Replies

The interesting thing here — is — that anyone who has a distrust in the Obama Administration (in regards to this security and the measures needed to secure the network) — would actually be taking the *liberal position* of organization like ACLU for “privacy” versus government action in terms of being able to protect itself and its citizens (which is usually a more ‘conservative issue”

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.

You were saying...

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...