| 8:35 am on Jun 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Is there ever much support for these bills?
| 11:19 am on Jun 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Censorship is always wrong. A group of people so convinced that their ideas/morals are right that they are prepared to try and force those ideas on others. That's how wars start. People who propose this sort of thing are dangerous and should be removed from power the next time they are up for election.
| 11:53 am on Jun 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
'Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act'
Protecting it from what? Who defines the threat?
This is absurd.
| 1:57 pm on Jun 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Ironic that they think they have to kill it in order to save it.
| 1:47 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Is there ever much support for these bills? |
They've all failed in the past, hopefully this one will not be an exception.
| 2:31 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|They've all failed in the past, hopefully this one will not be an exception. |
And this one will fail as well. At least I hope it fails.
There's been an increase of government meddling on the internet in the last few years. I thought it was basically limited to collecting taxes.
This is something totally different though, and a bit draconian if you ask me.
| 4:08 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Again, the US government is making me happy that I don't live there!
| 9:02 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|This news is about a week old but I couldn't find a previous post about it. |
Most of these go back to the Clinton era, but some of the newer versions seem to be getting legs. The one we really need to worry about is the FCC seeking to bring the Internet under their Telephony rules. That's the one that will queer everything.
| 12:13 am on Jul 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
This bill has been approved by committee and now moves on to the floor.
| 4:10 pm on Jul 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
First off, i'm not for this legislation in any way but i think we should all understand that based on history the idea is not that far fetched.
The us interstate highway system (not unlike the internet in concept) was created with the idea of having a transportation system for the army in the event of a war on us soil. if needed access to the interstate system can be, for the most part, restricted to military use only. imagine trying to get on an interstate if the on ramps are blocked.
| 6:51 pm on Jul 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
>> The us interstate highway system (not unlike the internet in concept) was created with the idea of having a transportation system for the army in the event of a war on us soil
|The Nation's highway system, he [Eisenhower] said, is "a gigantic enterprise" but "is inadequate for the nation's growing needs." The need for action was inescapable. He cited safety (more than 36,000 killed and a million injured each year on the highways at a cost of more than $4.3 billion a year), the poor physical condition of the roads (translating into higher shipping costs, about $5 billion a year, that are passed on to consumers), the need to evacuate cities in the event of an atomic attack (the present system would be "the breeder of a deadly congestion within hours of an attack"), and the inevitable increase in traffic as the population and the gross national product increased . . . |
| 11:56 pm on Jul 3, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Although the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 added the words “and defense” to the name of the Interstate System (now the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways), the primary justification for the network was its civilian benefits |
There are specific plans (MOBCON Procedures: Deconflicting Highway Space) in place for the interstate system which if implemented will restrict civilian use of the system when deemed necessary by the government.
still not trying to make a case for the law pertaining to the internet, just pointing out that this is not a new idea.
| 1:30 am on Jul 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I am amazed that the USA could have the gross effrontery to assume that the internet is it's property to use and abuse. What sort of people are drafting these laws - they should be in a straight jacket not the legislature.
Don't they realise that the internet is not a province of the USA.
You can do what you like with your interstate highways which as far as I am aware remain within your borders, but please leave our worldwide internet alone.
| 1:51 am on Jul 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|but please leave our worldwide internet alone. |
that's funny, not to worry though, if the US ever shuts down our internet the UK can go back to the CERN TCP/IP network which I believe they were on for the most part until 1989 when they decided to join our internet.
| 2:08 am on Jul 4, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|What sort of people are drafting these laws |
People who don't really understand the technology.
By shutting down access to the internet in a time of crises we would cripple the ability of Americans to communicate.
It's the opposite of a protective measure unless you take the Chinese perspective that the information a population should be exposed to needs to be carefully controlled.