Posted on 08/28/2009 8:13:33 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
This may be the "Reichstag Fire Enabling Act" of 2009
Ummmm..., that's getting to be a quite overused analogy, I would say. If the number of times it has been used were actually happening, we would have already burned down the entire country by now... LOL...
In the context of my comment, my point is that groups (I was talking about DU but the ACLU is another example) from the left were saying nothing about this issue at the time. Since that news broke, there has been a small trickle of discussion among liberals, but nothing like the outrage from libertarians and other conservatives.
The need for security, particularly when confronted by attacks from overseas governments, is indisputable. Giving any President (let alone a sitting facist) the power to control citizen's access to our internal networks is absolutely not acceptable.
With luck, this bill is just more sloppy legislation from the left, and ultimately will be refined into something that makes an iota of sense. But it does reflect their mindset - the initial solution that comes to them is to shut down our free speech.
That's truly scary. And if enacted could be the spark that ignites a violent revolt.
I dare them to try it. It would be suicide..political and otherwise.
No..., it's the knee-jerk reactions which are going to discredit any opposition to these kinds of bills. You see..., it's something that is already a threat and has been for quite a while.
Here was another thread where I posted the following...
Also, the interesting thing about this “cyber-security” issue.... it gives the reason for one of the bank failures this year was not adequate enough cyber-security for the bank causing it to lose 22% of its “assets” (through cyber-attack and transferring 22% of its assets out of the bank). This was a major cause of the failure of the bank.So, some crooks got the money, and we got the “benefit” of “bailing out the bank” because the crooks took away enough of their assets to cause them to fail...
From the FReeper thread... The Slow Road to Cybersecurity
This is a blatant attempt by the government to control all forms of communication. We aren't to know anything other than what the government tells us. If Obama stays in power much longer, the government will control talk radio and the Internet. They already control everything else.
This is something that has been talked about and addressed for the last three administrations. If you listen to this podcast from this FReeper thread, you will get some more information about that nature of the threat. We've already been subject to these threats, right here on Free Republic, in an attempt to shut down the forum several times in the past, as confirmed by Jim Robinson...
With luck, this bill is just more sloppy legislation from the left, and ultimately will be refined into something that makes an iota of sense. But it does reflect their mindset - the initial solution that comes to them is to shut down our free speech.
I think that there should be legislation to shut down computers and/or people and their internet connections, per Post #500 that I was talking about above. We've been subject to these very kinds of attacks here on our own forum of Free Republic. And so, any legislation which would shut down these kinds of computers immediately, I would be in support of doing.
That's truly scary. And if enacted could be the spark that ignites a violent revolt.
That's another way overused statement -- "could be the spark that ignites a violent revolt." Such legislation is not going to do that. The key is to identify the kind of threat, and to deal with it effectively and swiftly, to prevent the shutting down of our national infrastructure (on which we all do banking, phone calls, everyday life and all sorts of other daily activities...).
And legislation like this, which should be done properly and effectively and have teeth to it, is something that would be for any administration in the future. That means people need to balance things such as freedom and liberty and privacy against security and safety of national infrastructure. That's always a balancing act. We're not going to simply dispense with dealing with security of our national infrastructure and ignore it...
Ummmm..., that's getting to be a quite overused analogy, I would say. If the number of times it has been used were actually happening, we would have already burned down the entire country by now... LOL..
For your understanding see :
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The Reichstag Fire and the Enabling Act of March 23, 1933 Hitler was able to push through the Enabling Act (officially, “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich”) on March 23. With 441 votes for and 84 against (the Social Democrats) the act officially recognized Hitler as Germany’s dictator and abolished democracy.
It's getting to be like "Godwin's Law" that people had on Usenet...
