Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest

Cyber Security Bill

38 posts in this topic

the idea of emergency granting of powers is redundant however, if the need arises the power will be given, whether granted officially or not. the problem I have with this is that as deac said, it's probably not going to be necessary. As I believe that's the case the probability that it will be used incorrectly, either in this administration or future administrations is much higher than the probability of it being necessary and impactful in the way it was intended.

Actually, I said it is necessary, but will likely never be needed. In other words, a contingency plan for a worst case internet scenario. Personally, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to maintain a large scale cyber attack for any significant length of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I said it is necessary, but will likely never be needed. In other words, a contingency plan for a worst case internet scenario. Personally, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to maintain a large scale cyber attack for any significant length of time.

right, i agree with that aspect of it, it's just my opinion that as such it poses more of a fundamental risk. i don't think it's necessary given that the powers would be given to the president by default. Putting it in writing only encourages misuse and expansion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right, i agree with that aspect of it, it's just my opinion that as such it poses more of a fundamental risk. i don't think it's necessary given that the powers would be given to the president by default. Putting it in writing only encourages misuse and expansion.

In my opinion, it only lays out the ground rules for a power that the president already had. I don't see how it encourages misuse. The vague way the rules were set up before was what encouraged misuse.

Fact of the matter is that if the president had called ATT and said shut down your core routers that control internet access because we feel there is a national cyber threat, then ATT would have done it, as would any other corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One right after another will fall till the people start revolting against.

Revolt?:lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was only concerned when he perceived that Bush was doing it...The fact that the DEMS are enslaving us to big government doesn't concern him at all.

:lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it only lays out the ground rules for a power that the president already had. I don't see how it encourages misuse. The vague way the rules were set up before was what encouraged misuse.

Fact of the matter is that if the president had called ATT and said shut down your core routers that control internet access because we feel there is a national cyber threat, then ATT would have done it, as would any other corporation.

fair enough, I hope you're right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people screaming about wiretapping terror suspects are fine and dandy with this bill ... go figure.

nobody is fine and dandy with this bill. some people just aren't concerned because it's another cooky bill by that cooky Olympia Snowe ® that has no chance of passing.

whereas the wiretapping, you know, actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody is fine and dandy with this bill. some people just aren't concerned because it's another cooky bill by that cooky Olympia Snowe ® that has no chance of passing.

whereas the wiretapping, you know, actually happened.

A Democrat is a co-sponsor ....

I have no problem wiretapping suspected terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites