Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by Nick, Sep 1, 2009.
If I can figure it out I will attach a copy of the bill.
View attachment 13713
I read the bill. Doesn't say much of a difference in the way that government can secure the internet and help restore it in cause of a disaster. Personally though, i think its best to leave the ISP's to handle their security and businesses. The government is only good at running one thing. Their mouth. With the amount of money that is generated through the web I dont think the government needs to help. Most likely they have partnerships with all ISP's to be able to give out information in this tech age.
Thanks for the link. After reading it (yes I really did), it appears to me that the debate I heard last night is accurate. I did not find the definition of a crisis, or a "cyber-security emergency" as they call it. Without any definitions, it leaves the field wide open to whomever is in charge.
I thought that was when someone, lord only knows who, at Homeland Security moves the color chart from orange to red. Or maybe in the case of a a "cyber-security emergency" they just tweet the word "red.":sure:
I thought that the useless color chart was gone, atleast I haven't heard of it moving. I thought the fearmongering dictator was gone.....
The govenment can take control of radio and tv stations in times of crisis, from what I understand all radio and tv staions have a kill switch that the govenment can flip in times of disaster or other emergency. This was conceived by JFK when he signed EO 11092. We know it as EAS the Emergency Alert System. The internet is where many Americans get thier news from so it seems logical that the government should have a means of taking control in a crisis.
Why would or should the gov't take over the tv/radio stations?
Isn't that what dictators do? :whatdidid
The government did take very proactive measures on this, read up on the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act and the White House efforts. I know first hand that contractors were involved in Y2K conversions and so were government employees and it was a HUGE undertaking. I'm not concerned at all about this proposal to give "control of the internet" to the government - not at all...
The idea being if there is an event, especially during the cold war with the flick of a switch info could be broadcast simultaneously on all networks, has nothing to do with controlling day to day broadcasts.
Good question. I remember hurricane Andrew in Miami back in 92 big enough emergency yet the State and local governments never activated the system. I do not recall them activating the system during the events of 9/11 either. Then again I was not in New York or D.C. either.
Nick you listen to WOKV I remember you writting that a while back. A couple months ago on my drive to work the State activated the system to report an Amber Alert. Another time they activated it again on OKV and it was that annoying computer voice from NOAA to announce a tornado watch.
I too share the opinion that government should not meddle in the media except for extreme national emergency. Hopefully we will never find out.
"This has been a test of the emergency broadcast system." From the early 1950's, guys. Don't get paranoid, get nostalgic.
Here's where you'll find everything you'll ever want to know about CONELRAD on Wikipedia. And here's the first paragraph:
And among my favorite pieces of wisdom:
Incidentally, there is a web site called Conelrad: Atomic Platters that has some nostalgia sounds and pix like this:
The good old days when kids ducked under their desks to protect themselves from an atomic blast.:sure: