How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Another Power Grab Attempt?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Another Power Grab Attempt?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


50 posted 04-08-2009 07:19 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Ron, I've never worried much about the President having the nuclear codes and the power to activate them since it's long been considered a deterrent against any nation using them, including us, because it would mean mutual annihilation.

Oh. So you're not concerned about Korea's recent test of long-range missiles? You don't care if Iran gets the bomb. And, unlike Bush, you never really cared if Iraq might have had it?

Let's sincerely hope, Denise, that our enemies are never as convinced as you are that America won't use those Launch Codes. Without fear, without the very real sense they might actually be used, there can be no deterrent.

I tend to look at it differently, I'm afraid.

Frankly, I wouldn't want Korea or Iran to know we can't launch a counter-attack until after the President has had his decision vetted by an independent agency. Heaven knows I'm almost always the first to holler for checks and balances, and certainly among the first to advocate for limiting Executive power. But not this way. Not by de-clawing and de-fanging our Commander in Chief. In some instances, there's just not time for rule-by-committee.


rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


51 posted 04-08-2009 09:42 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Isn’t it ironic that a Rockefeller is championing the bill? Authoritarianism is suggestive of a successful adaptation, which in this case, shutting down the internet would require a backup plan to keep the natives from killing each other. So, on those grounds, I say NAY to the bill unless I see where they’ve brainstormed a regression to paper, pens, and cashiers that still know how to count. But what authority am I but a micromanaging pincher of pennies?

There’s a few alternatives or (somewhat) practical safeguards for the internet fears such as loss of info or exposing too much vulnerable info. But if a cyber pro really wants into your business, there’s little one can do to keep from being compromised on every level. Teenagers have hacked our Gov. Known criminals who successfully eluded capture for a time for cyber crimes, now work for our Gov. Getting caught was a lucrative venture, I suppose?

Nearly all banks provide a debit card for purchases and c/c transactions without having to bank online. I’ve never used online banking but haven’t had to order any more checks in years.

You can also get a hardcopy of all of your medical records, free or for a small fee, from any doctor. They belong to you.

Granted, if the internet shuts down? Oh well. The handshake and bartering system will have a new rise in perfected honor and purchasing popularity. Make lots of friends.

Yep, the world runs electronically, now, but your personal info is something a terrorist would be least interested in, IMO. I don’t think a terrorist or an acting member of Big Bro’s “secret eyes” give a crap about us and our all-personal info (on our level.)

A well thought out and put together EMP would do more damage than 9/11. The massive amount of fear=panic=riots=internal disaster of the worst kind: Americans destroy each other while the perps watch it all at a safe distance on high def satellite.

I don’t like what we’ve come to, but I don’t want to go back, either. I don’t like the Patriot Act, but the IRS has had as much power if not more, forever, they just have different agendas.

Is the Prez truly such a threat to us? Remember. He and all his kinship will be under the same eyes and electronic crisis, including his wife, children, friends, supporters, etc. Maybe then we’ll really find out if he’s a qualified citizen? LOL. I think He and his background will be as obsolete as the system governing the protocols of the “matrix” by the next election.

“Haw haw,” says the person developing the latest advancement toward an updated cyber- crisis to our comfy little set-up.

and what IS Rockefeller doing to ensure his bankroll will be accessible to him while America is closed for business?? That’s the personal info I most want to access.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


52 posted 04-08-2009 09:46 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The best way to keep us safe from rogue nations with nuclear capabilities is through layers of missile shield defense systems, which for some strange reason Obama is in the process of reducing. I don't get it.

I think with the internet cyber issue it  would best be handled by an independent government agency charged with monitoring and taking action if and when some attack is discovered. Taking it out of the political realm would be the best way to safeguard against censorship, I would think.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


53 posted 04-08-2009 11:05 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The best way to keep us safe from rogue nations with nuclear capabilities is through layers of missile shield defense systems, which for some strange reason Obama is in the process of reducing. I don't get it.

Because it doesn't work?

Imagine one of your local police officers being fired upon by a meth head, Denise. Do you really think the best solution is to try shooting the druggie's bullets out of the air before they can hit anyone?

quote:
I think with the internet cyber issue it would best be handled by an independent government agency charged with monitoring and taking action if and when some attack is discovered.

