Congress Bows to Free Speech Restrains Presidential Powers: Liebermann Copies China

Capitol Hill believes there needs to be a "kill switch" for the Internet. Americans balked, so Senator Joe Liebermann, a supporter of the legislation, got right after protecting our interests. The scenario now is, if Obama needs to use the "kill switch" to shut down the Internet, he can do so WITHOUT Congressional approval for 120 days, or 4 months. After that period he must get Congressional approval. I feel much better now [note sarcasm, if you have any doubts].

From PrisonPlanet - snippets below - please read the entire article.

Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed in the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.

Liebermann came up with a good one. He noted that China has the same policy.

 “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley....

As we have illustrated, fears surrounding cybersecurity have been hyped to mask the real agenda behind the bill, which is to strangle the runaway growth of alternative and independent media outlets which are exposing government atrocities, cover-ups and cronyism like never before. [and Drudge is given as one example

This report says US Cybersecurity Czar Howard Schmidt wants an "online identity ecosystem," and part of that "ecosystem" is the use of identity cards for an Internet user. Intended to be fabulous news is the fact that with the new "ecosystem" users will no longer need "an ever-expanding" list of usernames and passwords." The government cannot keep information secure. They don't even get close.

I like my usernames and my passwords, and what they are or how I get to them should have nothing to do with government.

FCC Rick Boucher: FCC Rick Boucher Net Neutrality Proposal

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA-9th) is supporting the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) "Open Internet Proposal," or "Net Neutrality." Are you terrified yet? Update 10-23-09 below.

Rick Boucher

Boucher believes we need a new rule, where we have none now. He's already working on how to defend a court challenge, and he wants to modernize wireless.

As I read through this report on the proposed rule, I think it actually tells us nothing, although the public has until January 14th to comment on it.

The FCC wants to ensure "openness" for the Internet. The FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, says there is a consensus among board members that:

"...we should move forward with a healthy and transparent process on an open Internet."

Sounds like a good idea. On our behalf the FCC, which plans to destroy talk radio, is trying to protect us. Create a rule, and create an opportunity for those managing the rule:

The FCC goal:

...an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

Some telecommunications services are apparently against "openness" through net neutrality - companies like AT&T, Verizon and Qwest. They say net neutrality will:

"strip them of the ability to manage their networks effectively and would stifle innovation and competition."

I will be the first to say that I do not fully understand the problems of managing networks effectively. I know that my internet service works very, very well. I'm not threatened by the revenue I generate (smiles). Things zip along well for me. But the "net neutrality" rule will apparently cause some problems:

...prevent operators from discriminating against any legal content a third party wants to deliver to consumers on their networks, though it allows for "reasonable" network management to unclog congestion, clear viruses and spam, and block unlawful content like child pornography or the transfer of pirated content.

Quite frankly, that means nothing to me. What I think the FCC is trying to do is to effect a "rule" where there is none now. Once a rule is established, the rule can be changed.

Of course, Google has an opinion about this, and Google and Verizon issued a joint statement. From that statement, here is what stood out to me:

First, it's obvious that users should continue to have the final say about their web experience, from the networks and software they use, to the hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access online. The Internet revolution has been people powered from the very beginning, and should remain so. The minute that anyone, whether from government or the private sector, starts to control how people use the Internet, it is the beginning of the end of the Net as we know it.

The same statement says that "innovation without permission" has changed the way we do business forever." I believe that, and it is a very good thing. The two companies say they are in "wild agreement" that we do not want "policymakers" (Congress) writing "overly detailed rules." Good luck with that. Start making rules about regulating the Internet, and Congress will jump on the bandwidth.

Here's the bottom line from Verizon and Google:

While Verizon supports openness across its networks, it believes that there is no evidence of a problem today -- especially for wireless -- and no basis for new rules and that regulation in the US could have a detrimental effect globally. While Google supports light touch regulation, it believes that safeguards are needed to combat the incentives for carriers to pick winners and losers online.

Slightly off topic, but to make a point about government mandates: the joint statement mentions the FCC's "national plan" to bring broadband to all Americans. I remember something about that in the Stimulus Bill. Yes, $7.2 billion was set aside for:

"...broadband and grant loan programs...." The government would run the program of course: then there's the mandate to the FCC that instructs it to create (within one year, mind you) a "national broadband plan to ensure that everyone in the US has broadband access."

The Google-Verizon joint statement ends with "transparency is a must." Now how can we know we will have transparency? We can't.

We have a Democrat president who doesn't like a particular news network and speaks about it openly. The FCC Commissioner, Michael Copps is on record saying this, in what he called the American Media Contract 2007 (guests were Jane Fonda, Helen Thomas, Jessie Jackson, Senator Bernie Sanders, among others):

We expect these:

1. A right to media that strengthens our democracy

2. A right to local stations that are actually local

3. A right to media that looks and sounds like America

4. A right to news that isn’t canned and radio playlists that aren’t for sale

5. A right to programming that isn’t so damned bad so damned often

And what do the American people — who own the public airwaves, by the way — get in return? Too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists. Too little of America, too much of Wall Street and Madison Avenue...."

As I asked in a previous article, who decides what America "looks and sounds"like? Who decides if the news is "canned" or not" Who decides what strengthens our democracy?

Obama's FCC transtion leader is a far-left attorney, Henry Rivera, who talks a lot about social justice. Rivera is the chair of the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council. This is what he wants the FCC to do:

1) funnel more "federal advertising" to minority media

2) allow foreign ownership; relax U.S. trade barriers to provide "overseas capital," for minority broadcasters

3) develop "constitutionally permissible yet non-dilute method of defining" the class [race] of licensees, i.e., "an applicant's race would be one of the numerous factors considered when the Commission reviews a license application."

4) change the FCC Commission to a more diverse Commission - it should look like America

In addition, Rivera wants a blue-ribbon panel discussion, now, to bring Communications to the table by creating a White House Cabinet position, and he advocates for "localism" to prevail when issuing broadcasting licenses - a position to be seen in Copps' comments above. "Localism" means increased minority ownership, including women, from the local community. The big boys go away. Won't radio be fun when this happens.

These are frightening, dangerous people. The FCC is considering these undemocratic measures for radio. Do we want them "regulating" the internet?

Thanks to David Lemon, Master of Bronze

Update 10-23-09:

Comments from Rep. Marsha blackburn (R-TN):

Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," she said. The creators "fully understand what the Fairness Doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet...

Update 10-23-09:

Senator John McCain has just introduced legislation to "prohibit the FCC from governing communications." McCain's bill is titled the "Internet Freedom Act." A snippet of text from the bill:

...the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."

Brain Scans Justify Time Online: Get Online - Brain Activity Improves in One Week

Good news for those of us who spend far too much time on the internet. Brain scans have justified time online by showing that brain activity increases, which leads to the likely conclusion that brain atrophy slows or possibly stops.

UCLA Brain Scan Images

This FOX News article reports a UCLA study that compared a small sampling of 24 persons, between the ages of 55 and 78, divided into two groups with similar ages and genders in both groups. One group were experienced in daily internet use prior to the study, and the second group had little experiece online.

Adults with little Internet experience show changes in their brain activity after just one week online, a new study finds.

The results suggest internet training can stimulate neural activation patterns and could potentially enhance brain function and cognition in older adults.

As the brain ages a number of structural and functional changes occur, including atrophy, or decay, reductions in cell activity and increases in complex things like deposits of amyloid plaques and tau tangles, which can impact cognitive function.

 Even in UCLA studies previous to this one, they found that "searching online resulted in a more than twofold increase in brain activation in older adults...." The good news is, whether younger than 55 or older than 55, online searches stimulate the brain. I assume, however, that some sources for brain stimulation are other better than others - just guessing.