Usenet is one of the oldest computer network communications systems still in widespread use. It was conceived in 1979 and publicly established in 1980 at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University, over a decade before the World Wide Web was developed and the general public got access to the Internet. It was originally built on the "poor man's ARPANET," employing UUCP as its transport protocol to offer mail and file transfers, as well as announcements through the newly developed news software. The name USENET emphasized its creators' hope that the USENIX organization would take an active role in its operation (Daniel et al., 1980).Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
When Godwin's Law was invoked... the discussion was usually over at that point... LOL...
Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
The legislation under discussion here permits much more than merely disconnecting DOS attacks and chattering cards.
That's another way overused statement -- "could be the spark that ignites a violent revolt." Such legislation is not going to do that.
The legislation referred to in this thread would give the President unlimited control over the primary means of communication used by his opposition. It would effectively shut down those who expose and analyze his agenda. If he used such power I don't think it's overly dramatic to suggest that the citizens would immediately respond by attempting to overthrow the entire federal government. There really would be no remaining choice.
If by "overused" you mean that you see that assertion frequently these days, you may be correct. But people are talking about revolt from a position of desperation. Real, significant breaks with the government of our once free society are driving this. That's why you see it a lot. Just as during a certain time of the year you read a lot of references to hurricanes or snowstorms.
Legislation "done properly and effectively" would not elicit this outrage. In this instance, we're talking permitting Obama to cut off entire portions of the internet. Maybe there are too many people using Verizon who are vocally opposed to flu shots. Too many radical websites hosted at Yahoo, or a strong level of Christian activity going through a router at Global Crossing. The implication is this bill (being so vague) is that the President has the capability to declare that to be an emergency and to shut it down.
Vigilance is crucial to a free society. Paranoid, I am? Maybe. Or maybe I'm just learning that someone's out to get me. Either way, I don't trust these clowns trying to ram this law down my throat.
The legislation under discussion here permits much more than merely disconnecting DOS attacks and chattering cards.
Well, this is where I would work to make the legislation "content neutral" in terms of allowing all sorts of free speech and/or political speech -- as it's an "infrastructure" that we're talking about. I would make sure that the items that were being talked about (in the legislation) is something that pertains to damaging the infrastructure itself and it's ability and capability of carrying transmissions -- without respect to or regards to "content" of the transmissions.
In other words, I would make it like the "telephone network" of infrastructure in that no one tells you what you can say or not say when you are on the telephone (short of illegal types of talk, i.e., conspiracies to commits crimes, but those are crimes that are delineated right now and well-known and defined, and not defined by this type of bill).
Now, the interesting thing about this sort of objection to this type of bill is that it's being raised by those very same groups who were considered liberal in the past (and still in the present), because of their objections to like things in other administrations (usually having to do with building the infrastructure, such that it makes it easy to spy on communicators).
Of course, the justification used for conservative administrations (and liberal administrations) in this regard is that it's necessary to control criminal activity. That's what "law enforcement" has wanted and demanded, which has made things easier (from past administrations) in tracking and tapping into people's conversations and communications. So, this is not a new issue. It's a quite old and long-standing issue, going on through several different administrations in the past. This is more of the same, with the added proviso that it's also addressing the attacks that are occurring in our infrastructure from other hostile forces.
Thus, you're finding that some conservatives are "jumping on the bandwagon" that they would have never jumped on before, in the past, with conservative administrations wanting more ability and capability to spy and inspect packets and have the immediate ability to tap into conversations or inspect computers without the person's knowledge or even having a warrant or a court order to do so.
From my viewpoint, freedoms and civil rights and freedom of expression exists no matter what administration it's happening in -- and should be upheld no matter whether it's a liberal administration or a conservative administration. BUT, that hasn't been the position of many conservatives from the past, except -- now -- that there is a liberal administration wishing to extend controls over the Internet.
That's one reason why I've been a big supporter of "content-neutral laws" regarding the Internet. Others have said that the government should stay out of the Internet, but that's not going to happen -- thus -- it pays to have "content-neutral laws" in place when the government does start exerting more controls over the Internet -- and they will, and for many things -- for good reasons, too (and everyone knew this was coming for years and years...). Not all the things that promoters of certain bills want -- are necessarily going to be good, but there are things in these bills that are necessary.
That's where people have to work for "content-neutral laws" regarding the Internet. And everyone should have -- a long time ago (here on Free Republic) instead of opposing them... as many have.
I'm talking about the "Net Neutrality" position of many and why it's needed -- in order to make the Internet an "infrastructure" that cannot be regulated according to "content"... that's the idea here.
Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.
But, many in the past have opposed it. If it had gotten through before, in the past, then these current bills wouldn't have a leg to stand on, regarding anyone's ideas in controlling content of the infrastructure -- but only -- controlling the "mechanisms of transmission" and intervening when those transport mechanisms are threatened -- rather than any "content" which is being carried...
SO..., it appears on this issue, many FReepers should have been a lot more "civil liberties" on the issue of "Net Neutrality" than they have been, in the past. And now we've got what is coming up and have to fight two battles at the same time (about "Net Neutrality" along with getting a bill that only deals with infrastructure and does it properly).
It's getting to be like "Godwin's Law" that people had on Usenet...
Sooner or later in a conversation, when people explore the root cause So the topic turning eventually to the Evil One or one of his agents There was a reason for the "space" bar when reading the "News"Godwin stumbled onto a foundational truth and gave it his name.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
of some social or political event ( among those who are not atheists )
the discussion starts centering on Evil and it impact on the event.
e.g. Hitler, is to be expected.
on the net in the late seventies and eighties in Bell Labs.
Only for atheists who recoil from any discussion of the Evil One.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
End-to-end principle
Main article: End-to-end principle
Some advocates say network neutrality is needed in order to maintain the end-to-end principle. According to Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney:
Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant "end-to-end" design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good.
—Lawrence Lessig & Robert W. McChesney:
Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network, merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his seminal paper, The Rise of the Stupid Network[32]
A new network "philosophy and architecture," is replacing the vision of an Intelligent Network. The vision is one in which the public communications network would be engineered for "always-on" use, not intermittence and scarcity. It would be engineered for intelligence at the end-user's device, not in the network. And the network would be engineered simply to "Deliver the Bits, Stupid," not for fancy network routing or "smart" number translation. ... In the Stupid Network, the data would tell the network where it needs to go. (In contrast, in a circuit network, the network tells the data where to go.) In a Stupid Network, the data on it would be the boss. ... End user devices would be free to behave flexibly because, in the Stupid Network the data is boss, bits are essentially free, and there is no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.
—David S. Isenberg The Rise of the Stupid Network
The seminal paper on the end-to-end principle, End-to-end arguments in system design by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark, instead argues that network intelligence doesn't relieve end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for errors and to rate-limit the sender, nor for a wholesale removal of intelligence in the network core.
Net Neutrality is one of the big issues that conservatives should be working for, in order to make sure that the government doesn't start to restrict according to content or any other contrived issues and make the "Internet" like a "dumb network" as outlined above, in order to protect freedoms (from government control, at least...).
Only for atheists who recoil from any discussion of the Evil One.
Well, I would say that it was over because the discussion would go off-track at that point and it was something that was repeated over and over again. In other words, no meaningful conversation took place once "Hitler" was brought into those discussions... LOL...
And thus, the "invoking of Godwin's Law" -- meaning that the conversation has gone off-track at that point...
Now..., if someone wanted to invoke the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the evil that exists in the world, through Satan's actions, plus, in a very large part -- the evil that is inherent in human beings themselves -- that would not result in the "invocation" of Godwin's law... :-)
The legislation referred to in this thread would give the President unlimited control over the primary means of communication used by his opposition. It would effectively shut down those who expose and analyze his agenda.
Here is the text of the bill... I would like to find out where that particular power is designated and given in the bill -- which to me, means that someone has to identify content and then censor that particular content.
