Crazy people on FB defaming Obama

MagnaOpera

Comes Equipped...
ill o.g.
Doesn't mean America has to settle for that kind of shit.

If people don't start opening their eyes and actually thinking about what's going on, and the possible ramifications of what's going on, we're all going to be fucked.
 

SoChi

Beatmaker
ill o.g.
I'm not going to get into it. I'm just going to post some resources for you to look at.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/
http://www.wallstats.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/WallStatsDATlarge.jpg
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Taxation:in:the:United:States.html
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/charts/federal_taxes_by_income-54.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15.html
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/b46391c0-55d0-45c4-91af-3e8793c1512b
http://www.harp.org/hmoa1973.htm
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm
http://www.hpm.org/Downloads/Reinhardt__U_The_US_HC_System_Recent_History_and_Prospects..pdf

And I could go on and on. The fact is cities are in ruins because the constituents keep voting in corrupt politicians that don't do anything to help the city. The only BS is spewing inane comments about how "deregulation kills people" and "high taxes are good".

The last time I checked the more money I have in my pocket the better off I am. Also the welfare of the rich gets under my skin too, but neither party has solved that, they just keep giving more money to their Special Interest buddies.

The only way to stop corporate welfare is to get rid of the progressive tax system that we have that allows to the government to give tax subsidies to their buddies.

You put up a bunch of links, but you gave no indication of what information on those pages backs up your point of view, much less an explanation on how they illustrate that what you believe is true. For example, how is a database of the the likely thousands of regulatory actions done by the government going to tell us anything? What are the regulations that are are bad, and why are they bad?
 

Sucio

Old and dirty...
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 304
Doesn't mean America has to settle for that kind of shit.

If people don't start opening their eyes and actually thinking about what's going on, and the possible ramifications of what's going on, we're all going to be fucked.

It's tough to wake up the people who are content with what's going on....The powers that be have been successful in getting the people to worry about other affairs rather than what the real issues are.
 

Doc Vigilanti

ILLIEN
ill o.g.
You put up a bunch of links, but you gave no indication of what information on those pages backs up your point of view, much less an explanation on how they illustrate that what you believe is true. For example, how is a database of the the likely thousands of regulatory actions done by the government going to tell us anything? What are the regulations that are are bad, and why are they bad?

The fact that there are 100's of thousands of regulations blows the whole, "what we need is more regulation" out of the water. Now, I'm not saying that we don't need regulation, but what we need is the right regulation. What regulations are bad and which ones are good depends on what you believe. For example, some people might believe that emission regulations are too strict, while other think they aren't strict enough.

I posted a link to the time-line of health care progression, I also posted a link to a graphic that shows where all of our federal tax dollars go, the point of those two were for educational purposes. I posted another link to a page that breaks down how much each tax bracket pays in taxes, also for educational purposes. The PDF I linked to was because there was a graph in there that shows how after the HMO act of 1973 was passed and then the HMO Act of 1976 that reformed the HMO Act of 1973 and I also posted a link to the language of the HMO Act.

I also posted a link to the Commerce and Trade bill which regulates a lot of things. I posted another link to the story of how Kaiser Permanente was the first hospital to run "for profit" and how that company was instrumental in getting the HMO Act of 1973 passed.

One of the links I posted seems to not be working anymore. The point of the post was to try not to interject my point of view and instead post some information so we can all be better informed. We can sit here and spew talking points all day, but until we(myself included) all know the facts we are really just debating what the politicians want us to debate and it really isn't getting us anywhere and actually doing us more harm because while we bicker who's right and who's wrong we aren't figuring out what went wrong in the first place.

You can't fix a problem until you find out what the problem is. I don't have all the answers so I choose to keep somewhat of an open mind and will listen to other ideas, as long as they aren't talking points that I could get off of a right or left wing rag.

Me, I'm all about whatever works. Currently what we are doing isn't working. Which is letting the government take control. They have been taking control for decades and all they ever do is screw things up. How are more regulatory agencies going to help when the ones that we have now can't do their jobs? How is the government in control of health care going to bring costs down, when we are currently running a 10+ Trillion dollar National debt, further more why should I trust the government to take care of my health care when they can't even balance a budget or tell me straight up what they are doing?

