Obama seizes Internet, Drudge goes viral

Wow...Never been to Drudge before. Never want to go again. This was the first post I encountered:

There will be riots, blood in the streets. People will totally freak. I know, I'm one of them.

Seems the "great Americans" have gone all "sharia" on Americans. Tell me....which founder father said we need to kill other Americans? Glenn Beck's audience is 2 million strong they claim........heck that's nothing....back in 1924 the KKK was 2-8 million strong. Keep working hard oh "great Americans"...you're almost there.

DRUDGE IS A RIGHT-WING WATER CARRIER WHO TRIES TO PASS HIMSELF OFF AS A JOURNALIST.

News at 10:00
.

Actually, this is a pretty scary piece of legislation. The internet has become a major, if not the major, form of communication in this country. Image what the response would have been if Nixon wanted to be able to take over the telephone system.

There is no definition of what constitutes a "cybersecurity emergency". Nor is there any justification offered for the President taking over private networks. In fact, that sounds like a Constitutional violation. Does he want to quarter troops in our houses next?

The next objection is this "licensing" provision. Are we now saying the government can conduct classes, establish criteria, and then issue a license to the people of their choice to maintain private networks? I can see this for government networks. I cannot see this for somebody else's network.

The fact that Obama has a Blackberry is pretty thin gruel. I would doubt Obama knows how to establish a link to the White House email system or do any of the other things necessary to actually make the Blackberry work. Having his very own Blackberry does not constitute any sort of qualification.

And, just to show how little Silva knows about the topic, to gain control of a network, you do need the servers, routers, smart switches, and passwords for all of those. Jay Rockefeller does not understand that either.

This whole thing is very ill defined. I would not trust any administration, but particularly this administration, with that much authority.

Rick

Mark,
This story is to complicated for Drudges readership.

Drudge, Redstate and the creeper Freepers are to busy being fake outraged over Obama not wearing a bike helmet to try and understand something as complicated as cyber security.
.
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/06/siren.gif
.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-shuns-bike-helmet.html

BillyR,

All Drudge does is gather articles from other web sites, what scares you? Conflicting ideas?

Here is an exerpt of the bill that the Cnet article referenced

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf

The one thing I did notice that would worry me - is no consent from Congress. If you loons think this is OK because one of your own is in office, that won't always be the case.

If Drudge had gone viral when Bush suspended habeus corpus and threw out the Geneva conventions and claimed the right to imprison American citizens without trial as an "emergency power" then he might be worth paying attention to. But he didn't. Thus, he cements his position as a right wing extremist hack who has to share the blame for all the went wrong in America since the "rule of law", Contract on America Republicans took power.

Mark,

I was, honest to God, OK with this Internet take-over business until I saw: "new draft of legislation ... Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia democrat". Terry's last sentence @ 7:28 p.m. totally captures the fear that I would have.

When will America learn, u cannot trust these people, some more or less than others, but u cannot and should not trust them. Jay Rockefeller is a dude with an agenda. An emergency contingency plan is one thing but this will surely be something else. It always is. When will America learn.

Looks like Obama is up to more of his Dictatorship of America.
Waiting to hear him lie about it.

President Bush did NOT ground planes after the 9-11 attack. The decision was made by a mid-level FAA coordinator and confirmed at later at 10:31 a.m. by FAA Administrator Jane Garvey. They were unable to reach Secretary of Transportation Mineta but he confirmed the groundings wen notified. Bush concurred with the decisions but contrary to this article, he did not make them. So to compare this potential unprecedented and unspecified disruption of the internet by Obama is not valid. It, however, is no less a major threat to freedom of speech and communication that must not be allowed to happen.

All Drudge does is gather articles from other web sites, what scares you? Conflicting ideas?
Posted by: Terry | August 28, 2009 7:28 PM

Never minded a spirited debate Terry.......never enjoyed the mean spirited.

Without proper restrictions and oversight, all powers will get abused. It's not a matter of if, but when.

Pardon this governmental interruption of the Internet, but Bruce, I believe you have made 37 postings questioning the campaign contributions of my best fans, and John D., I believe Charlie Rangel is looking for your email address, and John W., for the sake of democracy, could you please get on a Twitter character budget? Just checking in, my subjects. Remember, my czars are watching your every move. Now you may return to your regularly scheduled Internet service -- Barack.

Thank you Rick Caird for a well presented and non-partisan comment regarding this issue. I would hope others posting here would try to emulate you and resist the temptation to lash out in an emotional "D's vs. R's". The things that are happening in this country are too important and we must all stand together as Americans first. Both parties have brought us to this point and we can't seem to trust either party when it comes to protecting our civil liberties.

I would not trust any administration, but particularly this administration, with that much authority.

Rick

Posted by: Rick Caird | August 28, 2009 7:03 PM

Look who is all of
a sudden worried about an over reach of authority..........

BillyR,

What is mean spirited? If you think the article is mean spirited, then blame the author and Cnet. Drudge just gathers.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!
The objective is so that he can turn it off "temporarily" when he is bringing about a new bill that he is well aware America would not tolerate like health care, government take over of the auto industry, mortgage industry, insurance industry, banking, and gun control. How else have people found out what is even in the bills - through the internet. How else do people coordinate. One of the keys to take over is controlling the information process.

Mark, how does this Internet thing get likened to "Bush grounding planes on 9/11?" First of all, as noted, Bush did not but the FAA did. And did it not make sense to do so? What, we should let more planes fly into buildings?

Anyway, getting back to the Internet story, if this was the Bush administration, I'd be willing to bet my house that Silva and the Left would be having cows the size of Texas over it. There are legit concerns here about this legislation and I would think a journalist would understand that.

What is mean spirited? If you think the article is mean spirited, then blame the author and Cnet. Drudge just gathers.

Posted by: Terry | August 28, 2009 10:28 PM
***********************************
.

Yeah Trickledown boy,

We're all well aware of all of the Newscorp/Murdoch "news" outlets that the self hating closeted Drudge gathers from...unless he can gather from some other outlet that supports his twisted right-wing agenda.

Save your breath, Terri...You'll need it to blow up your Ann Coulter doll later tonight.

"Waiting to hear him lie about it."

Waiting....waiting...waiting... Bueller?

I've read that the reason Bush didn't use e-mail was not because he didn't know how but because he didn't want things he'd written to be forwarded (either accidentally or maliciously), or used to ill intent. I read somewhere or another that he (reluctantly) quit e-mailing his daughters after he was elected, for those reasons. And, much as I loathed his presidency, that made me sad for him as a dad.

Don't say anything negative. You'll get a knock at your door and be arrested for thinking like a free person...that could be taken as a threat to this administration.

Bye bye Miss American Pie...(everyone sing along with me now)...

There is no need for this bill. Private industry knows all about security and it is self-driven. This is another power grab by the administration. This bill will give the administration the ability to do what we've seen done in China, Iran and other despotic states. We continue our march toward an oligarchy.

No matter who the President is, it's ALWAYS wrong for him (or, I suppose with nod to possible future Oval Office Occupants -- HER) to overstep the limits expressly set on their office by the Constitution. It was wrong when Clinton proposed his Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Bill (and the Republicans rightly knocked the bejeepers out of it), it was wrong when Bush just plain spit on the limitations of his office and did whatever he pleased in the area of warrantless wiretaps (and the Republicans, who held the majority voice at the time, did nothing), and it's wrong NOW. Since it's Democrats who have the majority voice, they need to start speaking out immediately and strongly to put the President back in his place and start working on some kind of compromise that would make sure the Internet is secure (which is a valid concern) and that our right to privacy short of a warrant is held intact (far more pressing, IMO).

After three Presidents in a row fallling into the same trap, it's high time to make sure that a legal precedent is set whereby NO future President can take steps like this.

Drudge has a history of hysteria where it comes to Obama and the left, and I view them as anything but non-partisan (like the right's version of, say, Huffington Post). I do take what they have to say with a grain of salt; nonetheless, this is very troubling news.

Hmmmm, who is invading my territory? Another side of John E perhaps??

"Waiting to hear him lie about it."

Waiting....waiting...waiting... Bueller?

Posted by: John D | August 29, 2009 3:04 AM

"bill r", I have a big problem with giving this kind of authority to any administration. If you recall RICO was supposed to be a tool to go after the Mafia. Now, RICO is used in all manner of prosecutions. The Patriot Act was designed (or so it was claimed) to go after domestic terrorists. But, like RICO, it got corrupted and used in ordinary prosecutions. I have zero reason to believe that this "cybersecurity" legislation would not be used in a similar manner.

The real question for you is: How would you feel if Bush asked for this power? I think we can all guess.

Rick

Trickled On Anti John E,

Google News - Murdoch owned? The Oklahoman - Murdoch Owned? Financial Times? Chraleston Post and Courier?

HAve mummy download some Thomas the Tank Engine games for you. Later tonight, you can snuggle with your Candy Crowley doll.

I recall people saying that if you "had nothing to hide" why should you care who listens into your conversations when the Bush the administration started mining information from the phone systems in America...Qwest went bust didn't they for not cooperating? Those of you who had no problem with that should not have a problem with this proposition. Or was it only okay when a Republican was in the WH?

The real question for you is: How would you feel if Bush asked for this power? I think we can all guess.
Posted by: Rick Caird | August 29, 2009 12:25 PM

Funny, I think the real question is, how would you? It's amazing how after Bush, so many throw him under the bus after years of defending him and his terrible policies.

I don't know but think internet sales tax.

