Saturday September 19, 2009, 4:38 pm
Big decisions being made here about our curious future!

===============

* Related Care2 Article :

"Is America Ready for the Next Terrorist Attack?


Signature: THE FIFTH KNIGHT'S NEWS

Saturday September 19, 2009, 5:48 pm
Thank You, Sir Robert

Saturday September 19, 2009, 5:57 pm
I think he should be able to. If it means the lives of millions of people being saved and the protection of the country yes definitely. Freedom has a price. In fact true freedom to me does not exist. Everywhere you go there are laws whether by gov. or institutions, even traffic laws. I believe if it were not for extreme overpopulation of the human race it might not be nessesary. Under the conditions we live in now bumper to bumper people we have to have laws to prevent or slow down kaos. Just my opinion. Thanks Sir Robert

Saturday September 19, 2009, 6:13 pm
This is just extending the powers of the president in extreme circumstances, the ability to control and monitor mail and press has existed from the beginning of the country. However, rather then worrying about this I would be more concerned about reinstatement of the personal freedoms taken by Bush & Cheney.

Saturday September 19, 2009, 6:16 pm
Then what next? Control of all communications? The phone? Texting? Writing letters? Speaking? The price of freedom is no freedom? What sense does that make? I roll my eyes in despair. Lie down and accept totalitarian control why don't you? It's what you have coming unless you protest, object, say NO!

Saturday September 19, 2009, 6:18 pm
Kit, it doesn't look as if they are going to be reinstated and I would worry about extending control of communication. Land of the free?

Saturday September 19, 2009, 6:24 pm
That sounds like 'big brothers in this case 'big prez' have tooooo much power.No leader of any part of the world should have this 'absolute power.

Saturday September 19, 2009, 6:46 pm
noted thank you

Saturday September 19, 2009, 6:47 pm
they owe you a gold i clicked on no note

Saturday September 19, 2009, 6:51 pm
NOBODY SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO SHUT OFF THE INTERNET, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OR THE KING OF ENGLAND OR THE PRIME MINISTER!

Saturday September 19, 2009, 6:55 pm
Sorry Sir Robert, not going to really get to involved on this one with my thoughts.

Personally, don't like the idea with the President, government having that type of power to turn off the Internet...it even upsets me that certain words on the phone can have the FBI at your door in a heart beat!!

This is giving a ton of control to the government and sort of reminds me of a country that has a dictator and government has all of the power.

Personally, I would like to automatically say NO loud, don't like the phone bugged now, that is "bugging me"...but UMMMMM there are both pros and cons!

I may say yes if there were a situtation like Pearl Harbor and there was a great attack, but a small cell going after one area...UMMMM that is hard...don't like the idea this bill is pending at all...

Didn't see in this article...WHO INTRODUCED THIS BILL??? AND, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEHIND THIS PARTICULAR BILL?

I would be very interested to know that if someone has that answer for me...if not, guess when I have time I can look it up.

Thanks!

Saturday September 19, 2009, 8:46 pm
It seems extreme and I imagine it is vague -- which would make it all the more maddening. I would like to see this. We need more on this!

Thanks Robert!

Saturday September 19, 2009, 9:03 pm
I believe this is to much power for For the Prtesident or Vice President. I do not have the answer but, if the security of our Country is at stake,I believe it should be talked about and every American should be allowed to vote on the best solution How to or who or how many etc that power should be given. The article,the writer Amrit Williams is right Now is the time to start the conversation. Tomorrow will be to late

Saturday September 19, 2009, 10:23 pm
Here is a fairly recent and succinct discussion to shed some light:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/cybersecurity-act-returns-with-a-fresh-coat-of-paint

September 2nd, 2009

Cybersecurity Act Returns With a Fresh Coat of Paint
Commentary by Richard Esguerra
In April, we voiced serious concerns about the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, a bill by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), that sought to give the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet. For months, the bill has been redrafted behind closed doors and has recently been circulated, but by all accounts, the changes are cosmetic and it's sadly more of the same.

