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  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


0 posted 04-04-2009 11:24 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

First the census brought under his control (and ACORN slated to do the recruiting of the census taker workers), then the board room of GM, and now this? It seems to me he wants control of everything. He is really beginning to scare me.

I hope these bills are defeated. If not, I will have to give up the internet if it comes under the control of the government, and I would hate to have to give up my socializing here as well as my online banking.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93966
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


1 posted 04-05-2009 12:40 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

           Should these things prove accurate, I don't like them either.  Have you paid any attention to the problems with the Patriot Act, if you're so upset about this one?  My understanding is that the government already has sweeping powers much like these, and that they were voted into effect with the patriot acts.  Not that such a thing would make this any better, if this is accurate; it wouldn't.

Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 04-05-2009 07:29 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Afraid I'm with you, Denise. My transactions and contacts on the internet would be a thing of the past, also, for as long as the democratic congress is  around.

I really can't believe this would happen but, with the governmental power-grabbing going on these days, who knows?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


3 posted 04-05-2009 07:52 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Iíll need to research the precise proposals but on the face of it this sounds like a darn good idea to me.

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


4 posted 04-05-2009 09:16 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I didn't have a problem with the government tapping the phones of known terrorists and their associates, Bob. It was no more than what is being done by the FBI in monitering criminals and their activities. At least it was "target" specific.

I guess we will have to go back to the old fashioned way of communicating and banking, Michael. Dang, I just hate writing paper checks.

quote:
First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the Internet Ė including private citizens' banks and health records, if Rockefeller's examples are accurate Ė if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack. The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of the president.


This may sound like a good idea to you Grinch, but a bill that gives such broad unspecified authority to one man who can shut down any system on the net that he chooses, including banking, internet service providers, news organizations, etc., on the pretext of security, should definitely raise alarm among Americans. And yet most Americans won't even know that this bill even exists, thanks to the MSM Obama lapdogs. This makes the Google censoring deal with China seem like child's play.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 04-05-2009 09:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Nor to mention anything extremely derrogatory to him that is factual. China has the same policy, as do other countries that do not allow anti-government propoganda displayed on the web. Our screens can just have a background of Big Brother, assuring us that everyone is happy....
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


6 posted 04-05-2009 09:57 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Ok, Iíve read the proposed bill.

I no longer think itís a good idea - Iím absolutely convinced it is.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


7 posted 04-05-2009 10:14 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Great...perhaps obama will share it with the Queen and we can all enjoy it together.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


8 posted 04-05-2009 11:13 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


The UK government is already committed to extending our existing cyber security infrastructure Mike, most countries are, and a whole bunch of them take part in regular coordinated international cyber terrorism simulations. Thatís because the threat is real and the potential consequences far more damaging than a standard terrorist attack.

Given that there is a very real threat are you proposing that the US doesnít instigate some form of monitoring or protection against such an attack? While thatís certainly a novel strategy Iím not sure that turning the US into a giant honey pot for international cyber-terrorism would be such a good idea.

Or have you an alternative plan perhaps.

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


9 posted 04-05-2009 01:42 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't think cyber terrorism could be considered more damaging than planes flying into buildings and subjecting 3,000 people to horrific deaths, Grinch.

There is nothing wrong with cyber security. I'm sure we have a degree of it now. It just shouldn't come under the ultimate control of one man.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


10 posted 04-05-2009 02:12 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
I don't think cyber terrorism could be considered more damaging than planes flying into buildings and subjecting 3,000 people to horrific deaths, Grinch.


Really?

Ever hear of Chernobyl?

There are 100 operating nuclear power plants in the US, all computer controlled, the core temperatures are computer controlled, the automatic safety overrides are computer controlled and the delivery and distribution of power output from them is computer controlled.

Your missile defence system is computer controlled.

Your banking system is totally reliant on electronic transmissions.

Do I need to go on?

Still donít believe me?

How about this guy:

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 ĎĎan order of magnitude greateríí than those cased by the physical attack on the World Trade Center. Mike McConnell has subsequently referred to cybersecurity as the ĎĎsoft under belly of this country.íí

That's taken directly from the proposed bill - you should read it Denise.

If you did you'd realise that "one man" isn't going to control it and also that your fears regarding your personal access to the internet being infringed are unfounded.
http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2409865.ece

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 04-05-2009 03:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The "unlimited access to personal information" bothers me, grinch. The unlimited access to banking records and health information data also. This has what to do with cyber security? Are these policies that the UK is using in their fight against cyber intrusion? Protecting areas like nuclear power plants and infrastructure is, of course, a given but what would that have to do with a person's medical records? Giving the government a blank check in this regard, with them being the only ones who can define a "cyber emergency", is unsettling, to say the least.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


12 posted 04-05-2009 04:31 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Protecting areas like nuclear power plants and infrastructure is, of course, a given but what would that have to do with a person's medical records?


