Change!

Sometimes, there is a tendency to generalize what an administration, that may or seems to pander now to the Left on privacy issues, would handle critical national security policy.  On one hand there is talk of prosecuting CIA agents, and also in the near past the Left was up in arms about monitoring international calls to suspected terrorist cells.  Now this story comes out.  Is this going to concern the political Left, the Right or both?  I think that after trying to push through such sweeping domestic legislation without consensus, it may worry everybody.  So we can trust the Government if our own man is in office and distrust it if he/she is not.  This is an interesting debate.  How can we protect our national security without leaving a door open for abuse of the Constitutional rights to communicate?

Because, who could respond to an emergency faster than the Feds, right?  I suspect the President already has sufficient powers under the constitution to do what’s necessary if there’s a real threat.

It’s all about the power of the radical-liberal intelligensia to dictate what the rest of have to do or not do to create the workers’ paradise since the U.S. has always been a corrupt country which oppressed the workers until the current administration was elected.  Luckily, they are exempt from the rules since they make the rules.

Man, if they were speaking Spanish I would think I was in Venezuala or Cuba.
BTW, good luck getting to your online bank account or brokerage account if they pull the plug on the ‘net.  Bet those recurring, automatic online payments you have scheduled will also be blocked.  That should have an interesting effect on your credit score.  The paperless statements that we all have been guilted into accepting so we can be green; SOL!

#4, I’ve seen warnings about the dangers of an attack on the electric grid which would have the dire results you cite.  Printing statements and bill payment transaction reports might be a good idea in case it happens.

I’d have to see this bill, written behind closed doors, to assess what we’re really talking about.  It is amusing, though, to think of the left up in arms about the monitoring of international phone calls when one end of the call is a suspected terrorist while the same left is proposing, apparently, to give the President authority to suspend internet communication.  It’s not what the law is, but who the executive is, it seems.

5, you said:  “It’s not what the law is, but who the executive is, it seems.”  Unfortunately that has always been the case.

Look at Massachusetts as they try to switch their election laws to accommodate the Democratic party in selecting a replacement for Sen. Kennedy.  When a Republican governor was in office they wanted an election and now with a Democratic governor they want a gubernatorial selection.  In a one party state is possible to manage your laws to favor those in power.

Evidently Massachusetts’ governor seems to think so!

I just don’t get it.  I really don’t.  While I still admire President Bush, I understand his limitations.  His primary flaws were that he was not a fiscal conservative and he was too fast & loose with the law.  But come on!  Change?  Obama is Bush on steroids.  The Obama Deficits make Bush look like an absolute miser.  Between the rule of law and Obama’s agenda, the law doesn’t stand a chance.  Lord O is just too cool to bother with laws. 

Well, he’s is not cool.  He’s just plain immarture and inexperienced with no concept of the Instutution of the Presidence beyond his own mirror.

I sure am HOPING for a CHANGE!  Four and out!

oops, that was supposed to be the Institution of the Presidency.

Technical people I have heard comment say that this is unnecessary. Any essential government/military internet access should be moved over to secure intranet networks managed by the DoD and the rest of the internet should be left alone. This seems to be either a bill written by those totally non-technical or a bill written by those trying to amass more control - so which is it? Hard to tell, since I think one should always assume ignorance before malice.

Thank heaven we don’t have those crazy right wingers possibly listening in on every phone conversation illegally!  Now it will be legal.

What could go wrong?

10. Branford wrote:

Technical people I have heard comment say that this is unnecessary. Any essential government/military internet access should be moved over to secure intranet networks managed by the DoD and the rest of the internet should be left alone. This seems to be either a bill written by those totally non-technical or a bill written by those trying to amass more control - so which is it? Hard to tell, since I think one should always assume ignorance before malice.

Well yes, it would be desirable to isolate critical military and intelligence computer networks from the Internet entirely in cases of “cyber attack” or war.

As I read the concerns of computer security experts, there is concern that hostile governments or terrorists could critical public systems such as the electrical power grid, phones, banking, air traffic control, commerce, radio and television and the like causing major disruptions in many areas of American life. There is also concern that local terrorists could bring down 991 services and police and fire communications. And there is strong evidence that all of these systems are being “invaded” by governments (notably China) and ordinary hackers (often based in Russia).

There is a vital national security issue here and it is important that Congress and the Executive address it. And yes, some of it will have to be secret—just as those of us who have some idea of what we are doing, keep our passwords as secret as possible, using encryption, kerberos and other techniques to protect critical personal information which might be accessible to not so nice guys on the Internet.

And yes, there is a danger to personal liberty—that a snooping government might use the Internet to spy on its citizens. This is nothing new. It was inherent in Bush’s warrant-less wiretaps. It was inherent in Nixon’s “plumbers” and Watergate break-in.

One would hope that instead of panic, rational discussion will ensue to the object of adopting laws and policies which balance individual liberties and national security (without which individual liberties become moot).