You want an independent agency with no one in charge? Where's the checks and balances in that? Why do you trust "them" more than the man elected by the citizens of America?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


54 posted 04-08-2009 11:12 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    
Dear Denise,

          It would be, maybe, if there was a workable missile defense shield. I haven't seen test results that tell me that there is one, or that one is now possible.  The actual missile that a bomb would most likely come in on from a rogue nation seems to me to be a shipping container through a regular US Port of Entry, which have never been decently inspected. or by commercial air freight.  The same.

     A cyber attack of manifests and bills of lading and other trade information, could scramble that data.   We'd have an even more difficult time in tracking which container was filled with toy Koalas from China and which one contained the mystery shipment from the middle east or from some other hot spot..  

     None of this is a great looking scenario.

     How do we protect our data now?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


55 posted 04-08-2009 11:31 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I think it's a debatable issue as to whether or not missile defense works, Ron. What would the alternative be, just let a missile hit us?  Some attempt at defense is better than no defense, I would think.

There wouldn't be a need for checks and balances, per se, if it were taken out of the political realm. I'm sure that an independent entity specializing in cyber security could handle the specifics in developing a plan that included their own type of internal checks and balances to insure that not just one person were making the decisions. Someone or a group would definitely be in charge.

I would trust them more simply because it would be out of the political realm. I don't trust someone simply because they were elected. Some pretty untrustworthy people in history have been popularly elected.

I don't know, Bob. I think the experts in that area need to come up with solutions.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


56 posted 04-08-2009 06:41 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Debatable by whom?

     You've been reading science fiction if you believe that we can shoot down ICBMs, especially with multiple and independently targeted warheads.  We have trouble shooting down medium range rockets with single targets, let alone  picking single live targets out of many multiple live and decoy targets.  Not only don't we have the targeting skill, we don't have the money, and the EMP's from the attempts would destroy us as a military force.  Research on Particle beam weapons haven't gone that far, so far as we know, and we are already stretched fiscally to the limit.  That's what my impression is, anyway.

     Unless you have information nobody else has, it's not really all that debatable.  The safety you speak of is and always has been pretty much an illusion.  We're sort of like Puffer fish that way, we try to make ourselves look big and tough, and we try to be poisonous to eat to make the effort of doing so unrewarding, and mostly that works fairly well.  We are very noble Puffer Fish, and we do many good things for ourselves and the rest of the Puffer Fish in the world, but sometimes we forget how very fragile the whole thing is.  It's generally not a good idea for Puffer Fish to Play with Fish Hooks and other sharp and pointed objects, but it seems to be our nature and it may be our doom as well.

     I don't mean to trivialize our efforts.  We do try hard and we do mean well, most of the time.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 04-08-2009 07:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Almost makes one wish we had Stars Wars....

Don't worry. Our pufferfish image has been deleted, thanks to the prez. We are an apologetic bully with out hats in our hands, begging forgiveness.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


58 posted 04-08-2009 09:22 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     And the size of our nuclear arsenal is exactly how large, Mike?

     I know it feels like we're naked, but most other countries are well aware of the size of our ... what? ... capabilities?  And they have the nagging feeling that they won't be real, live successful Puffer Fish until they increase the size of theirs, too.  Or something like that.

     When I worked on locked psych units, a lot of the more disturbed new male admissions seemed to want to pick me out to have a fight with.  I was always having to find ways of telling them that there wasn't any real contest, and that they could probably take me without any problem, and that I was basically a pacifist, though I'd do the job I was paid to do when I had to do it.  That is often the job of the biggest guy on the block unless what he wants is to do nothing but fight all day everyday.  In which case, he's lost in advance, hasn't he?  Fighting all day every day is no kind of life, it's living paranoia with no pleasures to it.  Pfui.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


59 posted 04-08-2009 11:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Pardon me, Bob, but whatever point you were trying to make with that example escapes me.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


60 posted 04-08-2009 11:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I'm too deflated, apparently.  Next time, I'll try harder.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


61 posted 04-09-2009 03:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here's a commentary by a techie guy on the internet issue.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94340
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


62 posted 04-09-2009 03:22 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Phil Elmore a techie??

I wouldn’t trust his ability to surf the net, never mind understand how to police it.

He’s a freelance writer and martial artist (unqualified).

“I can write anything you require, from a biography to an advertisement to a novel to an editorial, from an operations and maintenance manual to a poem or a screenplay.”

Modest too, I read the article, his fiction is almost third rate.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


63 posted 04-10-2009 12:19 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I guess he could be considered more of a jack-of-all-trades type guy rather than an IT tech, per se, though many of his commentaries deal with internet and other technology topics. I'm sure he handles surfing the web just fine, Grinch.