Err.. Nothing, thatís my point.

Allowing government access to that information isnít mentioned in the bill, which isnít surprising given that the bill is designed to PREVENT unauthorised access to sensitive data not allow easier access to it.

Will the people who prevent unauthorised access have access to your data?

Yes, but thatís nothing new, they already have access. The IT security expert at your bank responsible for access to your data can probably already access your data Mike, the potential threat is that at the moment itís possible that half the hackers in eastern Europe and China can too.

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


13 posted 04-05-2009 04:56 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't give much credence to someone who could say that an economic cyber attack would be worse than what happened on 911. Unbelievable. How can anyone compare money lost to lives lost?

It is the way that the bill is worded that is troublesome, and also the "urgency" to get it passed quickly. It is vague and doesn't seem to have any checks and balances to prevent wanton censorship by the Executive branch. I'm sure that security measures can be beefed up satisfactorily without leaving it to the discretion of one political figure to determine what is or isn't a true cyber emergency. Bush seemed to be able to keep us safe for the previous seven years without resorting to these tactics. And I'm sure they dealt with cyber attacks as well.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


14 posted 04-05-2009 05:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I don't give much credence to someone who could say that an economic cyber attack would be worse than what happened on 911. Unbelievable. How can anyone compare money lost to lives lost?


I think youíre doing Mike McConnell a bit of a disservice there Denise. He was comparing the economic cost of 911 against a possible cyber attack.

If you want to compare apples with apples youíd need to address my point regarding a possible cyber attack on a nuclear or similar power facility.

quote:
It is vague and doesn't seem to have any checks and balances to prevent wanton censorship by the Executive branch.


Have you actually read the proposal Denise?

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


15 posted 04-05-2009 05:51 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The economic cost could be as great or greater, of course, but it still would not rise to the level of lost lives.

Yes, I have read it. You can drive a truck through what isn't said. And I am always wary when Congress wants to "quickly pass this" or the world will come to an end tomorrow, as they did with TARP and the so-called Stimulus bill.

If Obama truly wants to protect this country from attack, I'd suggest that he put troops on the border, not release enemy combatants onto American streets, and not discontinue the eavesdropping on the communications of known terrorists. And on the cyber side of the equation, he could have Congress rework this paragraph:

The President -
(2) 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;
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


16 posted 04-05-2009 06:23 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Why would you want to rework that paragraph?

Isolation of a compromised system is standard practice, assigning the authority to authorise such an isolation is essential.

That paragraph means that if a security breach occurs in a critical installation, a nuclear power plant for instance, the experts on the cyber-security panel can request to isolate the local area network from the wide area network - including internet access. That stops any further security breach within that facility and also, in the case of a viral attack, stops the affected installation proliferating the problem.

Any IT security expert worth his salt would INSIST that a procedure for such authorisation was in place and that the authorisation, where possible, was given at the highest level (itís called arse covering in UK IT industry parlance).

quote:
I'd suggest that he put troops on the border


Would that protect a nuclear installation from the cyber-terrorists?

quote:
You can drive a truck through what isn't said


Can you?

I couldnít, it seemed pretty straightforward to me, mind you IT security is part of my job, maybe Iím filling in the truck sized holes based on my underlying understanding of current IT security practices.

Have you some examples, perhaps I can help fill in some blanks.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 04-05-2009 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

Grinch, you trusting devil, you know as well as anyone you can drive a truck through the loopholes of ANY government plan.

Well, at least, if they can use internet investigation of anyone they choose, there will be no further need to steal 900 fBI files anymore, like Clinton did
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


18 posted 04-05-2009 07:39 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
if they can use internet investigation of anyone they choose


Mike,

If they want to find out anything about you Mike, and they have good reason, they already can and quite legally. If they donít have good reason they still technically could, theyíd just pay a 15 year old from Mumbai or Beijing a few hundred dollars to hack into a few databases.

Oddly the second option would be less likely if this bill goes through and security is tightened.  

It wonít eradicate unauthorised access, thatís not possible, itíll just make your data and critical infrastructure a little safer.

BTW - I donít trust anyone if I can possibly avoid it, I get paid not to. Itís just that sometimes thereís no other option and Iíd rather trust someone being paid to keep me safe than some eastern European hacker whoíd sell his granny for kicks.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


19 posted 04-05-2009 08:50 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I'm sure that security measures can be beefed up satisfactorily without leaving it to the discretion of one political figure to determine what is or isn't a true cyber emergency known terrorist.

I've been saying much the same thing for a couple of years now.  

Isn't it amazing the way "trust" depends so profoundly on whether you like or dislike a person?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


20 posted 04-05-2009 09:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, grinch, they can't, not legally. Certainly they can find ways to do it but they can't use it if it was obtained illegally.

