If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Times)   Remember when there was a revolution in Egypt and the government shut down telecommunications, and Americans were relieved to live someplace where the government couldn't do that? Yeah, about that   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 95
    More: Scary, Egypt, Americans, Kristin Chenoweth, Communications Act of 1934, United Press International, Transylvanian, DHS  
•       •       •

2953 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jul 2012 at 4:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-13 02:02:59 PM  
so does this mean the GOP is gonna repeal the patriot act?
 
2012-07-13 02:08:39 PM  

Weaver95: so does this mean the GOP is gonna repeal the patriot act?


I love that the Weeners on the article at the WT is "Where are all the liberals who were complaining about the Patriot Act when Bush was president?"

Um, where were you guys when this was first implemented, you idiot?
 
2012-07-13 02:14:27 PM  
 
2012-07-13 04:41:33 PM  
The Washington Times: journalism::Dianetics:theology
 
2012-07-13 04:42:46 PM  
The WAshington Times or TWAT for short said what?

*click*

They should try mongering fish instead.
 
2012-07-13 04:42:55 PM  
*sigh* The government has the ability to turn off the power grid if necessary. This power is controlled by a series of checks and balances. Yes, the system can be corrupted, but that requires a greater deal of coordination and covert action than any government official has proven capable of to date.
 
2012-07-13 04:43:29 PM  
mahuika: the Weeners on the article at p://www.fark.cothe WT is "Where are all the liberals who were complaining about the Patriot Act when Bush was president?"

www.entertainmentearth.com

Don't make me smack you.
 
2012-07-13 04:43:55 PM  
Black helicopters!~!
 
2012-07-13 04:44:09 PM  
What, you think OUR government's gonna make a rookie mistake like that?
 
2012-07-13 04:44:41 PM  
That kind of power should only rest with humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent - the King of Peace, Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

No wonder the Moonie Times is OUTRAGED.
 
2012-07-13 04:44:55 PM  
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
www.bibleprobe.com
 
2012-07-13 04:45:57 PM  
I see you've made your decision. Now let's see you enforce it.
 
2012-07-13 04:46:37 PM  
An executive order signed June 6 "gives DHS the authority to seize control of telecommunications facilities, including telephone, cellular and wireless networks, in order to prioritize government communications over private ones in an emergency,"

Yes, this is the change we can believe in.
 
2012-07-13 04:48:51 PM  
I guess it depends on what your definition of "emergency" is. Running low on lip wax doesn't count Janet.
 
2012-07-13 04:50:46 PM  

jigger: An executive order signed June 6 "gives DHS the authority to seize control of telecommunications facilities, including telephone, cellular and wireless networks, in order to prioritize government communications over private ones in an emergency,"

Yes, this is the change we can believe in.


Wow, you guys are scared of pretty much everything these days, aren't you?

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?

www.american-buddha.com

/Hot like tears in rain.
 
2012-07-13 04:50:48 PM  
"The authorities "might have made sense in the 1930s," but now the communication networks are too complex and interdependent, he said. "If you try to seize control of the Internet that way, you will break it."

Now, it is my understanding that technology was developed so as to be hard to break. Like in with cities getting nuked, the packets would route around the damage.

It might be better to describe concerns that if you re-engineer the system so control can be seized centrally, you are more likely to have it broken.

/shut down the botnets, the loss of spam will free up plenty of bandwidth for government traffic
 
2012-07-13 04:51:54 PM  

jigger: An executive order signed June 6 "gives DHS the authority to seize control of telecommunications facilities, including telephone, cellular and wireless networks, in order to prioritize government communications over private ones in an emergency,"

Yes, this is the change we can believe in.


so when a nuclear bomb has exploded in NY you don't want the government to be able to prioritize communications because you are sexting with your boyfriend. got it. EABOD
 
2012-07-13 04:53:40 PM  
what's next?! "Tests of the Emergency Broadcast System" on our TV's and radios??! Fark you, Fartbamao.


