Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cyber Security Bill


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#31 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,319 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 04:22 PM

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.

#32 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 04:47 PM

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.

#33 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,319 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 04:58 PM

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.

Edited by Davidson Deac II, 05 May 2009 - 05:02 PM.


#34 xPUREBYBLOODx

xPUREBYBLOODx

    StraightXXXLife

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 07:15 PM

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


Revolt?:lol::lol::lol:

#35 xPUREBYBLOODx

xPUREBYBLOODx

    StraightXXXLife

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 07:18 PM

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:

#36 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 09:37 PM

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.

#37 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,393 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 09:41 PM

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.

#38 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,032 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 06 May 2009 - 09:27 AM

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.