Too much power for Obama???

Flames · Apr 9, 2009

Should Obama Control the Internet?

By Steve Aquino | Thu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST
Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?
Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.
"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."
The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.
"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."
The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.
"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."
Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s

Please tell me this website only put up joke news similar to onion news

master_g · Apr 9, 2009

wait till you guys get marshal law.. ouch

ralphrepo · Apr 9, 2009

The article is deceptive in its naming. This is not about Obama, per se, but whether any US president and his directed subordinates can (for reasons of national security), limit and inspect private communications traffic on the internet. IMHO, this is no different from any president limiting or inspecting private movement on the nations roads and highways for the same purposes. Immediately at the onset of 911, all US flights were grounded because that's where the perceived threat was coming from. While it inconvenienced a great number of people, the impetus there was to save lives by preventing more attacks. Americans may not admit it, but we already allow ourselves to be subject to physical search as a precondition for air travel.

In this sense, IMHO I would agree that the president of the US, in a national emergency, should be able do anything that he felt necessary to protect the nation. Most people do not realize that during a national emergency, a nations' leader can declare Martial Law, which legally suspends many of the rights that Americans presume to be sancrosanct and immutable. That is, during a genuine national emergency, ANY sitting US president, can legally suspend the rights that is stated in the US constitution.

So the right to privacy of emails? LOL... not even an issue. -sleep

Too much power for Obama???

Flames Out of Date User

master_g .

ralphrepo Well-Known Member