olds with your penises each night.
Reply-
-
-
100%
Loudnproud7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How in the heck did I get negged for calling out someone for saying all conservatives are child molesters. The comment made by Jakesguile is moronic, juvenile, and has absolutely no merit. I said nothing about anyone, attacked no one, or no group. But got negged anyway. You people are smart!
Reply
-
-
67%
icono17 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
.......And here all along I thought Conservatives were just insignificant circle jerk Communists, reach around Fascists, and Morally Vacant Christian Conservative white trash as defined by some Liberal members on propeller.
Reply
......but child molesting.... now that gets into a whole new aspect of depravity that could equate to the spiritual necromancy of Lenin.....if seen as a derivative of a morally repressive society in toto that has finally escaped the bonds of social guilt and filial responsibility..........
-
-
50%
Endoscopy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You and jovial dismissed the phrase "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access" from consideration. This is the phrase that the story was complaining about.
Reply
The bowing of a president of the US bowing to anybody is an affront to all citizens of this country. Part of our history is that a US president bows to no one and our flag never dips to another flag. Ever since George Washington that has been a fact of life. Now this supposedly smart man broke that tradition. He did not bow to the Queen of England but bowed to a Muslim king. What is the real story on that? Remember the White House tried to deny he did that.-
67%
jakesguile7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have your facts backwards, the US does not have "titles." That means we don't create kings or queens. Bowing is a cultural sign of mutual respect. You mistake it with an admission of weakness, it's not. Bowing (at least in Japanese culture) is seen purely in terms of respect. I think if anybody in the US has the problem with simply bowing for the sake of politeness and mutual respect, then this country has really gone to the dogs. I told this story to my parents and both of them were disgusted - not by the story but by the response of people like you endo
Reply
-
-
-
86%
dvtexan7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hahahahahaha!!!!! Silly people. When you hear "news" that sounds like it is way out there.....research it before just trusting what you read. Hahahaha!
Reply
I love the "I hate America group" that are on the edge of their seats hoping Obama will fail. Guess what people, if he does fail, you lose. Be smart and realize that you should want Obama to do well so this country can be the best country in the world again or, just move to another country. -
78%
greenmac7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would suggest people READ the story and if you can't understand the importance of fighting a cyber attack try asking someone what would happen if the financial..the government or the defense systems were compromised. A cyber attack can be crippling, it can bring food distribution and electrical distribution to halt. depending on the depth of the attack it could cause an infinite amount of down time.
Reply
Now it appears there are those who view the government involvement in preventing such a attack as wrong. I will ask those that believe this a question. Who do you think would be best to do this..ie protect your interests. If it were a physical attack you would expect the full force of the military not the local police force. The biggest problem seems to be that, some of us are unable to see what could happen. To me the government taking a proactive position sounds good to me... a central point of contact.
Imagine..no cell phones..no home phones...no truck traking systems..no electricity... limited communications..PANIC-
-
67%
_-m-_7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That phrase" is not independent of a very specific scope and context. Nor does it provide the right to access ANY system or network, only the right to access to relevant data regarding specified systems and networks.
Reply
It specifies that the Secretary of Commerce shall have unrestricted access [without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access] to all relevant [cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information] data for [Federal government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks].
Both scope of the nature of the relevant data, and the scope of the systems and networks about which such data shall be provided are defined and limited.
-
-
-
-
60%
Endoscopy7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ignoring the bad phrase by the left wing. The government can go into any computer they might think is a possible threat and take what data they please. And you rant about the Patriot act. Silly lib. Obama can do no wrong and Bush could do no right. The blind leading the blind. Soros says follow the leader through moveon.org and the lemmings blindly follow. After all he bought and paid for the Democrat party.
Reply -
-
-
78%
icono17 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For a long, long, time the govt has been snooping on citizens telephone conversations and their Internet activity.
Reply
Most ISP services allow this to happen to stay in business and also, the window machines 'always' record in 'data files' and other storage schemes what 'goes on' when a person goes to the net. The ISP providers do the same. That is why the cops or the feds love it when they get ahold of perps computer. Because with the right software, a lot of so called private/secret data stored by the owner or even erased by the owner can be recovered and examined by the police, or, the govt if you wish.
This law is just a ruse to make citizens think or not think they have a right to electronic privacy when in reality, though they may legally have a 'right', they actually don't. -
SandmonsterComment removed: Hard Banned
-
67%
calitennflo7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When the Press secretary in Washington watches the enormous amount of information published on the web...and can not place their usual contradictory story right beside it, you'll see them tighten the freedom. It is freedom they question...and freedom is required by human beings.
Reply
They, the White House should never worry about one knowing truth. Although, prevented from swearing by Biblical verse (Swear neither by heaven or Earth), we have to to correctly give testimony in their courts. -
-
loading ...
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.