TYT: Government Control Of Internet

[Bullet1987]

Run time: 04:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjjLmmdLcEs   Posted on YouTube: June 22, 2010 By YouTube Member: TheYoungTurks Views on YouTube: 303   Posted on DU: June 22, 2010 By DU Member: Bullet1987 Views on DU: 1993

 
LIEberman is in the news again, looking every bit the opportunist corporatist that he is. Now, he wants to give the President the authority to shut off the internet (or portions of it) in "times of war." He says communist China has it, so we should too! Of course, we all know the communists have this to shut down dissent and control the flow of information. It seems like some powerful people don't like how uncontrollable and dictating the internet has become. They're losing their grip on the flow of information and what side of certain stories are heard and it's destroying their credibility. It's not surprising LIEberman would sponsor such a bill, the internet hates him after the whole Ned Lamont stunt he pulled.

[Art_from_Ark]

1. Remember the good ol' days of the Cold War

when were constantly reminded that our society was so much better than Soviet/Red Chinese society in part because they strictly controlled the flow of information to their people while we had freedom of the press?

[Enthusiast]

2. I remember.

The only government control of the internet that I am in favor of is to insure that it runs UNRESTRICTED. Net Neutrality!

[sasquuatch55]

18. Did I suddenly wake up in North Korea?

These Gubermint fellers gots plans fer us and, they ain't good!

[snake in the grass]

3. I've a feeling that...

...Liebermann doesn't have much of a chance in the next round. I suspect he has to know this and is a victim of that which always brings these people down in the end, namely hubris.

It doesn't seem like catering to me. It's more like how much he can fuck up on his way out.

In any case, he is a despicable worm and it's time for him to be called out on it publicly.

Harry?

[Tutankhamun]

10. That's it exactly -- he wants to fuck things up as much as possible for the country and particularly

the left. He resents our ability to call him out on his transparent bullshit, time and again. He despises the way we can and do share information freely, because this information is so often so very damning and so very damaging to that which TRULY matters: Joe Lieberman.

[davidhilton]

4. Yeah right, and I believe everything Looserman says.

[Chisox08]

5. Hell no!

No President should have that kind of power. Sen. LIEberman (I-asshole) needs to taken down in 2012 elections.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

28. LIEberman was last re-elected in 2008

He'll be a boil on our collective ass until 2014 (unless- god willing- he keels over before then of course)

[D23MIURG23]

30. 2006. He's up in 2 years. -nt

[davidhilton]

6. That would be quite a feat to turn off all those providers.

What does that even mean, "shut down the internet?" What, is there, one huge multi-link to all the internet? Somehow I doubt it. Thats why its good to have Bill Gates and Steve Jobs on your side - lol.

[Scuba]

7. After listening to Joe's clear and cogent explanation of the bill...

...I've concluded he is a blithering idiot who want to stifle free speech.

[20score]

8. I get it! The authoritarian part of China is the good part, to be emulated.

[demwing]

9. Self Delete

[WhoIsNumberNone]

11. To expand on Cenk's point

on whether or not Obama uses the kill switch- he got that exactly right. In (at most) 6 1/2 years from now there will be a whole new administration in place, and who knows which way the winds will be blowing by that time? What if we're steeling ourselves for President Palin or President Bachmann? We really have to be careful when giving new powers to the President. Just because we can trust this one not to abuse them doesn't mean the next one won't.

This is an imperfect comparison, but think of when Germany passed the Enabling Act. Some feebleminded Dutch communist sets fire to the Reichstag, the Nazis get everyone riled up and in 1933 they give Hitler total control until the state of emergency has passed. I wonder if they would have done it if they'd known the emergency would continue until May 8th, 1945? Who suspected the ways in which he would abuse those emergency powers? Not enough people in Germany, that's for sure. Again- not a perfect analogy, and probably one that's been overused, but a cautionary tale nonetheless.

[Amonester]

24. IF, DoG forbid, in (at most) 6 1/2 years, we are Plagued by a palin or...

any other batshit crazy republic magical-thinking 3-year old maladministration, what will prevent them from doing it all by themselves (even secretly and illegally if they want to, since they NOW KNOW they'll never be impeached or tried for their crimes afterwards by the next admin)?

(this is not to defend that independent idiot LIEberman)

Besides, the Internet CANNOT be switched off in this era of WIRELESS access...

[WhoIsNumberNone]

27. "the Internet CANNOT be switched off in this era of WIRELESS access..."

There are some Iranians who might argue otherwise.

And while you're probably not wrong about the hypothetical Palin Administration, but I doubt there would be another one after it, because Palin wouldn't leave office without starting the War of Armageddon so she and the other freaks could be with Jesus... But I say why make it any easier for them?

Of course I should also point out that the solution to the problem that LIEberman is overlooking is already in place: www2. The government and certain high-security industries already have their own internet- separate from ours. If they were running it right cyber attacks wouldn't be much of a problem, and they wouldn't have to shut down the regular internet. Cenk is right- it's all about silencing dissent and getting rid of things they don't approve of.

