Internet Threatened by Censorship, Secret Surveillance, and Cybersecurity Laws

[Orwellian_Ghost]

It's a very long article so take some time to read and digest.

Internet Threatened by Censorship, Secret Surveillance, and Cybersecurity Laws

<snip>

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Jennifer Granick expressed alarm about the risk of “giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. (These bills) should be opposed or radically amended.”

Here’s what they’ll do:

– federalize critical infrastructure security, including banks, telecommunications and energy, shifting power away from providers and users to Washington;

– give “the president unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in (whatever he calls) an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds….;”

– potentially “cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop” through one provision (alone) empowering the Commerce Secretary to “have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access….”

In other words, the Commerce Department will be empowered to access “all relevant data” - without privacy safeguards or judicial review. As a result, constitutionally protected private information statutory protections will be lost - guaranteed under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, and financial privacy regulations.



http://www.fogcityjournal.com/wordpress/2009/05/22/internet-threatened-by-censorship-secret-surveillance-and-cybersecurity-laws/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. "Sky Threatened By Charges Of Blueness!"

[leftstreet]

2. "...unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic"

aka: Stop the Serfs From Organizing Globally and Overthrowing the Ruling Class!

[RandomThoughts]

3. It all comes down to who decides what is bad and good communication.

If that decision is left to a few people for their own protection, it will fail to have a valid purpose or effect.

If a corporation can censor information on its site or search engine, then that corporation has control over information flow.

A government could do the same thing.

The government should strengthen the sharing of thoughts and ideas used in the Internet. The Internet is no different then the town square, and when TV came about, the town square disappeared, instead there was just one or two speakers and no ideas were debated.

The Internet itself offers advancement to thought that should be encouraged.

Society can set a standard, just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, for societal order. But that system and when it applies has to be open to review and accuracy so one small group does not use it to control information flow on topics that do not go against social order, but only the chosen ideas of one group.

And if all conversations are monitored looking for things that could go against the views of a group, if it was used for more then common sense ideas of stopping violence. Then all conversations between corporations and officials in government should be available equally to citizens, to protect from government falling into bad hands, (which is one of the things rights protect against). Governmental and business conversations, open and available to people, can be equally argued, since they can equally turn to bad methods and violence.

[kimmerspixelated]

4. But will Obama let this happen?

The internet is what helped elect him and also the successful election of democrats in 2006.

[mamaleah]

6. Well if you wanna think in a tinfoil way...

The internet is what helped elect him and also the successful election of democrats in 2006.

Ahh yes. And could help an opponent get elected too.

/end tinfoil.

[csziggy]

5. Scientific American September 2008 issue was all about Privacy

Internet, in regular life and all kinds of aspects. There were excellent articles on the future of privacy, internet security, encryption, and so on. Well worth a read.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammag/?contents=2008-09