Like the original bill, the new version appears to give the President carte blanche to decide which networks and systems, private or public, count as "critical infrastructure information systems or networks." And alongside that authority, there still appears to be murky language that would permit the President to shut down the Internet. Note the troubling provision in the original bill, which said:


The President [...] may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

The new bill says:


The President [...] in the event of an immediate threat [...] may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network;

In other words, they appear to have packaged Presidential authority to shut down the Internet and other private networks behind a ribbon of red tape, and the words "national response."

In addition, a CNET article by Declan McCullagh indicates that many of the early concerns about privacy, authority, and security effectiveness have gone unsolved: there is vague language about mapping federal and private networks; there is an unexplained scheme to certify cybersecurity professionals at the federal level; and the mandated implementation of a "cybersecurity strategy" before the completion of a legal review that could protect against inadvertent privacy violations or inefficiency.

Despite the many questionable provisions, the bill may snake its way through the lawmaking process by virtue of having been produced in large part by Sen. Rockefeller, who is chairman of the committee in charge of reviewing and approving the bill. Stay tuned to EFF Deeplinks for news as the bill progresses -- we'll be watching it carefully.

Related Issues: Privacy, Transparency

Saturday September 19, 2009, 10:25 pm
Not to sure I would enjoy the idea... it is controversal... and perhaps a decision that not many would like to talk about... Depends on the circumsatnces, and as long as it is not used as propaganda and control... well lets see... Just make sure we have put our work n back up.. disc

Sunday September 20, 2009, 12:48 am
I can not believe that anyone could even CONSIDER this acceptable in ANY circumstance!! HAS EVERYBODY GONE "BRAINDEAD"? This I have posted MANY TIMES over the last month, I can not believe that the media has ignored it as it violates our constitution on at least a half a dozen different levels. Also that would mean NO MORE COMMUNICATION FOR ANYONE, Only what the feds WANT you to hear nothing else, do you need a more graphic example? OK seven states decide that they are too populated so the feds agree to "euthanize" 500,000 people in each state, the media is controlled so no one really hears about it, and the people who do, can not SAY anything about it as the internet is no more. With us only being able to hear what we are told to hear it is no different than Hitler burning books! THERE SHOULD BE RIOTS IN THE STREET TO STOP THIS! The media should be on this like stink on s***!!! Or are they not allowed to speak already? A question that should concern EVERYBODY!

Sunday September 20, 2009, 2:12 am
No one is entitled to shut down communication via the net or any other avenue...Hitler and Stalin did a pretty good job...But why mention the president of the US only?...Is he god?

Sunday September 20, 2009, 2:21 am
Just thinking about the motive for executing this type of media control is frightening to say the least. I'll say no more.

Sunday September 20, 2009, 3:09 am
So the American sheeples are giving their President the power to turn of the internet under the guise of protecting the sheep from a terrorist attack hmmmm I think this has more to do with then not communicating with each other what the terrorist (American government)are doing. they are so asleep that failed to see the last attack on the world trade centre was a government operation. many saw through the lies but the majority were to frighten to think for themselves.

Sunday September 20, 2009, 3:22 am
I agree with Tierney G. that many problems are due to human population growth--here and abroad. Our personal freedoms have already been limited because of this, and will become even more limited.

Sunday September 20, 2009, 6:21 am
Listen folks...if the internet or more truthfully the ETHERNET could be shut down it would have by now...
The ability of the Queen,Osama Obama,the Pope,Hitler etc to control the media [internet driven propaganda machine]eg:cecily and tierny clearly demonstrates that if they could shut the net they would have .Instead they plant detractors that try to persuade/intimidate the population of sheeple or braindead idiots by attempting to legitimize the law/control measure or by their most popular tool FEAR!!! Whether it is terrorism,global warming, Cern ...or Alien invasion...it is not REAL and should not be where we focus our attention.

The Ethernet is Humanity...it is the extension of our common or collective consciousness...it needs no electricity,wires or management.It is powered by our thoughts! Therefore it is important at this time to think of what we want...not what we are led to believe [The grand illusion] We are connected to everything in Creation...The plants ,the animals,the earth itself.Think of an earth that you would like it to be and press SEND.
We all move on the creators web as individuals,but every step we take[thought or vibration] affects all others on the web also.Do not focus on those that send out negative thoughts or vibrations ,just focus on what you want and control your own vibration.
This is all a part of Evolving Naturally to a higher state of being... Get Conscious now!
Wake up Save our Earth...Scott Shaubel...Agrogreen Canada...Naturally!