All of the crooks in Washington dance around the questions and won't give us any straight answers. It has become a battle of special interest and the people are only important when it comes time for them to get re-elected. So why should I trust the politicians with my health and by default my life when they can't even do those simple things?

Where I stand is for whatever works, and as I already mentioned, what we are currently doing isn't working and what they want to do isn't going to work. Not to mention we have major problems that we have to solve before we go and spend more money that we don't have. Major problems like our monetary system, every year that passes inflation goes up, but wages stagnate. Now there will always be inflation and deflation, but while the government can print money at will we aren't ever going to get ahead. The bankers and corporations are going to continue to get rich while the rest of us get poorer.

As I said though, I don't have all the answers, but we can't start fixing the problems until we understand what has caused the problems in the first place.
 

SoChi

Beatmaker
ill o.g.
The fact that there are 100's of thousands of regulations blows the whole, "what we need is more regulation" out of the water. Now, I'm not saying that we don't need regulation, but what we need is the right regulation. What regulations are bad and which ones are good depends on what you believe. For example, some people might believe that emission regulations are too strict, while other think they aren't strict enough.

Eh, not necessarily. If most of those hundreds of thousands of regulations are weak, or if they were instituted so far in the past that they really don't address the problems we face in the current day, then we surely do need more regulation. I think an apt comparison to the situation on Wall Street, for example, is that of hackers. There are tons of antivirus and firewall software out there, but the hackers don't just stop in response to it, they continuously find new ways to beat the system. Wall Street is much the same way. There are people up there that will find ways every loophole, every way to manipulate the system, legally or illegally. And I want the regulators to be every bit as tenacious.

I posted a link to the time-line of health care progression, I also posted a link to a graphic that shows where all of our federal tax dollars go, the point of those two were for educational purposes. I posted another link to a page that breaks down how much each tax bracket pays in taxes, also for educational purposes. The PDF I linked to was because there was a graph in there that shows how after the HMO act of 1973 was passed and then the HMO Act of 1976 that reformed the HMO Act of 1973 and I also posted a link to the language of the HMO Act.

I also posted a link to the Commerce and Trade bill which regulates a lot of things. I posted another link to the story of how Kaiser Permanente was the first hospital to run "for profit" and how that company was instrumental in getting the HMO Act of 1973 passed.

One of the links I posted seems to not be working anymore. The point of the post was to try not to interject my point of view and instead post some information so we can all be better informed. We can sit here and spew talking points all day, but until we(myself included) all know the facts we are really just debating what the politicians want us to debate and it really isn't getting us anywhere and actually doing us more harm because while we bicker who's right and who's wrong we aren't figuring out what went wrong in the first place.

You can't fix a problem until you find out what the problem is. I don't have all the answers so I choose to keep somewhat of an open mind and will listen to other ideas, as long as they aren't talking points that I could get off of a right or left wing rag.

The thing is, however, you came in the thread and made some very strong statements without providing supporting data to back it up. Then you threw a bunch of data out there on your next post. You obviously have an opinion, you obviously have access to this information, why not show how your reading of it has formed those opinions?

Me, I'm all about whatever works. Currently what we are doing isn't working. Which is letting the government take control. They have been taking control for decades and all they ever do is screw things up. How are more regulatory agencies going to help when the ones that we have now can't do their jobs? How is the government in control of health care going to bring costs down, when we are currently running a 10+ Trillion dollar National debt, further more why should I trust the government to take care of my health care when they can't even balance a budget or tell me straight up what they are doing?

All of the crooks in Washington dance around the questions and won't give us any straight answers. It has become a battle of special interest and the people are only important when it comes time for them to get re-elected. So why should I trust the politicians with my health and by default my life when they can't even do those simple things?

Where I stand is for whatever works, and as I already mentioned, what we are currently doing isn't working and what they want to do isn't going to work. Not to mention we have major problems that we have to solve before we go and spend more money that we don't have. Major problems like our monetary system, every year that passes inflation goes up, but wages stagnate. Now there will always be inflation and deflation, but while the government can print money at will we aren't ever going to get ahead. The bankers and corporations are going to continue to get rich while the rest of us get poorer.