And I don't think that someone needs to be as astute as yourself in the intricate complexities of the workings of the internet to be able to comprehend and communicate the dangers inherent to personal liberty in governments having unchecked authority over the means of communication, either of the internet, print media or the airwaves, of its citizens.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


64 posted 04-10-2009 12:35 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I guess he could be considered more of a jack-of-all-trades type guy rather than an IT tech


In the IT industry we have a name for people like that - Numpty.

There’s nothing wrong with not knowing something, it’s only at the point that you try to explain something you don’t know anything about that a problem arises. At that point some people may actually believe the twaddle that’s being peddled, and that’s potentially dangerous.


quote:
And I don't think that someone needs to be as astute as yourself in the intricate complexities of the workings of the internet to be able to comprehend and communicate the dangers inherent to personal liberty in governments having unchecked authority over the means of communication


I agree, but it’s handy to have someone who knows what they’re talking about when people start making false claims about the erosion of personal liberties.

I’m curious, how exactly is this bill going to diminish your personal liberty Denise?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


65 posted 04-10-2009 01:09 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

It gives the head of the Commerce Department access to all private information without regard to privacy laws already in place. It supercedes all privacy rights laws in place. That's not good. Those laws are in place for good reason and this would essentially do away with them.

And of course the wording in the section that gives the President authority to declare a cyber emergency and then limit or shut down systems that he deems are a threat to Federal or Private systems is absolutely written too broadly for comfort.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


66 posted 04-10-2009 02:00 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
It gives the head of the Commerce Department access to all private information without regard to privacy laws already in place. It supercedes all privacy rights laws in place. That's not good. Those laws are in place for good reason and this would essentially do away with them.

I think that's the Patriot Act you're talking about, Denise? And I agree, it's not a good thing at all.

There's nothing I saw in this bill that talks about accessing private data. On the contrary, it's about NOT accessing private data.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


67 posted 04-10-2009 04:25 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Here's the section that I was talking about, Ron, Section 14, which can be found on pages 39 and 40.

(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—

shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


68 posted 04-10-2009 04:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
On the contrary, it's about NOT accessing private data.


Dang it Ron - you beat me to it.



Denise,

A lot of people who don’t know any better, and a few who should know better, are trying to convince the American public that this bill will diminish your personal privacy and liberty. It will in fact ensure the exact opposite -  your data will be safer.

Will the Government be able to access your data without going through the normal legal channels?

No.

The bill is aimed at making sure that public and private data holders have every safeguard in place to stop unauthorised access. It doesn’t give the government additional access to a single piece of data that it doesn’t already have access to.

Will Obama be able to censor individual websites?

No.

If the people responsible for the security of critical data, or the people responsible for monitoring potential attacks, report a breach Obama will, based on the advice of experts, be able to order that either the source network or the target network, or both, are taken offline. The important word there Denise is network, if some bright spark posts a derogatory site that he doesn’t like he can’t take down the site without taking down the whole of the network that site resides on. If it’s on YouTube that would mean taking the whole of Google offline - if he tried that I can’t see Google complying with the order.

Checks and balances?

There are loads. Obama can’t simply shut a network down on a whim. The process would be that some techie, either in a public or private IT security position would report an attack to the government department responsible for network security. They’d confirm the attack and try to contain or combat it, if necessary they could request that the President orders that either the target or the source or both are taken off the network. The President would look at the evidence and on the advice of the experts either agree or deny the request. If he agrees he’d contact the owner of the network (Google’s CEO) and order that the network is isolated based on the evidence of a breach. Google’s CEO will either comply with the order if his experts agree that it’s a legitimate request, in which case he’ll tell his network people to unplug all internet connections. If they decide that the evidence is insufficient they’ll refuse and threaten legal action. Obama will then try to cut Googles access through the main pipe suppliers (the other end of Google’s wire into the internet - AT&T or Pipex for example), they’ll either comply or not based on their experts advice.

All those decision points, all those people involved questioning the order are the checks and balances that you say don’t exist.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


69 posted 04-10-2009 04:41 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

What would stop Obama from declaring that his IT experts reported a threat to him, even if they did not, to any CEO of any network and order a shutdown, Grinch? How would they know if there was or was not a legitimate threat? On what basis could they independently cofirm or deny what the President was telling them? And what legal leg would they have to stand on in denying the President's order, when the provisions of this proposed bill give him the authority to declare emergencies and order limits or shutdowns?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


70 posted 04-10-2009 04:49 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Denise,

Here’s what those sections mean in english:

quote:
(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.


