Politics, skip
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
"Bill would give president emergency control of the Internet"
I like how "Internet" is capitalized, but "president" isn't.
So, I don't like this at all. First and foremost, the title is misleading. We, as America, do not 'own' the Internet. What it would give over to the executive branch (more on this in a second) is the ability to basically lock down and supervise -private sector- networks, in the case of "an emergency". (Oh, and "request information" from those networks. Right. "Request", as if there were an option for them to say no. Oh, wait. I'm pretty sure this has already happened in one shade or another, with phone companies and the like under the Patriot Act!)
Of course, the dozens of comments on that particular article... all point the finger solely at Obama, as if he were the one who wrote the whole thing to begin with. Or, as if this 'ownership' of such power would remain only in his hands forever.
People, what the hell, really? We collectively let Bush get away with a LOT more, and worse infringements, but something like this (and every f'ing thing else on the news lately) brings the finger right around on our current President in a way I don't remember happening with Bush at all. Not to mention - it isn't Obama's bill. He didn't write it.
As a point of note, no, I don't agree with the IDEA of this bill whatsoever. Besides being too vague (a point the Internet Security Alliance makes), it just seems ridiculous and a bit too much of a step in the direction of China's control over Internet content. If you don't know anything about that, I recommend looking into it. It's... interesting.
"Bill would give president emergency control of the Internet"
I like how "Internet" is capitalized, but "president" isn't.
So, I don't like this at all. First and foremost, the title is misleading. We, as America, do not 'own' the Internet. What it would give over to the executive branch (more on this in a second) is the ability to basically lock down and supervise -private sector- networks, in the case of "an emergency". (Oh, and "request information" from those networks. Right. "Request", as if there were an option for them to say no. Oh, wait. I'm pretty sure this has already happened in one shade or another, with phone companies and the like under the Patriot Act!)
Of course, the dozens of comments on that particular article... all point the finger solely at Obama, as if he were the one who wrote the whole thing to begin with. Or, as if this 'ownership' of such power would remain only in his hands forever.
People, what the hell, really? We collectively let Bush get away with a LOT more, and worse infringements, but something like this (and every f'ing thing else on the news lately) brings the finger right around on our current President in a way I don't remember happening with Bush at all. Not to mention - it isn't Obama's bill. He didn't write it.
As a point of note, no, I don't agree with the IDEA of this bill whatsoever. Besides being too vague (a point the Internet Security Alliance makes), it just seems ridiculous and a bit too much of a step in the direction of China's control over Internet content. If you don't know anything about that, I recommend looking into it. It's... interesting.