As I said though, I don't have all the answers, but we can't start fixing the problems until we understand what has caused the problems in the first place.

It seems like you are stating two talking points that directly contradict one another: 1) The government is taking everything over and screwing us over. 2) The government is under the thumb of special interests. I personally fall on the side 2.
 

Doc Vigilanti

ILLIEN
ill o.g.
Eh, not necessarily. If most of those hundreds of thousands of regulations are weak, or if they were instituted so far in the past that they really don't address the problems we face in the current day, then we surely do need more regulation. I think an apt comparison to the situation on Wall Street, for example, is that of hackers. There are tons of antivirus and firewall software out there, but the hackers don't just stop in response to it, they continuously find new ways to beat the system. Wall Street is much the same way. There are people up there that will find ways every loophole, every way to manipulate the system, legally or illegally. And I want the regulators to be every bit as tenacious.



The thing is, however, you came in the thread and made some very strong statements without providing supporting data to back it up. Then you threw a bunch of data out there on your next post. You obviously have an opinion, you obviously have access to this information, why not show how your reading of it has formed those opinions?



It seems like you are stating two talking points that directly contradict one another: 1) The government is taking everything over and screwing us over. 2) The government is under the thumb of special interests. I personally fall on the side 2.

No, those aren't talking points those are the truth, government regulation is control of industry, special interest pays off the government to pass regulation and laws to make sure they keep maintaining a profit and make it almost impossible for new smaller business to enter into a certain market.

Cut it anyway you want it, but congress is the body that passes laws, the politicians can choose to either serve the special interest or the constituents. It's what Mussolini called Corporatism, which is the merging of business and government, or the term that really likes to get thrown around fascism.

We can have millions of regulations, but in reality the only thing it is really solving is causing barriers to entry into the markets. More regulations means more money, which means it takes more capital to start a business, which also means more overhead.

The links I posted backed up exactly what I was saying, The highest earners pay the most taxes, government regulation of medical insurance has caused the cost of medicine to be extremely exaggerated, although it also has to do with the advances in medical technology. We already have tons of regulations and very little of it working, well actually it depends on which way you look at it. It's working very well for the people that can afford to pay the cost.

The statements I made are the complete truth, the links I posted back that up. The data speaks for it self I shouldn't need to explain it all the info is right there in the links. The problem is that government is not the answer, the regulators have been proven time and time again to be corrupt and the regulators will always be corrupt the same with government the government will always be corrupt.

We have a huge behemoth of a government and regulatory agencies as we speak, but things are only getting worse. There is no excuse for apathy, which is why we are in this situation that we are in. These are facts because it has been proven time and time again. A bigger government means higher taxes which means less money in our pockets which mean less money to feed our families, and do what we like to do to relieve stress and help other people out.

I should have also added I don't mind talking points if they are truth. But when people start saying things like "tax the rich more" or "deregulation kills people" or things like "cities are in ruins because of deregulation" those things are just simply not true. The truth are in the links I posted, which are non-biased as possible, with links to government agencies in order to kill the whole bickering about the source of the information before that even gets started.
 

SoChi

Beatmaker
ill o.g.
No, those aren't talking points those are the truth, government regulation is control of industry, special interest pays off the government to pass regulation and laws to make sure they keep maintaining a profit and make it almost impossible for new smaller business to enter into a certain market.

Cut it anyway you want it, but congress is the body that passes laws, the politicians can choose to either serve the special interest or the constituents. It's what Mussolini called Corporatism, which is the merging of business and government, or the term that really likes to get thrown around fascism.

We can have millions of regulations, but in reality the only thing it is really solving is causing barriers to entry into the markets. More regulations means more money, which means it takes more capital to start a business, which also means more overhead.

The links I posted backed up exactly what I was saying, The highest earners pay the most taxes, government regulation of medical insurance has caused the cost of medicine to be extremely exaggerated, although it also has to do with the advances in medical technology. We already have tons of regulations and very little of it working, well actually it depends on which way you look at it. It's working very well for the people that can afford to pay the cost.

The statements I made are the complete truth, the links I posted back that up. The data speaks for it self I shouldn't need to explain it all the info is right there in the links. The problem is that government is not the answer, the regulators have been proven time and time again to be corrupt and the regulators will always be corrupt the same with government the government will always be corrupt.