Sunday September 20, 2009, 7:20 am
NO NO NO NO NOOOOOO!

Sunday September 20, 2009, 7:48 am
Thanx Mike Star for your comment...so agree.

Sunday September 20, 2009, 8:53 am
I agree with David, as communicating keeps the peace shutting down the internet...don't even want to go there too dark.... Thanks Sir Robert.

Sunday September 20, 2009, 9:36 am
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! It is just another way of Herr Obama to take over our lives and tell us how to live. Do you really think that "turning off" the internet in the US will protect us? What about the other countries - are they going to go along with this plan of an idiot who is so delusional to think he can rule the world? Talk about a recession...this would cause a catastrophic economic collapse that goes beyond unimaginable. This is just a way Obama hopes to censure free speech in the guise of "security". We can take care of ourselves better than you can, B. HUSSEIN O. You have failed, and will fail miserably if you consider this. Lastly, are you going to pay my bills, utilities, and late fees? I think not. Another idiot on this planet!

Sunday September 20, 2009, 11:26 am
oh H* no, shutting down the internet only shuts down us, it won't stop terrorism or murderers, it won't stop war or the downfall of any country, pedophiles find children without the net, all those things happen without the internet, it would be total bullshit to shut us down, that would be taking away our freedom to reach out to each other. we do nothing criminally wrong, so why should we lose this right? if someone is found guilty of using the net for unlawful purposes then fine, shut them down, and them only.

Sunday September 20, 2009, 11:26 am
sorry, Sir Robt, ty, but grrrrrrrrrrr...

Sunday September 20, 2009, 1:00 pm
I truly believe all of us would be for it IF it saved lives, BUT it appears to be too open without reason, allowing 'them' to control US! If we let them in with this, what next?

Sunday September 20, 2009, 2:23 pm
I'm Glad Bu$H is gone!

Sunday September 20, 2009, 4:13 pm
At first I thought, in an emergency or attack on our country, this would be a good thing! But than I thought about if we can do this, that gives other leaders and countries the right to do it too. First, there is violence and attacks all over the world every day! This raises the question of how often could the internet be down. Secondly, there are a lot of unscrupulous leaders in many countries that could abuse this power a wreak havoc all the time. After thinking this through, I say NO to the President of the US
being able to shut down the internet!

Sunday September 20, 2009, 5:02 pm
No Never under any circumstances!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sunday September 20, 2009, 5:58 pm
Sir Robert thanks, NOBODY SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO SHUT OFF THE INTERNET!

Sunday September 20, 2009, 7:47 pm
"NO" to shutting down of the internet, plain and simple.

TY, SirRobert.

Sunday September 20, 2009, 8:47 pm
No!! absolutely no way this is absurd Say No to the Puppet Master

Sunday September 20, 2009, 10:14 pm
NO ! Everything coming out of Washington is just getting more and more ridiculous. I thought I lived in the USA not China. Don't give me the freedom isn't free speech because this is a totally different subject. We are losing our rights more and more and we are simply giving them away. What happens when they are all gone? Then it's too late. The President seems to be leading us down a path I don't think anyone truly wants to follow.From fining poor people who can't afford the "affordable" health insurance to this. What happened to the man we voted into office?

Monday September 21, 2009, 1:10 am
i suppose if there was a real emergency

Monday September 21, 2009, 3:56 am
NOOOOOOO! This is nothing more than a way to stop communication so people can not tell others what is happening to them, like when you are forced to take flu shots and then have to wear a computer chip bracelet or something to that effect. When troops are doing something with civilians that they should not be doing. If the elected officials need to shut down parts of their own network due to cyber attacks, fine if they leave We the People's internet alone! However in this day and age with technology, they can trace whomever is attacking them anyway. Plus if they do not have technical people that can keep hackers out then they need to get some professionals who can! Heck, hire the best hackers in the world to stop other hackers! This is not what they are making it look like!