Now, I haven't read the full bill yet (but I will do so soon...), but have only scanned it quickly. And to tell you the truth, I cannot see anything in there that would designate actions be taken on the content of the material -- as in "free speech" and "free political expression"...
If you can identify that section, I'm sure we can get some civil libertarians, other liberals, a whole lot of conservatives and everyone concerned about free speech -- to get it deleted from the bill... :-)
When Congress speaks of it they redefine it to a sort of looter scheme that stifles more than it enhances.
The Internet has been relatively free of that sort of government interference, but this administration aims to change that.
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.
What is the Current Status of Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is a major issue as the U.S. considers new telecommunications laws. The U.S. House of Representatives passed its telecommunications bill, H.R. 5252, in May, without adequate net neutrality protections. Now the fight has moved to U.S. Senate. On June 28, the Senate Commerce Committee passed its own telecom bill, S. 2686. While an amendment to the bill that would have added meaningful net neutrality safeguards failed 11-11, this tie vote marks a significant political victory and gives the effort new momentum. The debate now shifts to the full Senate, where advocates will be working to get strong net neutrality language is any bill that the Senate considers.
Learn More
Click here to read an open letter from Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google Inc., regarding the House vote in May.
You can read more about net neutrality at Open Internet Coalition, a coalition of companies including Google, and at SaveTheInternet, a grassroots alliance of non-profit groups. Both groups support net neutrality.
Click here [dead link] for recent congressional testimony on net neutrality, including arguments on both sides of the debate.
Take Action Now
Sign the Save the Internet petition to Congress for Internet freedom.
Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny."
- Vint Cerf [PDF]
Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol
The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net."
- Tim Berners-Lee [his blog... scroll on down for "Net Neutrality" article]
Inventor of the World Wide Web
"Net Neutrality" is something the market enforces by choosing to buy it.
Well..., not in this case, when the government goes further in the control of the Internet. As some have already voiced concern about, in that there will be controls over "content" and that's what Net Neutrality will help address along with some strong legal language, specifically relating to this kind of bill and the Internet infrastructure, in which "content" won't be what is regulated, but rather danger to the infrastructure, itself, in terms of attacks.
As I said before, by not dealing with Net Neutrality before and getting it passed, it simply sets one up for the present case where more than infrastructure will be "restricted" but also the type of content will be restricted.
I hope that fixes it... :-)
I read the info from Google at the link. What they support is not Net Neutrality as understood in the technical sense, but rather government telling internet companies what to provide. That the committed leftists at Google are in favor of this should come as no surprise. They do it for China every day.
At the bottom of the article are links to the Open Internet Coalition, and SaveTheInternet.
Here are your supporters at SaveTheInternet. Some names you will recognize:
ACLU of Iowa
ACME
AcornActive Media Foundation
Action Coalition for Media Education - Boston Chapter
Action4Justice
alameda computer resource center
Alliance for Community Media
Alliance for Creative Commerce
Alliance for Democracy - Portland Chapter
Amazing Kids!
American Association of Health Freedom
American Centrist Party
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
American Patriot Legion
APIRG Alberta Public Interest Research Group
Arists of the Arts
Art.Net
ArtiCulture
Artists for the Arts
Association For Community Networking (AFCN)
Association of Research Libraries
Autonomedia
Ballistic Helmet
Bay County NOW
Be The Media
beachpollution.com
Bergen Grassroots
Blosser Center for Dyslexia Resources
BluewaveNJ
BoUNCe Magazine
Breathe California Central Coast
CAIDA
California NOW
Californians Against Waste
CapitolWatch
CCOT
CCTV
Center for Creative Voices in Meda
Center for Digital Democracy
Champaign County Historical Museum
Chicago Media Action
Children Now
Chocoholic Society
Christian Coalition of America
Citizens for Legitmate Government
Citizens Utility Board
Civil Rights Movement Veterans website
Coalition for Quality Healthcare & Accountability
ColorofChange.org
ComCP
Common Cause
Common Sense Media
CommunitiesConnecting.org
Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project
Community Technology Centers
Community Television in St. Mary's, Inc.