/seriously though, this better be uber-restricted
 
2012-07-13 04:54:23 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: jigger: An executive order signed June 6 "gives DHS the authority to seize control of telecommunications facilities, including telephone, cellular and wireless networks, in order to prioritize government communications over private ones in an emergency,"

Yes, this is the change we can believe in.

so when a nuclear bomb has exploded in NY you don't want the government to be able to prioritize communications because you are sexting with your boyfriend. got it. EABOD


why's it always gotta be NY? Can't these hypothetical bombs go off in places that won't kill me?
 
2012-07-13 04:55:08 PM  
Good to see the Team Blue players defending Bushlike actions. Well, more sad than good, but you know what I mean.
 
2012-07-13 04:56:53 PM  
Washington Times is often crazy. But I'm familiar with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. They're pretty reputable.

/Obama's been really shiatty on civil liberties overall.
 
2012-07-13 05:02:51 PM  

peterquince: /Obama's been really shiatty on civil liberties overall.


Unless you are an 'illegal' but now arbitrarily temporarily legal alien.
 
2012-07-13 05:03:05 PM  

skullkrusher: why's it always gotta be NY? Can't these hypothetical bombs go off in places that won't kill me?


You're just not watching the right re-runs.

Special Bulletin
 
2012-07-13 05:03:12 PM  
Remember when subby adjusted his tinfoil hat and tried to compare a stable democracy like the US to Egypt?

Yeah, me too. I think it happened today.
 
2012-07-13 05:03:40 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: why's it always gotta be NY? Can't these hypothetical bombs go off in places that won't kill me?

You're just not watching the right re-runs.

Special Bulletin


SC? Now THAT's more like it!
 
2012-07-13 05:04:51 PM  
Turn over all communications to the government. Great idea. This can only end terribly.
 
2012-07-13 05:06:08 PM  

skullkrusher: why's it always gotta be NY? Can't these hypothetical bombs go off in places that won't kill me?


Yeah. Terrorists are going to engineer a complex nuclear tragedy to occur in New Brunswick. Sure. Get out of the bulls-eye if you don't like the taste of Rad X, city boy.
 
2012-07-13 05:07:26 PM  

skullkrusher: Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: why's it always gotta be NY? Can't these hypothetical bombs go off in places that won't kill me?

You're just not watching the right re-runs.

Special Bulletin

SC? Now THAT's more like it!


Yeah but will people outside of SC really care?

/Maybe the college students if Myrtle Beach got effected I suppose
 
2012-07-13 05:07:38 PM  
Come on. If this happened in 2004 under Bush, all of you defending this would be completely outraged, decry the existence of Fatherland Security, and wonder if it was a setup for a false flag attack.
 
2012-07-13 05:08:03 PM  

peterquince: Washington Times is often crazy. But I'm familiar with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. They're pretty reputable.

/Obama's been really shiatty on civil liberties overall.


Bush broke it, we bought it.

And it's pretty obvious to me that if Obama did try to take a bigger stance on anything other than what he outlined in his original campaign, the ensuing sh*tstorm from the right would successfully derail the plan.

Yeah, that's how right-wing this country has gotten, that even the slightest liberal tendency in a President can cause that kind of sh*tstorm.

See: Obamacare=socialism for starters.
 
2012-07-13 05:10:30 PM  
Moonies. They're wacky.
 
2012-07-13 05:10:31 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: skullkrusher: why's it always gotta be NY? Can't these hypothetical bombs go off in places that won't kill me?

Yeah. Terrorists are going to engineer a complex nuclear tragedy to occur in New Brunswick. Sure. Get out of the bulls-eye if you don't like the taste of Rad X, city boy.


but we're a bunch of Muslim loving terrorist coddlers here! Hell, we even seriously consider letting them build houses of worship sometimes!
 
2012-07-13 05:11:01 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: /shut down the botnets, the loss of spam will free up plenty of bandwidth for government traffic


I, for one, volunteer to assist in this task provided I get to do it with a flamethrower.
 