"bill r": way to side step the issue. In now way did I through Bush under the bus. What I claim is that these emergency powers inevitably become routine. Are you disagreeing with that? If so, it would be helpful if you could provide a counter example to my claim.

Rick

Denial, name calling, partisianship, "it was really Bush that did it...so where were you"...Why why why?
Why can't topics be discussed based on fact and content?
Answer: I.Q. by definition 1/2 of all people are under 100. Multiply this time decades of dumbed down socialist education and you have the answer. So stop playing on the internet before irt gets shut down and get ready for therapy school...put on your bike helment and underoos and get going you little scamps...the "short bus" is waiting

You people crack me up with all this Repub vs. Dems garbage and you complete ignorance of how the internet can be used against the U.S. as a means of warfare. This isn't about Obama and what he "might" do or about about what Bush "did" do. This is about how to secure the infrastructure of the United States of America.

Let's think about this for minute, assuming you guys can read beyond the front page of the news you'd find, about once a month news of some snot nosed kid hacking into some supposed "highly secured server" or another. Sometimes it's a private server with nothing more interesting on it than 5 million account number from one bank or another. Sometime it's a government server, and yes, sometimes it's the military.

How hard do you think it is from someone or some country to do something like shut down the electricity grid in this nation? You'd be shocked to learn it's really not that hard. The Chinese for example have made claims that they could do it. And that's just for starts. I'm seriously not one for playing the fear card, but this is a huge issue in terms of security and no the Dept. of Homeland Security is NOT up to this job. Those guys can barely monitor our airports.

Yes, we need to do something, the question is how? Do I beleive anything Drudge says? Of course not, he's moron and he still hasn't learned how to put together I decent website even after all these years. But I will assure no matter what action is taken there will be plenty of lawsuits to stop it. But in the mean time the normal Repubs vs. Dems idoitacy will dominate and the once great country called the United States of America will continue the slide downward it's been on for well over 15 years now.

When i read this post it is a scary news for all internet lovers and here in UK Internet is a good medium of communication. According to me cybersecurity emergency is a major issue now a days for internet users and government of USA because the chances to hack government network is increases in future.

NSA Illegally Wiretapped Your Phone, Fax and Private Email Communications? Now Your Internet?

In 2008 Telecoms were granted government immunity after they helped U.S. Government spy on millions of Americans’ electronic communications. Since, Government has not disclosed what happened to NSA’s millions of collected emails, faxes and phone call information that belong to U.S. Citizens? Could those wiretaps perhaps illegal, become a problem for some Americans? Neither Congress nor the courts—determined what NSA electronic surveillance could be used by police or introduced into court by the government to prosecute Citizens.

In 2004, former Attorney General John Ashcroft asked government prosecutors to review thousands of old intelligence files including wiretaps to retrieve information prosecutors could use in “ordinary” criminal prosecutions. That was shortly after a court case lowered a barrier that prior, blocked prosecutors from using illegal-wire tap evidence in Justice Dept. “Intelligence Files” to prosecute ordinary crimes. It would appear this information, may also be used by government to prosecute civil asset forfeitures.
See: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5452

Considering that court case, it appears NSA can share its electronic-domestic-spying with government contractors and private individuals that have security clearances to facilitate the arrest and forfeiture of Americans’ property—-to keep part of the bounty. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax, phone call or web post out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture.

There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. In the U.S., private contractors and their operatives, work so close with police exchanging information, to arrest Americans and or share in the forfeiture of their assets, they appear to merge with police.

Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 passed, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” and effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” that an asset became subject to forfeiture. With such a weak statute of limitations and the low standard of civil proof needed for government to forfeit property “A preponderance of Evidence”, it is problematic law enforcement and private government contractors will want access to NSA and other government wiretaps perhaps illegal and Citizens’ private information U.S. Government agencies glean monitoring the Internet, to arrest Americans and to seize their homes, inheritances and businesses under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police and government contractors become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to pay their salaries and operating costs?

Under the USA Patriot Act, witnesses including government contractors can be kept hidden while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited. The Patriot Act specifically mentions using Title 18USC asset forfeiture laws: those laws include a provision in Rep. Henry Hyde’s 2000 bill HR 1658—for “retroactive civil asset forfeiture” of “assets already subject to government forfeiture”, meaning "property already tainted by crime" provided “the property” was already part of or “later connected” to a criminal investigation in progress" when HR.1658 passed. That can apply to more than two hundred federal laws and violations.

Alarmingly the Obama Government recently employed a vendor to search Internet social networking sites to collect information about Americans that could potentially be used by this government to injure Americans, for example, if you apply for a federal job, your name might be crossed referenced by the Obama Government with comments you made at Websites against Obama; or if you make application at a bank for a loan the Government has control since the financial crisis, could your Internet comment(s) prevent you getting that loan? Obama’s monitoring of the Internet sites can too easily be used by Government to intimidate Citizens from speaking out.