More BHO administration paranoia...

[YardleyLabs]

This is interesting. What Obama is proposing to do now is wrong. It was wrong when the previous president decided he didn't need warrants to spy on Americans. Why is it different now that Obama wants to infringe on Constitutional rights than when George Bush did it? If I remember correctly I didn't hear any outrage from the many conservatives on this board just alot of intellectually corrupt justifications.
This just shows me that when we take sides on an issue,(based on party affiliation) we are more readily able to forgive the party we support if they do it instead of seeing it is wrong regardless who does it.

If you actually read the bill sections, they permit the President to disconnect systems from the internet. They do not permit him to examine contents. The regulations govern standards for securing systems, but also do not permit content to be examined.

The risk is not in what the law permits but in the fact that it positions the government to act inappropriately with greater ease. Part of the legislation is the formation of an advisory group to develop standards for protecting privacy. However, there is inherent risk. The problem is that the national security risk is also real and needs to be addressed.

By the way, none of these standards apply to machines that are not hosting systems deemed to be critical to security. This, nothing in this bill would give the government access to personal computers. However, given that most software attacks are now launched through Trojans that attack and take over personal computers attached to the Internet, effective defense strategies will ultimately need to improve tools for tracking these attacks back to the hosts that launch them and from there back to the hosts that planted the original Trojans. This may not be possible without forensic assessment of the intermediate machines. These are typically personally owned machines that do not house any critical systems.

[tpaschal30]

I'm with Yardley on this. The Chinese and North Koreans have both already successfully tested the waters on disrupting the internet and hacking into important systems in America. The ramifications of a shutdown of the internet would be crippling to us...our financial system, our power grid, transportation, defense, nearly everything revolves around computers and the internet. We should do whatever we can to protect it.

From a practical standpoint, when Obama was elected we passed him the keys to our nuclear arsenal, the keys to declaring martial law, the keys to our military, and about 100 other keys that would allow him to take over, ruin, kill, whatever this country if he wanted to. While I don't agree with much of his politics, I don't think he's a madman who intends to establish himself as our own Mao, Stalin or Chavez. If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt.

Wait a minute. He pays to destroy good capital with the cars for clunkers on the pretense of getting off our addiction foreign oil. Here is an idea! Let's get off our addiction to a communication system that cannot be secured. Build a secure system, if your going to blow tax dollars. Heck, my dad and uncles used to have their own telephone system before WW2. I think we can work that out 70 years later!!!!

[TXduckdog]

By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

This accumulation of power is disturbing.

"If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt."

I say not a freaking chance. I would and did give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on some of the stuff they did because I trusted they were doing it for national security, and they were. Obama and this congress are too radical, too mysterious and so far have demonstrated they can't get things right....NO WAY I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt...until they demonstrate they have US citizens well being as their primary objective....not accumulation of power for powers sake.

[YardleyLabs]

By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

This accumulation of power is disturbing.

"If Obama and Congress believe they need this bill to protect the interests and safety of America I'll give him/them the benefit of the doubt."

I say not a freaking chance. I would and did give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on some of the stuff they did because I trusted they were doing it for national security, and they were. Obama and this congress are too radical, too mysterious and so far have demonstrated they can't get things right....NO WAY I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt...until they demonstrate they have US citizens well being as their primary objective....not accumulation of power for powers sake.

The law either gives the president authority or it does not. Elections determine the President. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. The fact remains, however, that he was CIC and now Obama is. The powers of the CIC go with the office. If you aren't willing to trust the office, don't support increases in its power when the occupant is someone you support because those powers will still be there when a new occupant moves in.

[tpaschal30]

The law either gives the president authority or it does not. Elections determine the President. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. The fact remains, however, that he was CIC and now Obama is. The powers of the CIC go with the office. If you aren't willing to trust the office, don't support increases in its power when the occupant is someone you support because those powers will still be there when a new occupant moves in.

Then why would you not feel the same of Obama. Does he have less power than Bush? Should Obama be relieved of some power? Or is it you trust Obama and not Bush? If so, it is just preference.

[M&K's Retrievers]

. Personally, I thought Bush was given too much power and that he abused it thoroughly. .

I've been asleep for the past 8 years. Exactly what did he abuse and if he did way wasn't he stoped? Just wondering...

[dnf777]

By why do things have to be controlled from the WH?

This accumulation of power is disturbing.

Again, the lack of outrage over the past 8 years casts doubt on the true nature of the concerns here, when we saw power-grabbing like nothing since the Civil War!

Warrant-less wiretaps, recess appointments, stacking of the justice deptartment, war powers, executive privelages, signing statements, reporters being JAILED for not revealing their Bush-unfriendly sources....

I was outraged then, and I am outraged now with some of the things that are occuring in the Obama whitehouse. Overall, and it may just be a time factor, but I do not see the same amount of abuse that we did over the past regime.

[K G]

Overall, and it may just be a time factor, but I do not see the same amount of abuse that we did over the past regime.

7 months vs. 96.......

Hang on to your hat regards,

kg

[Hew]

reporters being JAILED for not revealing their Bush-unfriendly sources....

Oh my GOSH! That's horrible! I would really like to read about all those courageous reporters who were thrown in the pokey for not revealing their "Bush-unfriendly" sources. Could you point me in the right direction as to where to look for this info? Maybe a reporter's name? A link to an article? You know, those sorts of things. Thanks much.

[YardleyLabs]

Oh my GOSH! That's horrible! I would really like to read about all those courageous reporters who were thrown in the pokey for not revealing their "Bush-unfriendly" sources. Could you point me in the right direction as to where to look for this info? Maybe a reporter's name? A link to an article? You know, those sorts of things. Thanks much.

If' the reference is to my classmate Judith Miller, she was actually very Bush friendly (maybe too personally friendly) with members of the Bush administration and was jailed for refusing to disclose who in the administration fed her stories about Valerie Plame. As it turns out, she appears to have been a relatively willing accomplice in a smear campaign who was actually trying to protect those responsible for the smear. After her release from jail, she was pretty much abandoned by the NY Times because of questions about her jounalistic ethics.