What do you think?
The President issued his concern for cyber security in his State of The Union Address, and today the White House published a rough road map outlining areas to be addressed:
I’m interested in what you all think and have to say about this step which is very important to all of us on so many levels.
For instance, I see how government representatives are going to be talking with the big players, but I’m not sure who’s going to be talking to all of us, and how they intend to do that.
What are your ideas and what do you think is critical? Where is protection needed? Who’s going to speak for “We the People…”?
Source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/12/fact-sheet-cybersecurity-legislative-proposal
My (jaded) take on this? Anonymous (grass-roots little people with a streak towards vengence/vigilantism) hacked into Sony's (large, global corporation) data base and NOW the US government has decided to give a shit about cybersecurity. Our friggin' government is owned by a cadre of corporate douche bags and there isn't anything "We, The People" can do about getting our country back.I wish I liked snow--I'd move to Sweden.
This stuff sounds harmless enough. I'm no fan of DoHS, but I suppose it's good that this is largely a civilian-cenetered, civilian-run proposal, and Napolitano has seems reasonable and moderate in the few times she's spoken out on immigration.
My problem is that it sounds like one of his campaign speeches... and what came of them?
Oh good, the government is going to go after people committing crimes. Aren't they supposed to be doing that all ready?
"Our critical infrastructure....." sounds like the government is setting up a category of crimes to blame on 'terrorists'.
Just my opinion, even though it does smack of conspiracy.
...there is a New World Order...on the other hand, there are ALSO hackers! This leaves us - the decent folk - between the Devil and a Bad Guy.
Has anyone heard of double speak? Whereas a speaker saya one thing and another expounds on it without really saying much at all. That's what it looks like to me. It is a bunch of campaign rhetoric designed to lull Joe Shmoe into a sense of......wait a minute.......complacency? Joe Shmoe isn't that stupid nor gullible. More and more we are learning to read between the lines and what they don't say speaks volumes.
Always beware sleight of hand political magic tricks. Propaganda artists love to use 'em.
I completely agree that this is another example of political double speak. However, like most political statements, there is a line of truth going through this particular statement. These new policies are definitely aimed at protected Americans and creating a framework of to protect individual privacy. However, these statements are incredibly broad and like many of our government must be taken in an extremely abstract way. In the last ten years, all efforts of the federal government to safeguard Americans seem designed for some abstract concept of Americans and not any particular groups or individuals. In general, these should be viewed as being aimed towards wealthy and power individuals and corporations, and not any particular American. Thus, the average American will find himself or herself far more restricted while giving greater access to the already powerful.
kenata, I agree. The wealthy always seem to be able to bypass or take advantage of the rules/laws while the average folks don't.
The fact is though that all these things do require protection. The devil is in the details of just how that's going to be done.
Adding identity theft and hacker scams to RICO seems a good thing to me, as well as increasing the penalties for those crimes. What I don't agree with is supporting those criminals in jail with a college education and t.v., etc. I don't advocate torture, but neither do I advocate luxurious conditions. I don't see why they can't work and support the cost of their imprisonment.
I also agree that these are very broad statements and hard to find fault with. Again, let's see how they plan to 'help'. There just aren't enough ways the public can intervene in the process.
I have to wounder if this is just a stepping stone to get the Net Censored
they need to go after the individuals / company's that are making the spam, worms, Viruses, etc... and Lock them up or fine them $100,000.00 for each PC they infect or cause to be infected. with at lest 20% of the $100,000.00 going to the infectees
A-Men to that
hell I don't get too eat 3 meals a day or can just go see a doctor any time i need to, at which i am way past seeing a doctor for over 8 years.. and don't get to see an Eye doc like i am suppose to which is every year and i'm over 1 year now.. just don't have the $600.00 + every year that's just the leans not the frames..
I think all the T.V.'s, pool tables, wights, basket ball hoops, ping pong tables, etc etc etc should ALL be taken out.. and they all should be put on HARD (pun intend) labor..
The very generality of this release is what reassures me. It shows that major changes won't be happeneing any time soon. Probably all this really means is that in the short run existing enforcement and regulatory agencies will just be looking more closely at cyber-crime within the framework of existing laws.
As a tough-on-crime liberal who draws the line only at outright torture and capital punishment (which I think is inefficient and gets the wrong guy far too often) I wholeheartedly support that.
I have to agree, but if it is an open process (truly) then we have to make sure we know what's being suggested and by whom.
Existing laws are far too lenient and in some cases need a serious upgrade. Case in point. A man rapes and kills a 16 year old girl.....gets six years behind bars. Another man robs a bank...gets life in prison. True story. What is wrong with that picture? I agree fully with the tough-on-crime part but.....you have to stop and wonder in who's pocket the person making the suggestion is. Does he/she have a special interest like so many other politicos? Is he/she more concerned with maintaining the status quo like the case in point or is he/she going to look beyond the easy quick fix short run and embrace what's good for the general public over the long not so easy run.
The only thing I have ever seen from the Gov'ts definition of "to protect the people" is to find ways to restrict them and control them. It just seems that we have put ourselves in a position where we apparently don't have any say in just how our lives are protected by those we elect to protect us. The moment a person like the president says "it's for the people" and the solution requires we give up some of our liberties to be able to implement the solution in order to achieve the "it's for the people" results everyone assumes because it's the president the one saying it then it must be for a good reason. It's ironic that with all the dislike for the previous president and his "for the people" policies, very few seem inclined to question this current presidents "it's for the people" policies.
I agree we need to update certain laws, policies and regulations to conform with todays standards, the way things change so rapidly these days and how new concepts become mainstream and part of everyday life so quickly but what I don't like is how every politician these days paints a rosy picture of the future under their leadership only to be faced with the reality of how implausible it really was after they have been elected and yet no one seems, again, inclined to scream "false advertisement" towards these politicians.
We can only blame ourselves for creating a situation where we have convinced ourselves we have no power to stop the Gov't. I can already see this concept of protecting the peoples digital lifestyles thru cybersecurity turning into another Obamacare type of law where we will be forced to do what the Gov't says in order to ensure our safety online.
The older I get the more I lose hope of change when it comes to government. We could go completely bankrupt and they will still finance junk like this. By now I've reached the point where I'm cynical or suspicious of almost any plan requiring mass appropriations of money to be wasted.
RogueCaptain, we're growing an obese lot of kids... who stuff their faces with unhealthy food, don't go out and play and who are becoming diabetic. Care to guess what that costs? Why should everyone end up with higher health costs because of that?
And what does that have to do with the OT? If your point is the government can't do anything right, this isn't a good example. There are much better ones.
"Qui custodiet ipsos Custodiens?" = Who guards the guardians?
The public.
Oh, it's those 'The Public' folks again, always getting in the way of the Government. Something should be done about those folks.
Now what was it that 'Readers Digest' used to say about Humor?
When you say we're, do you mean everyone as a whole or do you mean the parents that don't bother with ensuring their children are not stuffing themselves with McDonalds, BKs, $.99 Little Debbie cakes and 2 litter cokes every day while sitting in front of a tv with 20 to 30 children networks all afternoon and the sending them to bed at about 11:30PM all while the kids complain they don't get enough to eat, don't get to stay up a little more to see one more cartoon and probably brush their teen only once a day and within 30 seconds.
I guess we should be putting the cost on the ones responsible for this, the parents.
Sorry for the derail it's just that every time I hear about how money gets dumped left and right for some project it can bug me. I saw that video this morning and then reading about the national cybersecurity plan (googled for more info afterward) well I went into rant and vented. It was an outburst, I apologize.
The folks that decide to get together and have children should be the ones that are responsible for their actions. I like that 'rule' but it don't work. It just so works out that some parents out there are either unable to or just don't want to live up to their responsibilities.
If we are talking public schools than by virtue of paying school taxes (yes even folks who don't have children pay school taxes) it then becomes a problem for all of us.
There are plenty of times when I want to say it's someone else's responsibility, somehow though it seems hard to find those responsible.
I honestly take offense to this, both as a parent and as an informed member of society. We as a society live in a unique time in the history of human civilization, as the traditional gender roles have faded and non-local full time employment being common for both parents in a family unit. Thus, for many families, neither parent has the time or energy to both work a full-time job and then take on a part time job of homemaker. Fast food and ready-to-eat foods have replaced the more traditional home-made cooking of a full or even part time homemaker. On top of this, these families must also manage within a limited budget, as most of the American population is slowly pushed farther and farther into states of financial burden. Thus, the average American family is not simply feeding their children unhealthy foods because they have no thought for the health or well-being of their children. They simply find themselves as victims of a system that places heavy strains on working class families. This reason does not simply apply to the food most families eat, but to many of the supposed poor choices of modern parents. In the case of the over use of television by parents as de facto babysitters, it is obvious that under these same conditions child rearing has been equally strained by the requirements of modern parents to produce a certain wage. While it is still an undesired situation and overall a problem to be handled, simply placing blame upon parents ignores the fact that our overly greedy and amoral corporatocracy has almost made strong and positive family relations impossible.
BS. Show me one offensive word. There isn't one. "I don't like it" is not equivalent to "I take offense..". You don't like it? Then do diffferently and teach your offspring. Oh, you have? Then who elected you spokesperson for the irresponsible?
Quoting kenata, reply 23Thus, for many families, neither parent has the time or energy to both work a full-time job and then take on a part time job of homemaker.
Really? Then don't take on parenthood. That is the more important job, incidentally. "I work long hours to be able to send my kid to school, to college, to the doctor, to feed him/her...". Nonsense. YOU made the kid? YOU owe the kid. What you owe him/her is what YOU decide it to be.
In any case don't expect my kids to pay for your kids' love of coca-cola and fast food causing them to be obese because the big meanie corporation made you work and sweat. They're overweight because you and they chose to be. So you pay for it.
Quoting kenata, reply 23They simply find themselves as victims of a system that places heavy strains on working class families. This reason does not simply apply to the food most families eat, but to many of the supposed poor choices of modern parents. In the case of the over use of television by parents as de facto babysitters,
Nonsense. You work a poor paying job so I pay for your kid not exercising and guzzling coke and potato chips? That's just plain wrong. Don't hand your kid money to buy crap until you make sure he/she is responsible. Ever hear of "brown bagging" it? It's your responsibility to teach and train your kids, and the school's. They're trying to hold up their end and yours, for the kids' sake. The job you work and where you do it are your responsibility too. Plenty of people break their backs trying to change those things.
And the food thing is still OT.
I'm going to say it again -- we need to put birth control in the drinking water supply, and once a person decides they want a child, takes a test, buys a license thereby proving they deserve to be a parent, THEN they can be administered an antidote.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
