Sen. Jay Rockefeller
While Americans are under the illusion that the government cannot take away their right to use the Internet, an effort by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.VA) is underway that appears to permit President Obama to seize control of the private-sector during whatever he deems to be a cybersecurity emergency
According to CNET News of August 28, 2009, Rockefeller has been working on giving the government the right to shut down private computer networks if it decides that it is necessary.
It would include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals" and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license -- most likely a member of the Obama Shadow Government that operates out of the White House.
The Internet Security Alliance, with members such as Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board, and other telecommunications companies expressed concern about the bill.
If Rockefeller succeeds in getting this bill passed, it would give President Obama enormous powers to control private use of computers and the internet. The question that remains now is whether the public that depends upon the Internet in their private lives will allow this takeover of their right to use it.
So far, Obama has not appointed a White House based Czar for the cybersecurity coordinator position. How the language will be cloaked when he makes such an appointment of someone who does not need confirmation by Congress may be such that the internet-using-public will not be aware of it until it is too late to stop another clampdown on free speech.
Anyone having further questions about Senator Rockefeller's 55-page draft of the Senate bill (S.773) which gives control of private Internet use to the White House, he can be reached by e-mail at
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Source:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html
More articles
Want to participate in the discussion? Add your comments.
Want to stay informed about politics in the U.S?
Subscribe at the top of this column to receive e-mail updates from the National Watchdog Politics examiner.
Comments
1. All this concern about encroaching Presidential power is terrific, but where were all these new-found civil libertarians when the Patriot Act was enacted. That's OK - it's never too later for you to make a contribution to the ACLU.
2. Isn't the purpose of the proposed bill to protect our networks in the case of cyberattacks by terrorists or foreign powers? Isn't that a real problem? If no one has the power to shut down the network, how do you propose to protect our information grid.
3. Doesn't the government already have the power to shut down the entire air traffic system in the case of a national emergency? Have you opposed that as a threat to our liberties? How is this different?
4. Wouldn't Dick Cheney say that the President already has this authority through his powers as Commander in Chief?
The internet exposes these CROOKS and kills business for their marxist media outlets like the NY Times, Wahsington Post, and other LIEberal Rags.
Ha! Good points nyp.
I love how our country is moving further and further away from what it used to be. I finally have an excuse to move somewhere better lol.
The facist in question is from WV, not VA.
I encourage you to actually read the bill. You will see that there is nothing 'sinister' in its language. All it is basically says is that the government will create a new layer of bureaucracy to oversee cybersecurity -- something one would have though already exists in today's cybereconomy. It just goes to show that you can't "trust" someone to read for you -- go to the source. I see no problem with the requirement for "cyber security professionals" to be licensed.
Fed licensing is a sign of govt takeover? Who would you have license the professionals that guard/operate water treatment plants or bridges or air traffic? Nice try at fear mongering, but you fail.
If you don't understand what is going on don't be a fearmonger about it. Educate yourself Ms. Gore. You are clearly misunderstanding language that is about haulting cyberattacks, not preventing free speech.
Its defined as people farming
Those in Washington really don't want to get re-elected, do they?
Well that is why we have cyber firewalls for, to offer security protection.
The fear mongering of this site continually amazes me.
"Oh noes! he's going to steal my intarwebs!"
Give me a break. Cybersecurity is a real issue. The President has the authority to ground air traffic in an emergency, shut down shipping ports in an emergency, evacuate towns/cities... no one complains about these powers and they've never been misused. If a cyber attack occurs, like the ones occuring in South Korea, or Austrailia, I want our government to be ready to face it. God knows the Examiner would be the first ones calling for resignations if a cyberattack occured and a plan wasn't in place.
To call you a hypocrit would be a vast understatement.
I love how the mental midgets who voted for Obongo come on this site to tell all of us "fear mongerers" how stupid we are.... Sheesh if we could all be as smart and brainwashed as these LIBTARDS.
I opposed the Patriot Act too. This is bullshit. There's no such thing as a "cyberemergency" you fool. If you start regulating the internet you close the truly open exchange of ideas and speech that occur there. There's a difference between shutting down airplanes and shutting down the only communication system that the government has no control over.
hey old lady, your title ends with the word "Next". May I ask what came before? Or is that just some mumbo jumbo to stir things up?
Bush started this and Obama will finish it. Do you still think there's a difference between Republican and Democrat? Are you still under the delusion that your vote means anything?
My My My what a big nose Jay Rockefeller has there.
hey old lady, your title ends with the word "Next". May I ask what came before? Or is that just some mumbo jumbo to stir things up?
This new-found concern with individual liberties is pretty remarkable. The previous administration took the position that it could tap the phone lines of Americans without a warrant. It argued that as part of the President's war powers American citizens could be arrested and thrown in Army brigs without resort to habeus corpus. Liberals warned conservatives that they were playing a game that would come back to haunt them when the political tides turned and an Administration of which they disapproved came into office. That is why the current hypocrasy is so striking.
you need to learn more this isn't a test R. Senator O. Snow she help write S773 Obama's czar on the FCC is Mark Lloyd check this clown out Van Jones the green man you want to stop Obama let me know right here i will bring you into the mix.
"All this concern about encroaching Presidential power is terrific, but where were all these new-found civil libertarians when the Patriot Act was enacted"
The Patriot Act has been held up as lawful and constitutional numerous times by the courts. This nonsense about warrantless wiretaps is a bunch of imaginary fiction. So stop trying to hold up the Patriot Act as a strawman way of painting others as hypocrites. Either you have a problem with the current administration trying to grab control of the internet, or you dont. And if you dont, then you have no call to complain about the Patriot act either.
this isn't about the Patriot Act its about free speech its a take over of the FCC. google Mark Lloyd Mark Lloyd is Obama czar's to control air ways.
Have some respect to Martha if you don't agree thats okay just be nice
Are we going to sit back and do nothing while another one of our freedoms is taken away? Every Democrat or Republican who use the internet should be writing their congress to defeat this bill. In a few short months government has taken over our banks and industry. They are trying now to take over health care and the internet. What area will the government strike next. If they take away the internet it will help to silence the people.
Sal - I have no problem with efforts to protect our communications network from strategic disruption by the Russians, Chines, Koreans, terrorists, etc. Do you?
You are correct that the Patriot Act was upheld by the courts as constitutional, just as the legislation currently being proposed by Senator Rockefeller will be. The existence of warrantless wireless and other electonic monitoring of Americans is not fantasy, it is documented fact. Indeed, the previous adminstration strongly defended its right to engage in warrantless evesdropping. It similarly defended its right to seize American citizens and deprive them of habeus corpus if it deemed them terrorists of otherwise threatening to national security. That was the precise argulment made to the courts in the Padilla case. As we effete liberal snobs said back then, be careful what you wish for.
wth, no, obama has gone too far, i hope this bill rots, this is absurd. if it passes we might as well kiss our bums goodbye and say hello communism. joy, we are soon going to be like the chinese
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!