[JDPriestly]

12. Joe Lieberman should be asked to leave the Democratic Party.

He is an insult to intelligent, liberal people. He certainly should not be in charge of any committee, least of all Homeland Security.

Yes, Skinner, this is a personal insult to a so-called Democrat. But with very few exceptions, Lieberman does not stand with Democrats on the essential issues.

[D23MIURG23]

31. He isn't a Democrat; he ran as an Independant in 2006 after loosing the primary to Lamont.

It would be against DU policy to advocate for his re-election unless he recaptured the nomination in 2012.

[florida08]

13. hell no comrade Joe

Where is the outrage from the right?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. They're mad. That's what this is all about. Lieberman is a damn plant.

Remember him all buddy-buddy with McCain in the last election?

He's a damn agent provocateur. We need him GONE. Might as well have a Republican in his seat, then they can't pin his shit on us.

[florida08]

21. u r right

[jae1227]

14. I think Cenk is wrong about Lieberman's intentions

Does Cenk really think that Lieberman is doing this because he is mad about what is on the Internet? I find that very hard to believe. I know Sen Rockefeller introduced a bill like this last session so it is not a new idea. I don't understand the kill switch idea and I can't find anything that explains that. How I understand it is that the bill will create a government organization under DHS that will ensure that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects will be subject to proving that they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director".

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html

[AtheistCrusader]

16. It really can't be done at this point.

A while ago it would have been possible to 'moat' the US by cutting intercontinental links, because there weren't many, and it wouldn't matter much if you did. Now there are thousands of links, some satellite, some ad hoc, some private. And the dependencies. It would be a fucking unmitigated catastrophe if you did.

And you couldn't stop an 'enemy' uplink sited in the US, talking to a foreign satellite anyway, short of shooting down the damn sat.

It's just a dumb, dumb idea from a shitty Tom Clancy novel (one of the 'NETFORCE' books iirc) that Lieberman is floating to embarrass the Democratic party.

Repudiate that motherfucker. He needs to go.

[Bullet1987]

20. No...I said that about LIEberman

Cenk didn't say that.

[D23MIURG23]

32. Respectfully, I think he does everything he can to expand executive power...

and invents a reason for doing so afterward.

Joe thinks that war trumps any aspect of our constitution that the President finds inconvenient, so he has invented one that would justify executive control over the internet, a media I'm pretty sure he would like to censor. I can't remember a single instance in which he stood against any of the draconian power grab bills put forward by the Bush administration and these were all "to keep us safe in a time of war".

If you find it hard to believe that he would have a personal vendetta against stuff on the internet, look no further than his reelection bid in 2006, and his stands on video game censorship in the 90s. He's been personally vexed by the political content on the internet before, and he makes no secret of the fact that he knows better than any of us mortals what media we should be consuming (and he is also famously vindictive; see "Joe Lieberman campaigns for McCain").

You seem well intentioned enough, but if you want to sell me on Lieberman's intentions, or on the idea that anything in this bill is even worth considering, you will have to sell me on the premise of this bill first. You will have to sell me on the idea that there is some kind of "war" on the internet worthy of any government intervention beyond what is already occurring.

By the way, welcome to the DU. :hi:

I really don't hate you, I just strongly disagree with the idea that this man has any good intentions regarding anything.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Hell no! What a disgrace Lieberman is, emulate Communist China!?

:puke:

Thanks for the thread, Bullet.

[hulka38]

19. Hey Connecticut - UP YOURS!

[scentopine]

26. Every insurance company in America is there - Connecticut is more polluted than the Gulf. -nt

[PatrynXX]

22. well there's North Korea, but as China Proved, The Govt can't control the net.

Simply not possible. People find ways around it. How else did the Chinese still manage to get stuff out during the Olympics??

Joe is stuck in the wrong century. But this isn't new. He attempted to ban certain violent video games because they aren't appropriate for children. Yeah adults play games too. Lemme know how many children watch Teagan Presley??

[RoccoR5955]

23. If they even tried this...

...there would be armies of hackers, here in the US, who would break it in a nanosecond. They would see it as a challenge. I can already think of a few ways that, short of cutting power to the country, this could be defeated.
Besides, today so much commerce depends on the Internet, it would be a nightmare, on the financial front.

Well, I guess there are still the old dial-up BBSes. Where's my copy of Wildcat!?

[scentopine]

25. Ah - another brave democratic centrist, fighting for what's wrong, hero of the stupid -nt

[D23MIURG23]

29. ITS WAR!!! ZOMG!1!!1 EVERYTHINGS WAR11!1!!!

Please Mr Lieberman, Take my freedoms away so you can protect me from the evil CYBERTERRIST!!!11!

:hide:



(Here's hoping no one needs the sarcasm tag)