Do you have adblock enabled?
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 33
    More: Scary, Egypt, Americans, Kristin Chenoweth, Communications Act of 1934, United Press International, Transylvanian, DHS  
•       •       •

2964 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-13 02:02:59 PM  
3 votes:
so does this mean the GOP is gonna repeal the patriot act?
2012-07-13 05:11:32 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:03:12 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:44:55 PM  
2 votes:
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
MOONIE TIMES
www.bibleprobe.com
2012-07-13 04:43:29 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:41:33 PM  
2 votes:
The Washington Times: journalism::Dianetics:theology
2012-07-13 02:14:27 PM  
2 votes:
2012-07-13 06:48:27 PM  
1 votes:
Well, they'll have to send the Gestopo to kick down your door to stop these babies.

img580.imageshack.us
2012-07-13 06:47:52 PM  
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: whidbey: bigsteve3OOO: whidbey:



The fact is that government, and authority, are necessary

At least you are honest about your desire to take peoples freedom. so I guess you do have that going for you and your team.


As opposed to you insisting that representative democracy equates to "taking people's freedom."

I honestly can't think of a more dishonest statement.
2012-07-13 06:43:15 PM  
1 votes:

bigsteve3OOO: whidbey:

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.


no the problem is not left or right it is up and down. your guy is the same up and down as the previous guy. we want to be down. they want to be up.

[punkerslut.com image 600x524]


Trust me, I'd love to be "down."

The fact is that government, and authority, are necessary because libertarianism doesn't work. People are selfish, greedy, underhanded and tend to hate on others of their own kind and project their shortcomings onto them.

Until we advance markedly either socially or evolutionarily, our governments are going to be authoritarian to some degree.

See: the Civil Rights Act, the EPA, etc...
2012-07-13 05:50:31 PM  
1 votes:

Fjornir: 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.

See: Obamacare=socialism for starters.

Did you change your meds? I think the new ones are a big improvement.



When have I ever deviated from this particular point of view?
2012-07-13 05:43:31 PM  
1 votes:
I'm so glad to see that The Washington Times is now alive to the dangers posed by a burgeoning police state. I fully expect them to remain vigilant and alert until 2 microseconds after a Republican enters the White House, at which point they will publish a special edition with foot-high red letters screaming "BURN THE TERRORIST WITCHES."
2012-07-13 05:35:33 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2012-07-13 05:32:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:31:25 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:25:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:18:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:16:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:15:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:13:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:12:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:11:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:10:30 PM  
1 votes:
Moonies. They're wacky.
2012-07-13 05:08:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:07:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:07:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:06:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:04:51 PM  
1 votes:
Turn over all communications to the government. Great idea. This can only end terribly.
2012-07-13 05:03:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:56:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:55:08 PM  
1 votes:
Good to see the Team Blue players defending Bushlike actions. Well, more sad than good, but you know what I mean.
2012-07-13 04:44:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 02:08:39 PM  
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report