Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • 60 Replies
  • 5323 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline snowhite159

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 60
    • Show only replies by snowhite159

Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 08:25:29 PM
Idk, If any of you know about the "kill switch". But I just searched that Obama wants to pass a law to disconnet the internet for "emergancy purposes" :evil: . Ummm.... what the heck?!?! OR could it be that more and more people are knowing about the illumanti and those things?? thanks to MJ , of course. Otherwise, people wouldn't have research them up! hmmmm. Something to think about.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

*Mo*

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by *Mo*

Re: PLEASE READ!! (illumanti)

  • on: June 19, 2010, 08:27:10 PM

Can you please post some links?  I'd appreciate that!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline change the world

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 27
    • Show only replies by change the world

Re: PLEASE READ!! (illumanti)

  • on: June 19, 2010, 08:33:37 PM
I have read this story too, and it is fresh on my mind, so I could retrieve the story quickly.  Here is the link:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-s ... 303838.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline TheRunningGirl

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 777
    • Show only replies by TheRunningGirl

Re: PLEASE READ!! (illumanti)

  • on: June 19, 2010, 08:40:33 PM
This looks like yet another attempt to take power away from the people by controlling information going through the internet.
One would need to understand the detailed of the proposed bill but I agree this is a worrying sign!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »


"Let us dream of tomorrow where
we can truly love from the soul, and
know love as the ultimate truth at
the heart of all creation."

Online ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10009
    • Show only replies by ~Souza~
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators

Re: PLEASE READ!! (illumanti)

  • on: June 19, 2010, 08:43:58 PM
Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US
By Declan McCullagh, CNET.com on June 15th, 2010 (5 days ago)

A new US Senate Bill would grant the President far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of, or even shut down, portions of the internet.

The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

That emergency authority would allow the Federal Government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who meets with the Democrats.

Due to there being few limits on the US President's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page Bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

TechAmerica, probably the largest US technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power". And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman Bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems."

The idea of an internet "kill switch" that the President could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that ZDNet Australia's sister site CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency", and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or websites.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's Bill, which is formally titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realises the importance of protecting our cyber resources".

Under PCNAA, the Federal Government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the internet, the telephone system or any other component of the US "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman Bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over wiretapping without a warrant. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorised.

Lieberman said on Thursday that enactment of his Bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

A new cybersecurity bureaucracy
Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including "no less" than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.)

The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the "security status" of private sector websites, broadband providers and other internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide "situational awareness of the security status" of the portions of the internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.

Selected private companies would be required to participate in "information sharing" with the Feds. They must "certify in writing to the director" of the NCCC whether they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director". The NCCC director can "issue an order" in cases of non-compliance.

The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."

To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalising offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable.

If there's an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.

Another sweetener: a new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardise their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products.

Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticising the Lieberman Bill, calling it a "very important piece of legislation".

McAfee is paying attention to "a number of provisions of the Bill that could use work," Gann said, and "we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions."

Via CNET
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline hesouttamylife

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5393
    • Show only replies by hesouttamylife

Re: PLEASE READ!! (illumanti)

  • on: June 19, 2010, 08:55:46 PM
If this includes some kind of shut down of the internet to the public in the event of national or global disaster, then my response is I'm sorry but hell to the naw.  I don't have one iota of confidence that the government's main interest here is to save the people.  I would feel better having public access and researching on how to save myself.  I hope this does not pass.  Think Katrina.  Those people were cut off from the world and left to fiend for themselves.  No sirree.  I don't trust that one bit.  If anything, we'll be left out of the know while they discriminately decide who's worth saving.  Something tells me that my name and address is not on that list :shock:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don't stop this child, He's the father of man
Don't cross his way, He's part of the plan
I am that child, but so are you
You've just forgotten, Just lost the clue.”

MJ "Magical Child"
Still Rocking my World…
   and leaving me Speechless!

“True goodbyes are the ones never said

Offline Hazzely

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1443
    • Show only replies by Hazzely
    • https://twitter.com/Hazzely

Re: PLEASE READ!! (illumanti)

  • on: June 19, 2010, 09:00:06 PM
Now even our Youtube information is being controlled. They know everything about us.."for crime investigation"

Google, YouTube received 10,000 government requests for user data

3,580 data requests originated from U.S. agencies
By Jon Brodkin, Network World
April 20, 2010 04:09 PM ET
 
Google and the Google-owned YouTube received more than 10,000 requests for user data from government agencies in the six months ending Dec. 31, 2009, according to newly released data.

"Like other technology and communications companies, we regularly receive requests from government agencies around the world to remove content from our services, or provide information about users of our services and products," Google says on a new site that sheds more light onto government demands for user information and requests to take offensive material off the Web.

Google Buzz's Privacy Tweaks: Good Start, Not Enough

The vast majority of requests for private user data "are valid and the information needed is for legitimate criminal investigations." Likewise, many requests to remove videos and other content are valid, for example requests to nix child pornography, Google notes.

"However, data about these activities historically has not been broadly available," Google said in its blog Tuesday. "We believe that greater transparency will lead to less censorship."

Between July 1 and Dec. 31, Google received 3,580 requests for user data from U.S. government agencies, slightly less than the 3,663 originating from Brazil. The United Kingdom and India sent more than 1,000 requests each, and smaller numbers originated from various other countries.

Brazil also sent the most requests to remove content, at 291. Germany was second with 188 such requests, followed by India with 142 and the United States with 123. Google fully or partially complied with 80% of content removal requests in the United States.

The numbers are imperfect, because a single request could consist of multiple users' data or removal of multiple URLs. There could also be multiple requests for the same data or to remove the same content.

So far, Google is not saying how often it complies with government requests for user data, but said it plans to in the future.

"We would like to be able to share more information, including how many times we disclosed data in response to these requests, but it's not an easy matter," Google says. "The requests we receive for user data come from a variety of government agencies with different legal authorities and different forms of requests. Given all this complexity, we haven't figured out yet how to categorize and quantify these requests in a way that adds meaningful transparency, but we plan to in the future."

In related news on Tuesday, Google was sent an open letter by government regulators from several countries demanding that the company respect national laws on user privacy.


http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/0 ... -data.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
May your spirit keep the freedom of a butterfly in spring and your heart be filled always with the joys of simple things. May your essence claim the freshness of the new laid morning dew. All of this...and more...
Forever, http]
http://mjmylullaby.tumblr.com/

Offline hesouttamylife

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5393
    • Show only replies by hesouttamylife

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 09:04:14 PM
:shock: They know that we know what we were never meant to know.  Thanks MICHAEL :D  for enlightening us and making us seek out the truth.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don't stop this child, He's the father of man
Don't cross his way, He's part of the plan
I am that child, but so are you
You've just forgotten, Just lost the clue.”

MJ "Magical Child"
Still Rocking my World…
   and leaving me Speechless!

“True goodbyes are the ones never said

Offline katson45

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 116
    • Show only replies by katson45

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 09:06:50 PM
Interesting,since it is, in fact, the very vehicle he used to promote his own election campaign ! Something smells fishy (and it's not the dead wildlife in the gulf)...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Online ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10009
    • Show only replies by ~Souza~
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 09:13:32 PM
Quote from: "katson45"
Interesting,since it is, in fact, the very vehicle he used to promote his own election campaign ! Something smells fishy (and it's not the dead wildlife in the gulf)...


I absolutely and fully agree.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline mjgirl86

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 316
    • Show only replies by mjgirl86

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 09:17:08 PM
I posted about this on my myspace, and a lot of people are angry and feel this is going TOO FAR.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline jill

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 917
    • Show only replies by jill

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 09:48:58 PM
I cannot wait until we can vote this congress and administration out of office!!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline change the world

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 27
    • Show only replies by change the world

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 11:27:14 PM
What this story tells me is that they are getting scared of the masses.  After all, look how we all are getting informed about MJ and the NWO...through the very Internet they want to kill.  Please forgive me if this video has been posted already, but here is a video from a CFR meeting last month: Zbigniew Brzezinski Fears The Global Awakening.  Very enlightening indeed!  ;)



 [youtube:tcltfmfk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBlABD01U0[/youtube:tcltfmfk]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline cin_pyt

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 632
    • Show only replies by cin_pyt

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 11:30:52 PM
I don't vote and I just knew this "change" crap was oh yeah heck yeah were gonna get change alright look how it is things are getting worse! :evil: I mean we're already controlled enough what else is there? @ Mjgirl I love your picture/signature I love how the man looks in those pictures. ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline WendyE

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 105
    • Show only replies by WendyE

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 19, 2010, 11:51:31 PM
I really am thankful for all of you here that post things like this. I had heard about this before on Glenn Beck. I am sorry but this congress and president have gone to far. I knew about his social agenda before he was voted in. I did vote but they were already announcing his win right after I voted! Yeah, that was a weird one. No one man/party should have this kind of power. I pray that good people stand against this white house and it's total disregard for the constitution. We are being sold out and shut down right under our noses. They now control our banks, housing, health care, education, and now our very basic freedoms. Freedom of speech. I pray for all of us here in this forum because we understand and know the truth (thanks to Michael) and I pray for those that have not a clue about what is happening and about to happen. All I can say is...God Speed Michael, God Speed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Serenitys_Dream

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Serenitys_Dream

Re: PLEASE READ!! (illumanti)

  • on: June 20, 2010, 12:03:10 AM
Quote from: "~Souza~"
Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US
By Declan McCullagh, CNET.com on June 15th, 2010 (5 days ago)

A new US Senate Bill would grant the President far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of, or even shut down, portions of the internet.

The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

That emergency authority would allow the Federal Government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who meets with the Democrats.

Due to there being few limits on the US President's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page Bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

TechAmerica, probably the largest US technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power". And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman Bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems."

The idea of an internet "kill switch" that the President could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that ZDNet Australia's sister site CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency", and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or websites.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's Bill, which is formally titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realises the importance of protecting our cyber resources".

Under PCNAA, the Federal Government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the internet, the telephone system or any other component of the US "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman Bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over wiretapping without a warrant. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorised.

Lieberman said on Thursday that enactment of his Bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

A new cybersecurity bureaucracy
Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including "no less" than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.)

The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the "security status" of private sector websites, broadband providers and other internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide "situational awareness of the security status" of the portions of the internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.

Selected private companies would be required to participate in "information sharing" with the Feds. They must "certify in writing to the director" of the NCCC whether they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director". The NCCC director can "issue an order" in cases of non-compliance.

The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."

To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalising offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable.

If there's an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.

Another sweetener: a new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardise their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products.

Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticising the Lieberman Bill, calling it a "very important piece of legislation".

McAfee is paying attention to "a number of provisions of the Bill that could use work," Gann said, and "we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions."

Via CNET

And this is also connected to the DOTS in this TMZ article.
http://http://michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11146#p186110

The are going to control the flow of information and what we can share with one each other, one way or another.

Key News Audiences Now Blend Online and Traditional Sources
Audience Segments in a Changing News Environment

August 17, 2008

For more than a decade, the audiences for most traditional news sources have steadily declined, as the number of people getting news online has surged. However, today it is not a choice between traditional sources and the internet for the core elements of today's news audiences.

A sizable minority of Americans find themselves at the intersection of these two long-standing trends in news consumption. Integrators, who get the news from both traditional sources and the internet, are a more engaged, sophisticated and demographically sought-after audience segment than those who mostly rely on traditional news sources. Integrators share some characteristics with a smaller, younger, more internet savvy audience segment.

Like web-oriented news consumers, Integrators are affluent and highly educated. However, they are older, on average, than those who consider the internet their main source of news. Overall, Integrators spend more time with the news on a typical day than do those who rely more on either traditional or internet sources; far more enjoy keeping up with the news a lot than in any other news segment.

Integrators also are heavier consumers of national news -- especially news about politics and Washington -- and are avid sports news consumers. Television is their main news source, but more than a third cite the internet as their primary source of news during the day. This reflects the fact that a relatively large proportion of Integrators log on to the internet from work (45%).

The 2008 biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted by telephone -- including both landline phones and cell phones -- from April 30 to June 1 among 3,612 adults nationwide. It finds four distinct segments in today's news audience: Integrators, who comprise 23% of the public; the less populous Net-Newsers (13%); Traditionalists -- the oldest (median age: 52) and largest news segment (46% of the public); and the Disengaged (14%) who stand out for their low levels of interest in the news and news consumption.

Net-Newsers are the youngest of the news user segments (median age: 35). They are affluent and even better educated than the News Integrators: More than eight-in-ten have at least attended college. Net-Newsers not only rely primarily on the internet for news, they are leading the way in using new web features and other technologies. Nearly twice as many regularly watch news clips on the internet as regularly watch nightly network news broadcasts (30% vs. 18%).
Click to read more.
http://http://pewresearch.org/pubs/928/key-news-audiences-now-blend-online-and-traditional-sources

And this why those in power want to control the Internet. They tell us it is to control pornography, bullying and many other evils but there is always more to think about when these types of policies are being implemented.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline nefari

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1227
    • Show only replies by nefari

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 12:15:25 AM
I'm starting to think the Obama administration is only after power and control of everything!!! And I thought Bush was bad :shock:
Yeesh from this oil spill suspicious happening, Michael being gone, now this internet control garbage ALL during Obama's term. Things went from bad to worse ever since he's been in office and I don't want to think this way I really don't but things are just mounting up day by day.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
]

Offline AvaMarie

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 714
    • Show only replies by AvaMarie

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 12:58:39 AM
Well look like I'm alone in this one. But the keyword ''proposed''. I can't believe how many people are so quick to criticize President Obama. When George Bush stayed in office 8 years did nothing and is responsible for the economic disaster.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Serenitys_Dream

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Serenitys_Dream

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 01:08:45 AM
Quote from: "AvaMarie"
Well look like I'm alone in this one. But the keyword ''proposed''. How do we even know this is true? I can't believe how many people are so quick to criticize President Obama. When George Bush stayed in office 8 years did nothing and is responsible for the economic disaster.

Dictonary
pro·pose  (pr-pz)
v. pro·posed, pro·pos·ing, pro·pos·es
v.tr.
1. To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; to suggest: propose a change in the law.
2. To recommend (a person) for a position, office, or membership; nominate.
3. To offer (a toast to be drunk).
4. To make known as one's intention; purpose or intend:

Thesaurus
Verb   1.   propose  - make a proposal, declare a plan for something; "the senator proposed to abolish the sales tax"
suggest, advise
advocate, recommend, urge - push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day"
advance, throw out - bring forward for consideration or acceptance; "advance an argument"
proposition - suggest sex to; "She was propositioned by a stranger at the party"
feed back - respond to a query or outcome
put forward, state, submit, posit - put before; "I submit to you that the accused is guilty"
make a motion, move - propose formally; in a debate or parliamentary meeting
declare - state emphatically and authoritatively; "He declared that he needed more money to carry out the task he was charged with"
http://http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proposed
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline AvaMarie

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 714
    • Show only replies by AvaMarie

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 01:19:32 AM
What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline suspicious mind

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 5984
  • reading between the li_es
    • Show only replies by suspicious mind

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 01:20:45 AM
unintended consequences

yeah right
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves."  




Why not just tell people I'm an alien from Mars? Tell them I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight. They'll believe anything you say, because you're a reporter. But if I, Michael Jackson, were to say, "I'm an alien from Mars and I eat live chickens and do a voodoo dance at midnight," people would say, "Oh, man, that Michael Jackson is nuts. He's cracked up. You can't believe a single word that comes out of his mouth."

Offline change the world

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 27
    • Show only replies by change the world

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 01:37:03 AM
Quote from: "AvaMarie"
What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?

Please don't get offended, as I am not in favor of either party, but there is no difference between Obama and Bush in my eyes.  Obama is continuing with Bush's legacy and not to mention past presidents with their NWO agenda.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Serenitys_Dream

  • *
  • Guest
    • Show only replies by Serenitys_Dream

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 01:42:58 AM
Quote from: "AvaMarie"
What I'm not understanding is why you all are mad at the president he didn't propose the bill and he sure as hell doesn't vote. George Bush so much under handed shit but nobody speaks about that the minute a story about President Obama comes out everybody jumps on it. I wonder why?

Senate Considers Making the President King of Cyberspace
Written by Michael Tennant Monday, 14 June 2010 17:00

The Internet is a wonderful invention that has allowed for the dissemination of a wide variety of ideas. Not surprisingly, politicians, never ones to brook dissent cheerfully, are not terribly fond of it. In 1998, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton said, “We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function.”

Recently President Obama lamented the fact that the smorgasbord of news sources now available to Americans can “reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country” because people can choose only to listen to those with whom they agree; he was particularly concerned with rhetoric that speaks of “our government” as “some menacing, threatening foreign entity.”

The only question for the politicians, then, is how to implement a “gatekeeping function” without running afoul of Americans’ natural preference for freedom of speech and of the press.

The Federal Trade Commission is proposing government licensing of news organizations, accompanied by taxes on other websites that link to these government-approved sources and taxes on electronic news-reading devices to prop up dying government-approved newspapers.

The U.S. Senate, for the third time in the last year, is attempting to go even further, putting forth legislation that would, according to CNET News, “grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.” The 197-page bill, called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), was announced on June10 by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). (The previous two attempts were draft proposals to do substantially the same thing as PCNAA.)

Under PCNAA, the President may unilaterally “issue a declaration of national cyber emergency to covered critical infrastructure.” Once the declaration has been issued, says CNET, “companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects ‘shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed’ by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.” Furthermore, this also applies to “any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also ‘relies on’ the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure,’” according to CNET. These entities will come under the command of a new bureaucracy, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), housed within Homeland Security.

Once issued, the cyber emergency declaration ostensibly expires at the end of 30 days. However, given that the President, with the consent of the Director of Cyberspace Policy (head of the proposed White House Office of Cyberspace Policy who is appointed by the President), can extend the emergency for another 30 days at will, the “emergency” can, for all practical purposes, continue indefinitely.

It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which an embattled President seizes upon a minor incident — one, perhaps, that he says he can’t even reveal because to do so would compromise U.S. national security — to declare such an emergency and then uses that emergency to crush dissenting websites under the theory that such websites “send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response,” as Obama said in the speech referenced earlier.

Even if a cyber emergency is never declared, PCNAA still provides for a vast increase in the federal government’s control over cyberspace. CNET reports:

The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the “security status” of private sector Web sites, broadband providers, and other Internet components. Lieberman’s legislation requires the NCCC to provide “situational awareness of the security status” of the portions of the Internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.

Selected private companies would be required to participate in “information sharing” with the Feds. They must “certify in writing to the director” of the NCCC whether they have “developed and implemented” federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been “approved by the director.” The NCCC director can “issue an order” in cases of noncompliance.

Among those selected private companies will surely be large, established firms who can bear the costs of compliance, knowing that those same costs will keep competitors from springing up.

These and other companies’ compliance will also be procured by the immunity from civil lawsuits that PCNAA offers. Once the President has declared a cyber emergency, any company that complies with NCCC’s directives cannot be sued for economic harm. Moreover, says CNET, “if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the U.S. Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab.”

For those cybersecurity producers that still look askance at federal oversight, there’s also language in the bill requiring federal agencies to beef up their cybersecurity, which will surely mean increased federal purchases of security products. Lieberman is leaving nothing to chance.

If PCNAA becomes law, Clinton will finally have her “gatekeeping function,” and Obama and future Presidents will have it within their power to silence critics on the Web in the name of national security. Meanwhile, the independence of websites and Internet service providers and the privacy of their customers will be severely compromised, emergency or no emergency. It makes one long for the days when politicians merely claimed to have invented the Internet, not to own it.
http://http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/3776-senate-considers-making-the-president-king-of-cyberspace

Excerpt From An Obama Speech - From the White House Website
Today’s 24/7 echo-chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before.  And it’s also, however, given us unprecedented choice.  Whereas most Americans used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner, or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows. And this can have both a good and bad development for democracy.  For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we become more polarized, more set in our ways.  That will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country.
http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-university-michigan-spring-commencement

Don`t you see that they want to control your opinion your thoughts. If you do not agree, you are a terrorist, a racist, evil. If you criticize a policy you are labelled in the same way. Obama is an eloquent speaker and mixes candy coatings and platitudes in speeches but the truth is right there for you to see and hear. Step back he is just a man but he is  a controlled man. The puppet masters behind the curtain are pulling his strings as they have done with all presidents. This isn`t just happening in America, it is happening all over the world.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline curls

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 3111
    • Show only replies by curls

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 02:34:29 AM
Hurry up Michael - please, hurry up. This is scary stuff.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline nefari

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1227
    • Show only replies by nefari

Re: Internet 'kill switch' proposed for US

  • on: June 20, 2010, 03:48:51 AM
I voted for Obama! I'm not mad at him but I am concerned over all this stuff happening while he's in office. It looks bad but I'm not on a definate *down with Obama* road. I'm just wondering why on earth all of this is happening just like I wondered with every other President and what all happened during their terms as well. So I'm certainly not putting Obama in some class by himself. I think most Presidents have good and bad qualities as do all people in general.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
]