There will be one central point responsible for telling all government and critical infrastructure system administrators what is a threat and what is a vulnerability. They’ll basically take in all the security warnings from Microsoft, Cisco, McAfee, Symantec, etc. evaluate and rate the threat, recommend a fix and send it to all the Administrators who’ll patch or update their systems as required.

quote:
(b) FUNCTIONS.—The Secretary of Commerce—

shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access;


This means that all the System Administrators will have to supply all the configuration, system architecture and relevant security protection that they’ve put in place to protect the data they’re responsible for. Stuff like the database type and version, the server build and configuration, the operating system and patch level, the backup and disaster recovery plans, the business continuity plans, a full risk assessment, evidence of a change management process, evidence of system access audits etc etc.

They’ll then be checked and any recommended changes will be fed back to the system administrators.

“Relevant data concerning such networks” is the key phrase, it means any data about the network, not any data held on the network.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


71 posted 04-10-2009 05:02 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

As an IT expert, I'm sure you're right about the meaning of "relative data concerning such networks", not all the data stored in those networks, but I think for privacy concerns it should additionally state that in the bill, something like, "which exludes personally stored data on those networks".

What about my other concern:

What would stop Obama from declaring that his IT experts reported a threat to him, even if they did not, to any CEO of any network and order a shutdown, Grinch? How would they know if there was or was not a legitimate threat? On what basis could they independently cofirm or deny what the President was telling them? And what legal leg would they have to stand on in denying the President's order, when the provisions of this proposed bill give him the authority to declare emergencies and order limits or shutdowns?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


72 posted 04-10-2009 05:06 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Sorry Denise I missed your last post:

quote:
What would stop Obama from declaring that his IT experts reported a threat to him, even if they did not, to any CEO of any network and order a shutdown, Grinch?


Nothing.

But no CEO is going to close down the whole of his business without being given the exact nature of the threat.

quote:
How would they know if there was or was not a legitimate threat?


Because they’re the ones who’re going to report any attacks in the first place, the network administrator at Google will be able to confirm if their system is compromised or compromising another by interrogating their network traffic for specific telltale packets.


  
quote:
On what basis could they independently cofirm or deny what the President was telling them?


As above.

quote:
And what legal leg would they have to stand on in denying the President's order, when the provisions of this proposed bill give him the authority to declare emergencies and order limits or shutdowns?


quote:
The President -
may declare a cybersecurity emergency and
order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic
to and from any compromised Federal government
or United States critical infrastructure information
system or network;


The President can order a shutdown if the system is compromised, a legal leg to stand on would exist if the system could be proved not to be compromised.

If a policeman shoots you in the head because he thinks you’re an armed international terrorist Denise and it turns out that you in fact weren’t do your family have a legal leg to stand on?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


73 posted 04-10-2009 08:21 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

So if it is within the CEO's capabilities to determine and verify a compromise within their own systems, and also to shut them down, which is, I suspect, the way it works now, why pass a law that would interject the Commerce Department and the President into the equation, expanding the powers that each now have?

Example: The CEO determines and verifies that a compromise of their system has occured. They then notify the Commerce Department, who then in turn notifies the President, who declares a compromise and then calls back the CEO and orders him to shut down the system? It sounds quite convoluted to me.

If I were to be falsely accused and killed by the authorities, of course my family would have ground for legal action. But I would be dead still, and the damage could not be undone.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


74 posted 04-10-2009 11:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Denise,

     I support you right to ask these questions and to get good solid answers; to have these doubts and questions addressed directly and in detail.  Grinch clearly knows much more about this sort of thing than I do, and I'm glad that he's able to be helpful, and I think Ron's been helpful here as well.  I'd appreciate it if you'd keep asking these questions as long as you continue to have this sort of doubt, because you may be speaking for others as well, and it's goof to have these things addressed and these fears put to rest.

     What I'd like to know, though, is what happened over the past eight years when issues of civil rights and human rights were being raised?  You were saying something on the order of how (and this was in the case of wrongful death, not as in the case of wrongful imprisonment, torture, harassment, denial of habeas corpus and the like; I'm aware there is a difference of degree involved here) your family might sue, but that wouldn't help you very much.  It strikes me that the events of the past eight or so years fall into the same category, except that your examples are worries of possible future events, and the material from the past eight years is history.  Why is it that these actual events were allowed to happen, and that the complaints of those who were upset by them were dismissed?

Sincerely,

Bob Kaven  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Another Power Grab Attempt?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors