Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should Obama Control the Internet? —By Steve Aquino

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:32 PM
Original message
Should Obama Control the Internet? —By Steve Aquino
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet


A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.


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 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.
........

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...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm already imagining the responses
If this had been brought about last year, by *...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. it doesn't matter who it is
it's still a stupid idea, IMO, and just more police state BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. I can't wait for people to start rationalizing this one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Why, pray tell, would anyone do that?
Even if you imagine some kind of aura of infallibility around Obama, it's not like this is his idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PM Martin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. No he should not.
No suprise seeing a Rockefeller support these type of police state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Its not Obama that I am worried about - what about the next president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Well, I"M Worried about Obama!
They're going to have to pry the Internet from our cold, dead hands! First Amendment Outranks the 2nd!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Yes, I know and I do not think we should let them because it will not
always be this president in control. Haven't we learned anything from the power we have given *ss these last 8 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Control the Internet? YES and every other inalienable/unalienable right enumerated and unenumerated
Edited on Fri Apr-03-09 05:52 PM by jody
that government is supposed to protect for minorities against the tyranny of a simple majority. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. Yeah, yeah, soon "illegal communication" will be a crime.
These people need to buy themselves a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-03-09 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I say NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amyrose2712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
12. NO.Lets hope this doesn't get far. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC