But I thought there is no terrorist threat?

[BeAChooser]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet

Should Obama Control the Internet?

... snip ...

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure.

... snip ...

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Oh oh ...

Maybe this was what Obama really meant by "transparent".

And had Bush proposed this, democrats of all persuasions would be screaming bloody murder! Where are they?

How the worm turns ...

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I say Emperor Obama is full of great ideas and gives me security as a citizen.

 

[Cleon]

You're quoting Mother Jones?!?!?!?

Someone check the temperature in Hell! Stat!

 

[BeAChooser]

You're quoting Mother Jones?!?!?!?

Yes, it could be a sign of impending trouble for Obama.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I see a bipartisan bill that came out of the Senate.

Let me know when Obama is involved in any capacity whatsoever.

 

[BeAChooser]

I see a bipartisan bill that came out of the Senate.

You call it a bipartisan bill because Oympia Snowe cosponsored it? Technically, yes. But in actuality ... ROTFLOL!

Let me know when Obama is involved in any capacity whatsoever.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/The-Proposed-Federalization-of-the-Computer-Security-Field-297694/

Legislation just introduced in the Senate, written with White House input according to the Washington Post, would federalize the business of computer security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103684.html

The legislation, co-sponsored by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), was drafted with White House input.

 

[Puppycow]

I see a bipartisan bill that came out of the Senate.

Let me know when Obama is involved in any capacity whatsoever.

Dontcha know that Obama is secretly behind everything creepy and authoritarian?

 

[INRM]

This in my opinion is extremely dangerous. I'm not the only one to agree. The EFF does, and I'm pretty sure the ACLU would also.

INRM

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Congrats! The first really bad decision!

 

[INRM]

Rika,

I'd have to agree on that

 

[Upchurch]

I want to know more about this. When I first heard about this, it appeared to be within the context of computer security within the government (i.e. at the pentigon, white house, etc.) Now we're getting different variations on it.

I want to know what this actually is before jumping to conclusions.

 

[applecorped]

Jump already!! (to conclusions)

 

[Cobalt]

Hope! Change! Wooooooooooooooooooooooo! Protect the Series of Tubes!™

 

[Upchurch]

Speaking to the OP title, I think terrorists are less of a cyber threat than the Chinese are. And the Chinese don't want to crash our networks (meaning government and military) so much as hack them.

 

[gdnp]

Speaking to the title, if you thought that there is no terrorist threat, you are an idiot hold idiotic beliefs. If you mean to imply that your opponents think or have stated that there is no terrorist threat, then you are also an idiot your beliefs are equally idiotic.

Any more straw man titles?

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[BeAChooser]

If you mean to imply that your opponents think or have stated that there is no terrorist threat, then you are also an idiot your beliefs are equally idiotic. Any more straw man titles?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...administration-stopped-using-war-terror-term/

March 30, 2009

... snip ...

The phrase "global war on terror" is finished, at least as far as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is concerned.

The top U.S. diplomat told reporters Tuesday that the Obama administration has quit using that line to describe the effort to fight terrorism around the world.

"The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself," Clinton said.

And how is that seen oversees?

http://www.france24.com/en/20090331...itches-war-terror-hillary-clinton-george-bush

Obama administration quietly ditches ‘war on terror’

Now you might respond that they've just replaced the term with a new one ... "Overseas Contingency Operation". But does the Obama administration just think this is a word game? And isn't the internet policy mentioned in the OP a domestic action rather than overseas operation? I'm further puzzled by Napolitano's (the new head of DHS) reticence in using the word "terror". In her testimony before Congress immediately after assuming office, she didn't use the word once. She spent more time talking about the threat of hurricanes than anything else. But maybe you're right and maybe she's changed her focus back to "terrorism" ... urrr ... "overseas contingency operations" ... urrr ... "man-caused disasters" (that's the term she recommended we use in mid March). But, gdnp, don't you think (like some pundits have noted) that while Napolitano thinks calling it "man-caused disaster" instead of "terrorism" is just a "nuance", it shows a weakness and an unwillingness to confront the enemy? And isn't bin Laden's perception that we were weak and unwilling to confront enemies part of what led to 9/11? Is Napolitano (presumably with Obama's blessing) just sowing the seeds for the next "man-caused disaster" that kills 3000+ Americans? And if the folks that Obama has put in charge of Homeland Security are afraid to accurately describe the enemy, can we really trust them to protect us from them?

In any case, gdnp, I'm glad to hear that you, at least, think there is a "war" going on against "terror", meaning that terrorism must still be a threat. Although I have to say ... a lot of folks who supported Obama sure didn't seem to think that. Wonder what they think now?

 

[gdnp]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...administration-stopped-using-war-terror-term/



And how is that seen oversees?

http://www.france24.com/en/20090331...itches-war-terror-hillary-clinton-george-bush





Now you might respond that they've just replaced the term with a new one ... "Overseas Contingency Operation". But does the Obama administration just think this is a word game? And isn't the internet policy mentioned in the OP a domestic action rather than overseas operation? I'm further puzzled by Napolitano's (the new head of DHS) reticence in using the word "terror". In her testimony before Congress immediately after assuming office, she didn't use the word once. She spent more time talking about the threat of hurricanes than anything else. But maybe you're right and maybe she's changed her focus back to "terrorism" ... urrr ... "overseas contingency operations" ... urrr ... "man-caused disasters" (that's the term she recommended we use in mid March). But, gdnp, don't you think (like some pundits have noted) that while Napolitano thinks calling it "man-caused disaster" instead of "terrorism" is just a "nuance", it shows a weakness and an unwillingness to confront the enemy? And isn't bin Laden's perception that we were weak and unwilling to confront enemies part of what led to 9/11? Is Napolitano (presumably with Obama's blessing) just sowing the seeds for the next "man-caused disaster" that kills 3000+ Americans? And if the folks that Obama has put in charge of Homeland Security are afraid to accurately describe the enemy, can we really trust them to protect us from them?

Sorry, I missed the part where Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the Clinton administration said that terrorism was no longer a threat. Doesn't their escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan imply that they consider Al Qaida a far more serious threat than Bush, Cheney, and Rummy did when they took their eye off the ball, BAC? Don't you think? Which do you think scares OBL more, BAC, words or 17,000 troops?

 

[joobz]

"War on terror" does not equal "terrorism doesn't exist".

Similarly,
Saying there's no such thing as a "War on Stupid" doesn't mean that stupid doesn't exist.

 

[JihadJane]

Sorry, I missed the part where Hillary Clinton or anyone else in the Clinton administration said that terrorism was no longer a threat. Doesn't their escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan imply that they consider Al Qaida a far more serious threat than Bush, Cheney, and Rummy did when they took their eye off the ball, BAC? Don't you think? Which do you think scares OBL more, BAC, words or 17,000 troops?

Assuming OBL is even alive, he's probably very happy to see 17,000 more targets and 17,000 more reasons for locals and their supporters to take up arms against the invaders.

 

[Thunder]

Assuming OBL is even alive, he's probably very happy to see 17,000 more targets and 17,000 more reasons for locals and their supporters to take up arms against the invaders.

we wouldnt have had to "invade" if the place wasnt a damn training ground for attacking the USA for 10 years.