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).
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... :-)