"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" So states the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Now while keeping that in mind, if I'm reading the news correctly, it would seem that we presently have underway three separate, dangerous, and simultaneous, assaults that are now ongoing and that have as being in their sights that very same First Amendment. Ya know, if I have this right, there is some pretty scary stuff currently going on out there in that vast wasteland that is our government. There now appears to be several very purposeful attempts afoot with one specific goal in mind and it is not something that will prove to be at all beneficial to the general population of this country. One of the most efficient and effective ways that the American people use to gather information to keep them appraised of what those in government are doing, is the Internet. And it is that very same ability to gather information that is now under a full-fledged assault and on what at least appears to be three fronts, all of which are being waged against the American people by their very own government.
First off is what I have read about regarding many of those who comprise our federal law enforcement as well as our national security officials who are now seeking some sweeping new regulations regarding the Internet. Now while it does not sound like it's hampering my ability to keep myself informed of governmental monkey business, it does sound like "Big Brother" wanting to stick his nose in to the point where they would be able to listen in on the citizenry in order to see just what they might be up to. The supposed argument for requesting these new expanded regulations revolve around, they say, the fact that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorist suspects is in the process of "going dark" because many more people are now choosing to communicate online instead of by telephone. But I do have one small question here. Where is all the concern from all of those screeching liberals regarding the privacy issues that were seen as being threatened with wild accusations quite literally being screamed from nearly every front page and newscast when it was Bush who wanted to be able to listen in on phone calls when one participant of the call was a potential terrorist calling from another country? What these officials are now requesting is for there to be a federal requirement for "all services that enable communications," everything from encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook to software that allows direct "peer-to-peer" messaging such as Skype, to now be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. This mandate would include they’re being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages. Now in a day and age when Barry is very busily assembling a rather extensive list of perceived enemies, I'm just not thinking that this is really such a good idea. Call me paranoid, but I just don't see Barry as being anywhere near as trustworthy as Bush was. Now the legislation which our buddy Barry "Almighty" plans to submit to Congress next year, raises a whole new fresh batch of questions regarding how to balance security needs with the protecting of privacy and fostering technological innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally. Which makes it all the more unnerving. So, is someone in some foreign country also going to be looking over my shoulder or perhaps reading my emails?
A fella by the name of James Dempsey, who is the vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had "huge implications" and challenged "fundamental elements of the Internet revolution" including its decentralized design. "They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet," he said. "They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.” But law enforcement officials “guarantee” us that the imposing of such a mandate is "reasonable and necessary" in order to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers. Hmmmm, investigative powers. Well, one man's "reasonable and necessary" is another man's abuse of power. "We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said Valerie Caproni, general counsel for the FBI. "We're not talking expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security." Again, when those who are doing the snooping are also the ones who are defining what's "lawfully authorized" I get more than just a tad bit queasy. Ya know, under normal circumstances, normal being not having a “Chicago thug, community agitator” of a Democrat in the Oval Office, I might be a little more likely to go along with this idea. But definitely not when we have the likes of Barry, “Dingy” Harry and “Botox” Nancy running roughshod over a Congress whose membership is comprised of a majority of members who have a rather difficult time behaving in anything that would even remotely resemble an ethical manner. Nope, I'm just not feelin it. Sorry! No way, Jose!
Secondly, we also have our old friend, Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy, yet another Democrat as well as being that pillar of honesty and integrity, trying his best to assist his buddy Barry, having now introduced a bill that could have a very “dangerous impact on freedom of speech,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Boy, now there's a surprise, another Democrat seeking to place limits on our right to Free Speech. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) has been introduced by "Leaky", and if I'm reading the news right he’s assisted in his endeavor by Senator Orrin Hatch. “Leaky,” who also happens to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would require Internet Service Providers, Domain Name System providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. Well now, I wonder what other "intended uses" ol’ Leaky might have up his sleeve here? This seriously flawed bill would allow our stellar Attorney General Eric "I'm a Black Panther lovin MoFo" Holder, and the Barry Justice Department to break the Internet one domain at a time, by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet "blacklists." Only two? The first "blacklist" would consist of all websites hit with a censorship court order from our Attorney General. Oh, now doesn't that just give that warm and fuzzy feeling all over? Holder is as corrupt as his boss Barry is a narcissist. The second "blacklist" is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines, and "without judicial review" I might add, are “dedicated to infringing activities” that violate copyright laws. Again, this sounds just a bit too broad for me. COICA requires blocking for domains on the first list and “strongly suggests” that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for those who do block access to websites, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit civil liberties organization. Ya know, it's easy to predict here that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist. “This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet” and could have a “dangerous impact on freedom of speech,” the EFF observes. And the fact of the matter is that The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, already gives copyright owners legal means to remove copyright violating material piece by piece. But COICA “vastly expands this. It would allow the Attorney General to shoot down a whole domain including all the "blog posts," images, backups, and files underneath it,” the EFF reports. “In other words, it’s not just possible but probable that a great deal of legitimate, protected speech will be taken down in the name of copyright enforcement.” A hearing on the bill is scheduled this week before the Judiciary Committee. COICA is a fairly short bill, but it could result in a very long lasting and very dangerous impact on freedom of speech, current Internet architecture, copyright doctrine, foreign policy, and beyond. In 2010, if there's anything we've learned about such efforts as these, it's that they always produce more unintended consequences than any actual benefits.
And finally third, and perhaps the scariest idea I've heard yet, is something that's being called an "amalgamated cybersecurity bill" that our freedom loving Democrat lawmakers are hoping to pass "before the end of this year", and which is more than just little frightening to me. This little piece of wizardry includes some very interesting new powers which would allow Barry "Almighty" to actually shut down not only entire areas of the Internet, but also give the power to do the same to businesses and industries that fail to comply with government orders following the declaration of a national emergency. Now knowing Barry as I think I do, what is there exactly that would prevent him from using this little gift from Congress as some sort of a political weapon if the mood should strike him? Does anyone other than me see this as being anything other than just another very blatant attempt to stifle potential dissent directed at either our "Fearless Leader?" or his party. The present draft of the bill is a combination of two pieces of legislation originally crafted by, you guessed it, two more Democrats in the person of Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller. “Industries, companies or portions of companies could be temporarily shut down, or be required to take other steps to address threats,” simply by citing concerns about an “imminent threat to the U.S. electrical grid or other critical infrastructure such as the water supply or financial network.” “Even in the absence of an imminent threat, companies could face government scrutiny. Company employees working in cybersecurity would need appropriate skills. It also would require companies to report cyber threats to the government, and to have plans for responding to a cyber attack,” states a report from Reuters. I think it has been pretty much made clear by those much smarter than I that the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is actually pretty remote. The perpetrators of just such an attack these types of infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to those systems that operate these plants in order to cause them any significant damage. Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare what many fear as being the real agenda behind this so-called cybersecurity. That being the enabling of those in government to regulate free speech on the Internet. Handing Obama the power to shut down certain companies or businesses is likely to heighten already existing fears that the new cybersecurity federal bureaucracy could very easy be turned into something that could then very easily be used as a political weapon.
What causes me some very serious concern here is that it was just back in March when Barry's administration released its Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, a plan that that would provide to those in the government the power to “secure,” or perhaps control is a better word, the nation’s public and private sector computer networks. It just so happened to coincide with the Democrats attempt put forward the claim that the independent news website "The Drudge Report" was serving malware, an incident Senator Jim Inhofe described as being a deliberate ploy “to discourage people from using Drudge”. Senator Joe Lieberman appeared to admit that the legislation had more to do with simply protecting US infrastructure when he told CNN's Candy Crowley that the bill was intended to mimic the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing. “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman. In case of war? So now we're looking to China as being our model for governmental control of the Internet? Wait just a minute here Joe. I don't think I'm too crazy about that whole idea. Let's not kid ourselves here, the Chinese government does not disconnect parts of the Internet out of any genuine concerns regarding its national security. What it does do is to habitually take such action for no other reason than to oppress and silence the victims of government abuse and atrocities, and to attempt to literally strangle any and all dissent perpetrated against the state, a practice that many are now beginning to fear as being the ultimate intention of cybersecurity here in the United States. And another thing! The implementation of some monstrous cybersecurity apparatus would represent just one more huge expansion of a federal government that is presently running amuck. A government that has already grown way too much and acquired way too much power and control over the American people already. The creating of an Office of Cyber Policy within an executive branch steeped in corruption and possessing very questionable motives is just not a very good idea. And adding to that “a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) within the Department of Homeland Security, led by a separate director who would enforce cybersecurity policies throughout the government and the private sector” also does not represent the right direction in which we should be going. It just wouldn't be prudent.
Now I don't know about anybody else, but for me it just seems like every time I turn around this crowd of power hungry Democrats are setting about to do their level best in exhausting every possible method in their effort to acquire ever more control over, not only what information is available to the public, but how that information is to be disseminated as well. There is simply too much secrecy involved and it is all but impossible to get the truth from any of those who participate in today's state run media, because those who are relied upon to report the news are essentially in bed with the guilty parties. And to my way of thinkin this is all about nothing more than the creating of yet another way for Barry to poke around in my business. Business that he has no business poking around in. Look folks, let's be real here! This is but one more reason that exposes the fact that we must get away from this "one party rule" nightmare of a situation that we have managed to create for ourselves. And as quickly as possible. Democrats, as a whole, are not to be trusted in any way, shape, manner of form with type of ability that has been outlined in any of this proposed legislation. It allows for nothing more than to provide those in our government new and improved ways to go snooping on anyone they may perceive as being an enemy of the state. To allow the implementation of this type of wide-ranging authority is to put on the fast track a "Brave New World" of Barry's design. And to attempt to do so under the guise of national security no less, is absolutely ludicrous. Might this rather be all about the squelching of any possible dissent regarding the enacting of policies advocated by Barry "Almighty" and his fellow Democrats? Just something to ponder.
No comments:
Post a Comment