Senator Joe Lieberman wants to give Obama and all future installed teleprompter readers in the Oval Office the power to shut down the internet. In order to hype the supposed national security threat posed by a decentralized internet, the independent Lieberman — meaning both establishment parties don’t want him — has spoken in near-apocalyptic terms.
“For all of its ‘user-friendly’ allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” said senator Joe. “Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies — cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.”
The “technoignoramus Liarman and his fellow kleptoplutocrats,” as Scott Evans describes them, are attempting to scare the plebs into accepting this First Amendment destroying legislation — not that it matters because, as Jim DeMint has revealed, these corporate and bankster commissars pass legislation in secret without the consent of the plebs they supposedly represent.
Cybersecurity is simply another stratagem contrived by the government to shut down the free flow of information. In a non-bizarro world where globalist control freaks would not be allowed to run roughshod over to Constitution and the Bill of Rights, network security would be the responsibility of the owners of those networks.
The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act was introduced by Lieberman, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE). It follows a similar bill introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) which would allow the federal government to unilaterally “order the disconnection” of targeted websites. Rockefeller opined at the time we would all be better off if the internet was never invented.
Senator Joe’s bill is nothing if not another example of totalitarian government on steroids. “The bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the ’security status’ of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries,” writes Andy Chalk. “Companies would be required to take part in ‘information sharing’ with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that ‘relies on’ the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. ‘information infrastructure’ would also be ’subject to command’ by the NCCC under the proposed new law.”
Imagine if you can what sort of “security status” this website would merit.
“It is alarming that so many people have accepted the White House’s assertions about cyber-security as a key national security problem without demanding further evidence. Have we learned nothing from the WMD debacle? The administration’s claims could lead to policies with serious, long-term, troubling consequences for network openness and personal privacy,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a Belarus-born researcher and blogger who writes about the political effects of the internet.
Joe has called for government control and censorship of television, so we can assume his “cybersecurity” jihad will not stop with the government micromanaging network security. He has a keen interest in deciding what the plebs can watch and presumably read on the internet.
It is not just Joe. It is also the FCC. Under the guise of protecting consumers, the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted 3-2 to open an inquiry into how the broadband industry is regulated. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed to place broadband services under the same regulatory framework as telephone service, which is more strictly regulated than broadband. In other words, more government control of the internet.
Finally, Liebermacorship, intn’s bill would allow the government to force internet providers to “immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed by the Department of Homeland Security.”
The Department of Homeland Security?
We know who these folks consider a threat to national security — constitutionalists, gun owners, returning veterans, and militias.