UCLA's Dr. Gary Small, the author of this study and a professor of psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA said:

We found that for older people with minimal experience, performing internet searches for even a relatively short period of time can change brain activity patterns and enhance function...

Read the entire article at FOX News. Thanks to FOX and UCLA for the brain scan image.

U.S. Internet Dominance Wanes: Web Addresses in Arabic, Chinese Immediately

The U.S. has allowed the company that controls web addresses to drop their contract with the US - ending the U.S. dominance of oversight. Does it really matter? We have no oversight in Washington of anything except George Bush, the FBI and Joe Wilson.

Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together. But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.

This fits right in with U.S. surrender of all things powerful. After all, it is Obama administration's policy that the U.S. become equal with all other countries on the globe:

Earlier this year European officials said that they did not think it was proper for America to retain so much control over the global computer network. The new agreement comes into force immediately. It replaces the old version which had been in place since 1998 and was scheduled to expire today.

Of great excitement is the news that plans are to "allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin."

Cybersecurity Act 2009: Senate Bill 773 Cybersecurity

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 has clothed itself as a bill to:

ensure the continued free flow of commerce withing the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes."

American Daughter has a very concise post up on Senators Rockefeller and Snowe's Cybersecurity Act 2009. The fact that these two are connected to the Bill should shout big neon letters, BEWARE! Where is the Outrage for the Cybersecurity Act? by Jerry A. Kane, April 13, 2009 American Daughter

Our government will control everything on the Internet, under the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe. If enacted, this “big brother” law would allow government scrutiny over everything posted to the Internet, while granting the White House “unprecedented control over computer software and Internet services” and powers “to access private online data, regulate the cyber security industry and even shut down Internet traffic.”

Under the guise of safety, the bill would grant a White House appointed cybersecurity “czar” unprecedented authority to shut down private domestic networks or limit Internet traffic in a “critical” information network during a cybersecurity emergency. What distinguishes a critical information network or constitutes a cybersecurity emergency would be determined by the president. The act would also impart authority to the Commerce Department to track cybersecurity threats and override any existing laws, regulations, rules, or policies restricting access to security data from private networks.

The bill would not only make the president more powerful, but it would also allow the Secretary of Commerce access to all information on a network, which could make the network less safe and more vulnerable to intruders or terrorists. Yet the senators remain resolute to remedy their perceived crisis. Rockefeller insists on protecting “critical infrastructure at all costs” and Snowe demands swift action to avoid “a cyber-Katrina.” Their rhetoric of a looming crisis matches the fearmongering manufactured for the bailout and stimulus bills, given that the bills required drastic intervention and immediate action with little or no consideration for a downside or potential harm.

The proposed legislation “would empower the government to set and enforce security standards for private industry for the first time.” The president could use the authority granted in the proposed law to suspend the effective use of the Internet to circulate information or coordinate activities outside mainstream media outlets or government-approved channels. Such a law could lead to a network police force that would levy fines and shut down private Web sites that government officials determine inappropriate or offensive. The act could also open the door for more Internet censorship legislation, and follow the path taken by Australia and China.

In November, more than half of America’s electorate handed Barack Obama and the progressives carte blanche power to rule over the lives of all Americans, and now they are using that power by attempting to manage and control the flow of information through the only remaining medium capable of resuscitating personal freedom and individual liberty. The Americans who voted for the progressives have put the lives of all Americans in the steely grip of Leviathan, and no Chicago Tea Party, 9-12 Project, or surge in talk radio listeners will prevent the government from wielding its power.

Once again, a host Republican has engaged in parasitism to sacrifice her party for a perceived symbiotic relationship that in fact benefits only the Democrat Party. Snowe and her progressive colleagues in the Republican Party have transformed the party into a sacrificial organism to nourish and support extreme socialist objectives....

Please continue reading this important article at American Daughter. You'll find links to contact your Legislators.

Are Thompson's Bloggers Being Locked from Their Google Blogs?

Hello Maggie Readers, This is Faultline USA posting here with an important message for all who post on Blogger. Please read this because it could happen to you. Are Thompson’s Bloggers Being Locked from Their Google Blogs? On Friday, June 1, 2007 three conservative political blogs were locked from making new posts because the Google spam robot “suspected” they were SPAM blogs. These bloggers will have to wait until Google finds a real human to review their blogs before unlocking their blogs. What do these three blogs have in common??? They are all actively supporting Fred Thompson. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that out of an estimated 70 million blogs worldwide a handful of connected conservative bloggers just happened to get locked out of posting on their Google blogs on the same day. . . Or maybe it’s not such a coincidence at all? Before we get all sentimental about our free Google Blogs and the difficulty poor Google is having fighting spam blogs, let’s not be so quick to give Google a free pass. I have no way of knowing just how many blogs are locked every day by Google, but a blog search Sunday showed that very few locked bloggers have managed to get the word out through other blogs. So I visited the Blogger Help Group and found just a few bloggers (less than a handful this weekend) claiming they had been locked out. Hummm???? Now a spam blogger (Splogger) is not likely to even notice that they’ve been locked out but a real blogger is bound to have plenty of righteous indignation – enough to start crying foul very loudly. So what are we to make of this??? Let’s look at how Google is fighting Spam on blogs. They are using three measures to shut down spam: (1) Automated spam classifying algorithms (or robots), (2) extra word verification, and (3) Flag as Objectionable. Please do take note of the last measure – Flag as Objectionable. This is how a “community” of bloggers can actually shut down a blog just because they don’t like the political content. Google is deliberately vague on what constitutes “potentially offensive” content and leaves it up to the “community at large.” It doesn’t take a mental giant to figure out just how easy it would be for a political “community” to target specific Google blogs for some political sabotage and dirty tricks. All they have to do is to point each "community" member to the targeted Google blogs and tell them to click on the Flag Blog at the top of the blog’s page Navigation bar. Let’s see what Google actually says about Flag Blog. . . “When a person visiting a blog clicks the "Flag?" button in the Blogger Navbar, it means they believe the content of the blog may be potentially offensive or illegal. We track the number of times a blog has been flagged as objectionable and use this information to determine what action is needed. This feature allows the blogging community as a whole to identify content they deem objectionable. Have you read The Wisdom of Crowds? It's sort of like that.” Now who would dream of doing such a dastardly thing??? Please note that I have no proof that such a plot has been hatched, but where there’s smoke . . . According to Elephant Biz “DailyKos, the Left's online Bible, sees Thompson as the likely nominee, so you can understand why they're shooting at him. I would have thought they might not stoop to slander and lies this early in the race.” Here are the blogs we know of so far that have been locked from new posting by Google. 1. DeMediacratic Nation has a sidebar bllogroll for Fred Thompson 2. Insight on Freedom has a petition to draft Fred Thompson for President. Fighting fire with fire, Insight on Freedom has a new site The Longstreet Option . Additionall Longstreet has just started a WordPress blog Harricane Alley 3. Faultline USA has a sidebar blogroll for Fred Thompson Any Google blogger who suddenly finds themselves locked out please contact fautltineusa(at)yahoo(dot)com A big Thank You to Wake up America and DeMediacratic Nation at WordPress for cross-posting this article. Article End Posted by Faultline USA Pinged by Countdown button pushed on Israel's destruction from Right Truth. Excerpt: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never fails to take opportunities to speak out against Israel. In the latest spew, he gives credit to Lebanon and the Palestinians: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated yesterday that Lebanon and Palestine had pressed a "... Linked by War Memorial Destroyed: Help Needed from Wake up America. Excerpt: In Beeville Texas a war memorial honoring veterans killed in four separate wars, was destroyed. Technorati tags: Fred Thompson Google spam prevention