Obama just passed that "spy on u cyber criminalz" bill.

[Burrows]

force protection ftw

Fuck yeah.

[Churchill]

was more a comment on you stating your profession, lol

[Colenzo]

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6981/miledb.jpg

[Caiti]

CHANGE is right.

[Kuya]

The measure is pretty troubling because of what it can snowball into. Take into account that slippery slopes are always valid when discussing executive powers, history can easily verify that for you. Once you give the president a power, it is very likely that it will expand further unless it is stopped at some point.

Second, seeing as how public bureaucratic institutions behave much like private administrations, by that i mean that they seek to grow, not in the sense of profits, but in the sense of size and power for the sake of posterity and the access. What i mean to say is, that this will grow, undoubtedly.

Back in the United States, the New York Times is reporting the Pentagon is planning a new military command focusing on cyberspace. The command would direct the military’s computer-based attacks. The news comes as President Obama is expected to announce a civilian office run by a “cyber-czar” tasked with overseeing the protection of the nation’s computer networks later today.

[Burrows]

was more a comment on you stating your profession, lol

I'm field artillery.

But you live in Tacoma, dude. Like, 10 minutes from Ft. Lewis. I actually live off Exit 128 in Lakewood. Pretty badass.

[guartz]

The measure is pretty troubling because of what it can snowball into. Take into account that slippery slopes are always valid when discussing executive powers, history can easily verify that for you. Once you give the president a power, it is very likely that it will expand further unless it is stopped at some point.

Second, seeing as how public bureaucratic institutions behave much like private administrations, by that i mean that they seek to grow, not in the sense of profits, but in the sense of size and power for the sake of posterity and the access. What i mean to say is, that this will grow, undoubtedly.

Grow to what, though? This is as full grown as it gets. I mean, if I'm reading this right, they have full access and control without any oversight. Essentially, the president can just turn off internet in America if he wanted.

[Suburbanelite]

The world (of child pornography) is coming to an ENDDDDD!!!!

[guartz]

Everyone is talking about CP and torrents, and yet, the bill mentions critical infrastructure. Like telecommunications and banks.

[Maguspk]

Extremely intelligent move, being unprepared for a cyber attack isn't what we want these days. People getting upset over this are simply upset because they think it's imposing on some sense of freedom they have. This has nothing to do with shit you're doing most likely. It's as silly as saying the government closing off a road is imposing on your right to travel down a street freely.

[guartz]

It's as silly as saying the government closing off a road is imposing on your right to travel down a street freely.

It does, impose, actually.

[Kiro]

THOSE FAGGOTS PUT SPEED BUMPS EVERYWHERE!

[_chuchu]

THOSE FAGGOTS PUT SPEED BUMPS EVERYWHERE!

can't race down this street while drunk and die on prom night, sorry.

[Colenzo]

THOSE FAGGOTS PUT SPEED BUMPS EVERYWHERE!

x10

[Maguspk]

It does, impose, actually.

It imposes sure, but any thoughts you have of you having a 'right' to travel down that road are a delusion, at best.

[guartz]

It imposes sure, but any thoughts you have of you having a 'right' to travel down that road are a delusion, at best.

The constitution might disagree, when speaking of roads.

Never the less, let's focus on how wrong you are on the original subject. The people who own these networks operate privately, not publicly, that is, (bank networks, telecommunication companies) which essentially says that it's their property which they "loan out"/"rent" for you to use. Which in turn you "own". Government stepping in and taking it away violates your "right to property".

[Rhinox]

incoming skynet


SARAH CONNOR WAS RIGHT

[Kuya]

Grow to what, though? This is as full grown as it gets. I mean, if I'm reading this right, they have full access and control without any oversight. Essentially, the president can just turn off internet in America if he wanted.

By that i mean that it hasn't grown into old nuns being placed on a terrorist list and spied on yet. Anyone who payed any attention to the last 8 years should know full well that this will snowball.

[guartz]

Kuya, if the government found it prudent to spy on a nun right now, or 20 years ago, it could do so without any hindrance. What i'm saying is, it's already pretty bad. Past 8 years just highlighted it.

[Suburbanelite]

If the government had the patience to spy on each computer owner in the US individually, they probably would. But they don't have that patience. If they are "invading" our privacy, then it's most likely through the usage of keywords that relate to terrorist or high-priority illegal activity, not torrents or pictures of some chick you got from photobucket who happens to be 16.

Snowballing speculation is pretty common on these forums... what gives?