Monday September 21, 2009, 4:37 am
Until I know all of the true facts of this, I really don't want to say "yea" or "Nay". If giving him that power is listed in a bill, that only gives him the right, after there is truly justified harm going to be done to the US, then it could be a good thing. I go agree about not wanting to just hand over these kinds of actions to the President without a large amount of reasoning, justification, and possibly others such as the FBI, CIA, or possibly a new group who watches over this is involved.

Monday September 21, 2009, 7:15 am
One of the first and best attacks on censorship was made in 1644 by the English poet John Milton in an essay called the "Areopagitica." In it he simply asks the government to allow the people the "liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience."

Monday September 21, 2009, 11:02 am
Absolutely not. But for those of you who think it can't be done it already is being done in other countries and probably here. 2 recent examples:
I was in China during the Tibet demonstrations in the summer of 2008 for a few weeks. I could see Tibet story headlines on websites, but when I clicked to read the story I got a blank "page unavailable" screen each time. When I got to the Phillipines later I could read the same stories there.
I was doing some business in the UAE a few years ago. I had photos of some furniture products I sell emailed to me while I was there. They did not arrive until about 8 hours after they had been sent. The internet police held them up until they looked at them.
This is already happening here I am sure and it shouldn't be. we can't give the government this kind of power.

Monday September 21, 2009, 1:28 pm
This is not right.The Internet should not be turned off.What's next? Radio?Television?

Monday September 21, 2009, 5:42 pm
Just in case you are having trouble deciding ask yourself this question:
Should former president Bush have had the power to turn of the internet?

Monday September 21, 2009, 7:31 pm
No way !!!!!

Monday September 21, 2009, 7:33 pm
The Internet is the last bastion of genuine free speech, and the last remaining way for the people to organize without being interfered with by a government that has become scared to death of the idea of ANYone gathering in groups who might disagree with government policy. Government-paid thugs have been routinely attacking even protests with permits (which are unconstitutional), and pre-emptively arresting people who might dare protest where a government official might have to hear and see. How do you suppose the Founders would have reacted to "Free Speech Areas"? Of "Constitution-free Zones"? Or look at Homeland "Security's list of potential "terrorists" to watch and to round up and pre-emptively arrest in case of martial law! It includes recently returned and older veterans, peace activists, environmentalists, bloggers who disagree with government policy, gun owners, intellectuals - need I go on? It's pretty much the one Hitler and Mussolini used with the obvious exception of bloggers. And classifying them as terrorists just make them vulnerable to the terrorism laws that allow removal of citizenship and all "rights," which we no longer have anyway. If they can be taken away on ANY authority for any reason, they were not rights, they were privileges. And we're rapidly running out of even those.

Monday September 21, 2009, 7:48 pm
The US president runs America (poorly) not the world.

Wednesday September 23, 2009, 9:30 pm
Thank you SirRobert.

Saturday September 26, 2009, 9:52 pm
No

Monday September 28, 2009, 12:02 pm
No.

Friday October 2, 2009, 6:55 pm
thank You SIr Robert, I do not know, so I should research it more thourally before I decide to let somone I do not trust fully to have such power by himself alone.... He has too much power right now, maybe if He had to confer with computer experts?? I will try and research to have a more comprehensive answer for You! but thank You very much for all of Your diligence and informative assistance to Us!....Cathi

Thursday October 22, 2009, 10:52 pm
NOPE. then thats the whole point of privacy.

Friday October 23, 2009, 12:23 pm
OK, just to clear things up a bit.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY AT ALL
NOT ON THE INTERNET
NOT ON A PHONE
THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE
IT WAS TAKEN AWAY BY BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS BY THE POORLY NAMED
PATRIOT ACT
THE POINT OF THIS STORY IS THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO EVEN BE TOLD BY OTHERS OF CHANGES LIKE THIS!

Saturday October 24, 2009, 3:30 pm
They don't like the fact that protesters can organise quickly through the internet. So if they feel threatened by dissent, they will shut it down. As they do in China and no doubt in other totalitarian states. But they will never quash dissent in a country where people have been used to freedom of speech. Well, maybe they will manage for a while - but not forever. I hope anyway.

Saturday October 24, 2009, 3:39 pm
Can't you just see the frightened, deluded and right-wing citizens lining up to give away yet another freedom in the name of national security. Their enemies both real and imaginary must be overjoyed.