Ron - and grinch - there's a difference between a telephone and the internet. Telephones don't have google, for one thing. There is a lot of unrest and protesting going on right now with regards to Obama's actions to this point. Take the situation of the hundreds of "tea parties", for example. Let's suppose that congress or Obama declares that a possible "insurrection" could be brewing which could be detrimental to the United States. How easy would it be for google to round up people? Jeez, my name could certainly come up just by what I've said against Obama in the Alley. They could google negativity against Obama, come up with a mountain of names, and investigate  these people to their heart's content, background checks, IRS audits, you name it, simply by claiming that their actions are in the best interest of the safety of the country. Farfetched, you say? Ok, call me paranoid. Let's see if you call me paranoid in the future. If they don't have any problem with - and make it easy for insurance companies and employers to have your medical records and your family history medical records, why do you think your information - or your livelyhod - would be safe under this new plan? Do you really think this is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind?

Grinch, there's no reason why you have to trust either one. You make it sound like you have to make a choice...you don't. Btw, I'll ask again. You mention that the UK is following similar courses of action. Do those actions include the same points Obama is pushing for? What are they doing?

...and where ARE all the people here who complained about the Patriot Act? No shows. I guess you must be right, Ron.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


21 posted 04-05-2009 11:40 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

That is the paragraph I am talking about being able to drive a truck through, Grinch. I know what the paragraph technically means. I can also see how it could be used by someone who is into consolidating everything under his control as he has shown he has a tendency to like to do. It needs to be reworded to place some sort of restrictions/checks and balances into the process before he can shut something down on the internet. As it stands there is too much leeway for abuse. Just look at the abuse Obama and his operatives foisted upon Joe the Plumber for having the audacity to ask Obama a question. These are not nice people who can be trusted.

Trust, I think, comes first for me, Ron, in determining whether or not I like or dislike someone, not the other way around.

I think there are too few people in power in Washington who care what the framers of the Constitution intended, Michael. They would just as soon use the Constitution for toilet paper if something in it clashes with their personal political ambitions. And I think there are too few citizens who even know what the Constitution says, having not learned about its importance in the public school system, and again too few who think it is even relevent for today, thanks to liberal college professors.

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


22 posted 04-06-2009 02:13 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Mike,

I donít know how many times or ways I can say this:

The bill is designed to reduce the number of people who have access to your data - not increase the number.

This isnít about giving access to data to the government, itís about denying access to anyone who shouldnít have access - including the government.

If you want to put it in telephone terms Mike the bill gives the government the ability to shut down your local exchange to break up a terrorist cell using the exchange to bug your phone.

quote:
Ok, call me paranoid.


Youíre not paranoid Mike, youíve simply been misled and misinformed.

Whatís the UK doing?

Itís more like what has the UK done.

The UK formed a task force soon after 911 similar to the one proposed in the bill, itís had the same overall aims - to put forward proposals on how to defend government departments and critical infrastructure against attack. Itís secondary function was to set up methods of monitor potential attacks on the private sector and to advise and train  IT security professionals to use the latest and best practices, exactly as laid out in the proposed current bill.

In February 2007 the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure was formed as a direct result of the proposals. It was a merger combining elements of MI5 with the pre-existing National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre and the National Security Advice Centre.


.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


23 posted 04-06-2009 05:31 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Farfetched, you say? Ok, call me paranoid.

It is farfetched, Mike, you are being paranoid, and that is EXACTLY the response I've been recommending for several years. The Constitution wasn't designed to protect us from best-case scenarios, after all. We should always expect power to be abused and guard against it as best we can.

Tell me again, though, why you're not equally worried about being branded a known terrorist? It seems everything you are now concerned about was already given away in the so-called Patriot Act? Or do you honestly think people weren't investigated in depth "simply by claiming their actions are in the best interest of the safety of the country?"

Be worried, Mike. I know I am. But let's be worried about the lack of checks and balances, not about the personality of the current administration.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 04-06-2009 05:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It seems everything you are now concerned about was already given away in the so-called Patriot Act?

There I disagree, Ron. The democratic-condemned wiretaps were geared toward long-distance calls to foreign countries where there was a possibility of terrorist connections. Now you may say, "Oh, yeah? How do you know they just didn't go after people whenever they wanted to?" Ok, how would they do that to compare with this current endeavor. Pull out area codes and just investigate everybody with a phone number falling into that code? Seems rather senseless to me. But, thanks to the internet, they CAN simply type "Obama complaints" or "Obama criticisms" or "Obama socialist" or any number of combinations and automatically come up with a huge list in seconds to key on. That's a  big difference. If you want to consider the two to be similar, then I must assume that, since you have spoken against the illegal but not illegal wiretaps, you must speak equally against this plan, also...
 
 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