2012-07-13 05:11:32 PM  
The government already has the authority to prioritize its communications on privately-owned telephone networks during emergencies, disconnecting private users as needed to free up circuits/channels/resources for emergency communication. That's certainly reasonable.

The government already has the authority to prioritize its communications on privately-owned television and radio stations so as to broadcast information to the public during emergencies (or during tests). This has been the case for decades.

I would certainly object to the government modifying internet data in transit (and do object to the snooping the government does), but it doesn't really seem unreasonable for them to have the authority to use the QoS features already in place at major ISPs and network providers to prioritize government communications in an emergency.

I may well be missing something, but this seems to simply be updating existing rules to account for present-day tech.

/the PATRIOT ACT can go DIAF.
 
2012-07-13 05:11:54 PM  

quatchi: Vlad_the_Inaner: /shut down the botnets, the loss of spam will free up plenty of bandwidth for government traffic

I, for one, volunteer to assist in this task provided I get to do it with a flamethrower.


But where will I get ads for boner pills now?
 
2012-07-13 05:12:36 PM  

jigger: Come on. If this happened in 2004 under Bush, all of you defending this would be completely outraged, decry the existence of Fatherland Security, and wonder if it was a setup for a false flag attack.


I...thought that was what we were doing.

We're not?
 
2012-07-13 05:12:51 PM  

jigger: Come on. If this happened in 2004 under Bush, all of you defending this would be completely outraged, decry the existence of Fatherland Security, and wonder if it was a setup for a false flag attack.


The only reason I can think of for me to say "No, I wouldn't be" is because I had genuinely thought this had always been one of the powers that government could enact in times of emergency since telecommunications became so widespread. Just kind of seemed a logical thing to do, since they do have other regulatory powers over telecommunications anyways. So I get the feeling that my feeling under your hypothetical situation would be similar to my feeling of it now, which is "I thought that was always one of the powers that government could enact in times of emergency. Imagine that."
 
2012-07-13 05:13:50 PM  

vernonFL: Remember when the Rev. Sun Myung Moon proclaimed himself to be the Messiah at a "King of Peace" crowning ceremony at the US Capitol?


No.

Now the one that took place at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Across the street and two blocks North of the Capitol, that one I remember!
 
2012-07-13 05:14:43 PM  
Come on. If this happened in 2004 under Bush,

If my aunt had a penis...
 
2012-07-13 05:15:08 PM  
Next thing ya know, we'll be flying drones over our own country for surveillance and assassinating US citizens with bombs.
 
2012-07-13 05:15:54 PM  

jigger: Come on. If this happened in 2004 under Bush, all of you defending this would be completely outraged, decry the existence of Fatherland Security, and wonder if it was a setup for a false flag attack.


The fact that the DHS exists is idiotic. But since we're stuck with it for the time being, it only makes sense to update their rules for modern technology.

/So 'prioritizing government business over civilian business in an emergency' is now 'shutting down everything'?
 
2012-07-13 05:16:38 PM  

whidbey: And it's pretty obvious to me that if Obama did try to take a bigger stance on anything other than what he outlined in his original campaign, the ensuing sh*tstorm from the right would successfully derail the plan.

Yeah, that's how right-wing this country has gotten, that even the slightest liberal tendency in a President can cause that kind of sh*tstorm.


I agree with you generally, but he's been way to the right of what he campaigned on - at least in terms of civil liberties. Just as one minor example, look at the para-military strike-down of the Occupy folks that the white house helped coordinate around the country, or the due process opinions that his administration has handed down. He's actually been worse than Bush (if only because he picked up Bush's ball and ran with it, expanding what he started).

From Salon.com: Link
 
2012-07-13 05:18:49 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Next thing ya know, we'll be flying drones over our own country for surveillance and assassinating US citizens with bombs.


So conducting domestic surveillance with drones is somehow different than conducting the exact same surveillance with planes, helicopters, satellites, etc., and having a US citizenship gives you a 'Commit terrorism free' card. Gotcha.
 