We have a huge behemoth of a government and regulatory agencies as we speak, but things are only getting worse. There is no excuse for apathy, which is why we are in this situation that we are in. These are facts because it has been proven time and time again. A bigger government means higher taxes which means less money in our pockets which mean less money to feed our families, and do what we like to do to relieve stress and help other people out.

I should have also added I don't mind talking points if they are truth. But when people start saying things like "tax the rich more" or "deregulation kills people" or things like "cities are in ruins because of deregulation" those things are just simply not true. The truth are in the links I posted, which are non-biased as possible, with links to government agencies in order to kill the whole bickering about the source of the information before that even gets started.

There's tons on info in those links, why couldn't you have spent a little of the time you spent on that lengthy response, which referenced only your opinions, to actually tie the info into your argument? You can write an essay but you refuse to actually infuse supporting data into it? I'm sorry but that's weak. I'm only asking you to back up your argument. Since you are certain that regulations are the problem, then you should be able to identify some of the problem regulations.

There's a shitload of info in those links and in many cases, just isn't relevant to your points.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15.html
Included on this page is regulations on pool safety, bicycle helmets for children and boxing regulation safety.

You've referenced nothing that shows that more regulation is bad, you just put up a page that showed that regulations do in fact, exist. Yes, the regulations we have now are not sufficient, but that doesn't take into account the very issues with ineffective regulation I raised in my prior post. It is akin to a doctor prescribing the wrong medication to a patient, and then proclaiming that no medication at all be prescribed.

You posted a page that shows that the rich the rich people have most of the money, and thus pay more of the taxes, which is useful to know, but what should also be referenced are the statistics showing how much of the country's wealth rests with that segment of the population.

http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm <------ Now that is a good link, but I see nothing indicating a government takeover in that piece, unless you consider Medicare a government takeover, which would be nutty.
 

Relic

Voice of Illmuzik Radio
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 83
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sCODW-cR_s"]YouTube - 2009 US MARTIAL LAW APPROVAL...?[/ame]

Is this in case of Alien attack???
Listen to the words that arent "classified" whcih are few indeed..
How do you pass something like that when you dont even know what your talking about...
 

Doc Vigilanti

ILLIEN
ill o.g.
Is this in case of Alien attack???
Listen to the words that arent "classified" whcih are few indeed..
How do you pass something like that when you dont even know what your talking about...

Lol!! That is from the http://www.theonion.com/content/index it's a satirical news site, pure comedy, my bad if you already knew that though. Sad part is that is they way they do things maybe not with Alien attack legislation, but tons of other stuff.
 

7thangel

7th Angel of Armageddon
ill o.g.
it's been a long time...

the cost of health care in the u.s. is due to the system aka insurance and admin, the lack of oversight, the lack of regulation that allows denial via pre-conditions (some of the most ridiculous pre-conditions have made headlines recently), and recission.

Blog_McKinsey_Healthcare.jpg


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/10/why-we-spend-so-much
http://www.academyhealth.org/files/2009/monday/Jensene.pdf
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/10/excess-spending-in-us-health-care.php

what are all the various things that caused the crisis?



now, as i don't recall saying saying 'high taxes are good', i shouldn't even bother. but those extra few dollars i might get if i qualify for some tax cut is less money for the schools in my area, the teachers, babylon, the roads, infrastructure, etc.

slightly related
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php#fn-7

I don't have links for these so you'll have to take my word (I am not bullshitting though, I have no vested interest in smearing obama's reputation).

He's passed a bill that would allow him to completely shut down the internet in america (COMPLETELY) in case of a "cyber terrorist attack"... This is the posturing of a dictator.

His administration used the same arguments as the bush administration in favour of PATRIOT.

There are more, I don't have time to look them all up now but if you look at what he's been doing while he's in office it's difficult not to be worried.

http://factcheck.org/2009/10/internet-access-denied/

Q: Is Obama seeking power to "disconnect your computer, shut down your favorite websites, or block your email"?

A: A Senate bill would allow the president to restrict access to government or "critical infrastructure" networks in case of a "cybersecurity emergency." But it has bipartisan support, and even critics admit it would not allow him to shut down all private Internet traffic.

FULL QUESTION

Concerning the S. 773 bill in the Congress – Would it enable the federal government to shut down my access to the Internet and/or restrict access to certain sites?

Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," would this bill mandate that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals"?

Following is a copy of the chain e-mail that I received concerning this topic.

If a bill quietly sneaking its way through Congress passes, an email like this could be the last non-government message to ever hit your inbox.

In fact, someday you may even find yourself unable to log in to your email in the first place!

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏

But Barack Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) want to make this nightmare a reality. That’s why Rockefeller recently introduced S. 773, "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009."

Initial cosponsors include Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

You see, the federal government is seeking sweeping new powers to "shut down" all private internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency" — a vague term that the President can define at his discretion.

And Rockefeller’s bill gives the federal government and Barack Obama just what they want.

That’s why this expansive new power grab should really be called "The Internet Takeover Bill."

I know what you’re thinking: Maybe this is just another Internet hoax.

I wish it were.

Use a search engine like Google to find "S.773" and see the complete text of this bill at any number of different websites. Once you find it, look at who sponsored the bill, which will be right at the beginning. Then look for the words "emergency" and "license" in the text of the bill. You can verify everything in this email with your own two eyes.

As you know, the Internet has developed into an independent sphere where 1st Amendment rights can still be (fairly) freely exercised.

It’s also become an important outlet for liberty-minded speech, cutting around the Obama-worship and corporate censorship of the mainstream media.

And we’ve already seen the Obama Administration’s reaction to any online speech they deem "fishy."

In July, the Administration called upon Americans to report their friends’ and neighbors’ emails to help Barack Obama silence the "disinformation" about the Obamacare bills in Congress.

Well, now Barack Obama wants to cut out the middleman.

If the Internet Takeover Bill passes, Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly — by ordering a shutdown of all Americans’ access to the Internet.

That’s right. Under this bill Barack Obama can order all non-government U.S. networks to shut down access to the Internet.

But that’s not all.

Even outside of periods of White House-declared "emergency," this bill mandates that private-sector networks only be managed by government-licensed "cybersecurity professionals."

If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they’re federally licensed bureaucrats.

And God forbid you like to visit websites that spread "fishy disinformation" like free market healthcare solutions. Passing socialized medicine could soon become enough of an "emergency" for Barack Obama to shut them down.

You know, for the public good.

Today, legislation like this has to sneak through Congress quietly. They know Americans are no longer willing to swallow this "for our own good" swill.

Can you imagine how easily those in power could fabricate an "emergency" whenever a strong liberty candidate threatening the establishment tries to schedule a large fund-raiser?

Or how about message boards vital to planning freedom rallies, protests of socialized medicine, or any other activity protected by the 1st Amendment?

With "right-wing extremists" freely and visibly exercising their 2nd Amendment rights at such events, no doubt the White House could declare an "emergency" and shut down all online planning.

I don’t want to see demonstrations of liberty extinguished. I hope you don’t either.

We need to fight to make sure Barack Obama and the federal government can’t possibly disconnect your computer, shut down your favorite websites, or block your email. We need to stay educated and active. We need to try to stop this power grab. We need to defend our rights.

Verify everything in this email; it will only take a minute or two. Then, please consider forwarding this on to friends and family and anyone else you think might be interested. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."
– Hillary Clinton – April 28, 2003


FULL ANSWER

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S. 773) was introduced in the Senate on April 1 by Democratic Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.

The e-mail describes it as an "expansive new power grab" by Obama; the truth is the measure has bipartisan support, even beyond Sen. Snowe’s cosponsorship. It is supported by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan organization whose board of trustees includes former Sen. (and Republican National Committee chairman) Bill Brock and former Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist, as well as former Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia, who chairs the board. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is also a trustee.

Furthermore, even a prominent critic of the bill tells us that the e-mail is "wrong" to claim that the measure "targets all private traffic, specific websites or email senders."

S. 773

Rockefeller and Snowe said they introduced the bill to "address our nation’s vulnerability to cyber crime, global cyber espionage, and cyber attacks that could potentially cripple the United States’ critical infrastructure."