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Consoledev Games
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Project on Technology
Consumers Union
CUWiN
DareToDreamNetwork.net
DCNF
Democracies Online
Democracy For America-Marin
DemocracyInAction.org
Democrats.com
DIGit
Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA)
DiYmedia
Educause
EFF-Austin
Electronic Retailing Association
Environmental Defense Institute
Feminist Majority
Fezweb Photography
Fiber For Our Future
Free IT Athens
Free Press
Freeculture.org
FreeNetworks.org
FSEPMichigan
Future of Music Coalition
Gift Hub
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy
Gun Owners of America
HAART Oakland
Highlander Research and Education Center
Homeless Action for Neccesary Development
Housing Works
Humanist Center of Cultures
Hyphen Magazine
IFP
Illinois Community Technology Coalition
Inclusive Moose
Independent Christian Voice
Independent Press Association
Industry Ears
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Institute of Communication Ethics
International Advocates for Health Freedom
Inventgeek.com
Iowa PIRG
Ithaca Community News
Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
Kansas City Anti-Violence Project
Kentucky Divest Campaign
LAP
Lawrence Freenet
League of Women Voters of Connecticut
Little Big Medicine
Losers Corner Radio
Louisville Community Technology Forum
MarshalltownPunk
Media Access Project
Media Alliance
Media Island International
Media Matters
Media Transparency
Media With Conscience
MediaChannel.org
Metro Justice
Mountain Area Information Network
Moveon.org Civic Action
mthoodpops.org
Music for America
National Coalition of Women's Organizations
National Community Research Initiative Inc
National Video Resources
National Youth Rights Association
NCAAbbs
New Organizing Institute
North Jersey Paterson/Wayne Impeach Group
Northeast Citizens for Responsible Media
NPOTechs
Nubri Inc.
NYC Wieless
Ohio Community Computing Network
Ohio Digital Divide Working Group
Open Security Foundation
OpenPrivacy
Operation: Any Soldier
Organic Consumers Association
OutSpokane
p2pnet
Parent-2-Parent
Parents Television Council
Peacefire
People Who
Personal Democracy Forum
Pet Resource Network, Inc.
Poets in the Attic
Prides Pwnage Network
Progressive Democrats of America
ProgressNow.org
Project Harmony
Prometheus Radio
Public Access of Indianapolis
Public Campaign/Public Campaign Action Fund
Public Knowledge
Public Media Works
Rainbow Rumpus
Raleigh List
Reclaim the Media
Reporters Without Borders
Rescue Community
Rethinking Schools
Rice
Rural Broadband Initiative
Rural Media Arts and Education Project
San Mateo County Telecom Authority (SAMCAT)
Seattle Improvised Music
semantikon.com
Shining Futures
Silverman
SMA Support
SoCal Grassroots
Spirit Restoration Ministries
Standby Program
Starfishgirl Anti-Stalking Campaign
StartChange.org
State Center Consortium
STREETLEVEL TV
Suffolk Individual Liberty
Tag Improv
Teaching Matters
Teletruth
Tennessee Editorial Forum of American Forum
The 9 Legions
The Forest Foundation
The National Coalition Against Censorship
The OpenDocument Foundation
The Ransom Network
The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring
The Yeti
ThrowTheRascalsOut.org
Traprock Peace Center
Uptown Multi-Cultural Art Center
US Pirg
Vermont Public Interest Research Group
Virtual Activism
Visaid
Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy
Wolf Recovery Foundation
Women For: Orange County
Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press
Woodbury Athletic Association
World Pantheist Movement
World Prout Assembly
Youth Leadership of Western Pa, Inc.
7 town TV
HolyO’s got control of the phones too! :-(
We may have to rely on a redux of the Pony Express before this is all over...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.