2012-07-13 05:25:43 PM  

LordJiro: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Next thing ya know, we'll be flying drones over our own country for surveillance and assassinating US citizens with bombs.

So conducting domestic surveillance with drones is somehow different than conducting the exact same surveillance with planes, helicopters, satellites, etc., and having a US citizenship gives you a 'Commit terrorism free' card. Gotcha.


Well, yeah. Actually it is. Under existing 4th Amendment precedent, looking at somebody's back yard from an airplane is not an unreasonable search. Has to do with a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Planes fly over all the time, so no one can reasonably expect that no one will look in their back yard from an airplane. So that doesn't violate privacy. So planes that look in as they sweep by at 40,000 feet or whatever = not a big deal. The idea is that they can't really get much info from a plane anyway.

Drones fly much closer to the ground, move much more slowly, and can much more detailed information of what you're doing at any given time.

Now I realize that most people will disagree with me, and probably SCOTUS will disagree with me too when this gets to them. But I see a big difference between drones and a plane.

I also have a BIG problem with miltarizing the police force.
 
2012-07-13 05:26:56 PM  

3_Butt_Cheeks: Next thing ya know, we'll be flying drones over our own country for surveillance and assassinating US citizens with bombs.


You know who else used military tactics to kill US citizens instead of bringing them to trial?

www.archives.gov
 
2012-07-13 05:26:57 PM  

peterquince: Well, yeah. Actually it is.


...but you know, not the terrorism stuff....wasn't replying to that part of your post.
 
2012-07-13 05:31:05 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: You know who else used military tactics to kill US citizens instead of bringing them to trial


Hitler?
 
2012-07-13 05:31:25 PM  
I'm pretty sure that the US government has been fully capable of shutting down/controlling the Internet since Al Gore first invented it. At least domestically. This is supposed to be in case of an emergency, duh. The fear was a realtime control of the Internet, like the Great FIrewall of China. That isn't what is being discussed. They are admitting that they have the power to sever connections and to denigrate non-government traffic in the case of an emergency. I hate to tell you this, but the same thing exists right now in telecom and it has been there for sixty years.
 
2012-07-13 05:32:24 PM  

peterquince: whidbey: And it's pretty obvious to me that if Obama did try to take a bigger stance on anything other than what he outlined in his original campaign, the ensuing sh*tstorm from the right would successfully derail the plan.

Yeah, that's how right-wing this country has gotten, that even the slightest liberal tendency in a President can cause that kind of sh*tstorm.

I agree with you generally, but he's been way to the right of what he campaigned on - at least in terms of civil liberties. Just as one minor example, look at the para-military strike-down of the Occupy folks that the white house helped coordinate around the country, or the due process opinions that his administration has handed down. He's actually been worse than Bush (if only because he picked up Bush's ball and ran with it, expanding what he started).

From Salon.com: Link


Again, I don't think he has much of a choice except to stick to what he outlined in his campaign and to not make any more waves. Unfortunately, that means going with the flow and making compromises with the dominant right wing ideology which still dominates this government.

Yeah, it's good and all to flip heaps of criticism towards this administration for its tacit compliance of Bush's failures, but the truth is we're stuck with this policy until Congress grows a set of balls and repeals it. All of it.

And I doubt Obama's going to come out in his second turn and hard-bank us to the left. He was handed a precarious pile of crap, and we're lucky this country didn't utterly collapse because of it, quite frankly.
 
2012-07-13 05:35:33 PM  

madgonad: I hate to tell you this, but the same thing exists right now in telecom and it has been there for sixty years.


But I think there's a big difference between the government being able to preempt corporate (one-way) communications from NBC or Viacom on the one hand and the government being able to preempt yours or mine as we interact.

I'd also be interested to know what their definition of "emergency" is. I think of the Occupy thing (which was downt eh street from my office). Would that constitute an emergency that would allow the gov't to "preempt" things?
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report