The bill is a response to concerns outlined last year in a report by Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Titled "Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency," the report says that "cybersecurity is now a major national security problem for the United States." The commission urged the incoming president to "create a comprehensive national security strategy for cyberspace" to defend against foreign intelligence agencies, militaries, criminals and others, while also respecting individual privacy and civil liberties.

As introduced, S. 773, among other things, would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network" (emphasis added). It would also allow the president to "order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."

The bill didn’t go over well with some civil liberties groups that said it could enable a president to take control of information systems run by banks, energy companies or telecommunications firms under the heading of "critical infrastructure." One of these groups is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a "donor-funded nonprofit" that describes itself as the "first line of defense" when "our freedoms in the networked world come under attack." EFF Civil Liberties Director Jennifer Granick wrote that the bill "risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended."

Granick, April 10: Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.

Granick also expressed concern over some specific parts of the bill, like a provision giving the secretary of commerce "access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." She said such a provision could "eviscerate statutory protections for private information."

"Not an Obama Plot"

But even EFF’s Granick says the author of the e-mail is wrong about what the bill would actually allow the president to do and whom it targets.

"The email is incorrect that the state of emergency allows the shut down of all private internet traffic," Granick told us in an e-mail. "It allows the shut down of federal or critical infrastructure networks." This could include some private networks, Granick said, but they would have to be outlined as "critical infrastructure" in advance. "So the email is right that this could be unbelievably broad, but wrong that it targets all private traffic, specific websites or email senders."

Supporters also say the bill wouldn’t give the president power to shut down "message boards vital to planning freedom rallies (or) protests of socialized medicine," as the e-mail claims. Nor would it allow a president to deny access to e-mail. "Rockefeller-Snowe has nothing to do with content or e-mail," says James Lewis, a senior fellow and director of the CSIS Technology and Public Policy Program. He told FactCheck.org that "the bill is designed to increase our ability to defend the nation’s networks, something we haven’t done very well." He said the bill would clarify the president’s ability to defend networks in the case of a national emergency.

"The administration is pretty clear, with its net neutrality initiative, that it wants to keep Internet access completely open," Lewis said. "The White House isn’t sure if it wants this particular bill. So it is not an Obama plot."

Obama’s Promises

For the record, the president says he has no intention of trying to monitor the content of private Internet traffic and promises to keep the Internet "open and free." He outlined the administration’s vision for a "new comprehensive approach to securing America’s digital infrastructure" during a speech in May. In addition to stating the administration’s goals, Obama said:

Obama, May 26: Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not – I repeat, will not include – monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be – open and free.

It’s also worth mentioning that the bill hasn’t made it out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, where it has been since it was introduced. And a spokeswoman for the committee told us that it’s important to note that the bill is just a "working draft."

Certification Requirement To Boot?

Our reader also asked us whether the bill would require that private networks be managed by "government-licensed ‘cybersecurity professionals,’ " as the e-mail claims. "If you think dealing with your office IT department is bad now, just wait until they’re federally licensed bureaucrats," the e-mails says.

As introduced, the bill would require the licensing of some individuals – but only those people providing services to the federal government or for an information system deemed "critical" by the president.

"It would require some certification of security skill for people who write code to sell to the government or to critical infrastructure," CSIS’ Lewis said. "It would not affect other code-writing, like commercial websites or private coders."

Here’s the language of the bill as it was originally written:

SEC. 7. LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION OF CYBERSECURITY PROFESSIONALS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall develop or coordinate and integrate a national licensing, certification, and periodic recertification program for cybersecurity professionals.

(b) MANDATORY LICENSING- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President’s designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program.

Lewis said "there is some legitimate debate over certification," such as how it would work and exactly to whom it would apply. But, he said, "certification is necessary. … We don’t let anyone, say they are a doctor (or a plumber for that matter), [work] until they’ve been certified. The same should be true for software used in national security applications."

a lot of shit has happened while i was gone...the wingnut freak out over the nobel, rush's obama conspiracy, the wh truth-telling about faux news, the report on death threats and the over worked secret service, the calls for coups/sedition/civil war, insane games based on a civil war, the typical socialist/communist/nazi/marxist/racist accusations, the slurs by elected officials, etc, etc

smh...there's real things to talk about and critique or protest, like afghanistan (which affects my country as well)
 
Top