Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Threats To Security, Or Freedom?

Expand Messages
  • Mark Villaseñor
    Group: Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best, when warning: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 23, 2010
      Group:
      Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best, when warning:
      "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security
      will deserve neither and lose both."

      Such is the case and concern regarding S-3480, "The Protecting Cyberspace as
      a National Asset Act of 2010" (perhaps best known as the Internet KILL
      SWITCH law), presently under submission with the U.S. Committee on Homeland
      Security and Governmental Affairs.

      While bi-partisan and seemingly valid arguments are made in support of this
      law; its underlining intention to restrict powers under Section 706 of the
      Communications Act of 1934, goes too far and grants too much power to hands
      of a few. And as history has amply shown, unchallenged Governmental powers
      that pose to restrict individual liberties are often abused -- irrespective
      which party controls.

      Ethnic enslavement; confiscation of property, lacking due process;
      imprisonment of citizens, without evidence or trial; and, engagement of war
      lacking Constitutional declaration are but a few examples of past governance
      abuses. Now Politicos move to potentially restrict our First Amendment Right
      of expression, of dissent or support, under the guise of security and need.

      ...When will it stop!?!

      This issue crosses party lines, positions and agendas especially for those
      Internet savvy; and, such is not a matter of opinion, but clear evidence.

      For example; encryption protocols (technology) currently exist to protect
      cyberspace, thwarting malicious disruption of infrastructure, without the
      need for implementation of draconian laws such as S-3480. BlackBerry's
      recent troubles with United Arab Emirates member states, is but one
      instance -- BlackBerry security being extremely robust.

      There are benign ways to address Net security issues.

      Thus I encourage each and every one of you, especially within U.S. boarders,
      beginner and seasoned alike. To FULLY research S-3480 and take action based
      on your conscience, your notions of right and wrong, your sense of
      Constitutional duty to protect liberty even if only by expression of
      opinion. But do nothing, and gain the consequence thereof; do nothing and
      terrorists may succeed, by further changing who we are as U.S. Citizens...
      Sum of their objective?

      S-3480 & RELATED RESEARCH LINKS:
      http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/show
      http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/?FuseAction=home.Cybersecurity
      http://tinyurl.com/3480-Tech
      http://tinyurl.com/blog-shut-downs

      Respectfully,
      Mark Villaseñor,
      http://www.TailTrex.tv
      Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
      http://www.SOAR508.org
      .
    • David Jones
      That policy sucks. But if I was a Yank, I d be far more concerned with getting rid of that horrific Patriot Act. Dave. On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Mark
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 23, 2010
        That policy sucks. But if I was a Yank, I'd be far more concerned with
        getting rid of that horrific Patriot Act.

        Dave.

        On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Mark Villaseñor
        <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
        >
        > Group:
        > Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best, when warning:
        > "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security
        > will deserve neither and lose both."
        >
        > Such is the case and concern regarding S-3480, "The Protecting Cyberspace as
        > a National Asset Act of 2010" (perhaps best known as the Internet KILL
        > SWITCH law), presently under submission with the U.S. Committee on Homeland
        > Security and Governmental Affairs.
        >
        > While bi-partisan and seemingly valid arguments are made in support of this
        > law; its underlining intention to restrict powers under Section 706 of the
        > Communications Act of 1934, goes too far and grants too much power to hands
        > of a few. And as history has amply shown, unchallenged Governmental powers
        > that pose to restrict individual liberties are often abused -- irrespective
        > which party controls.
        >
        > Ethnic enslavement; confiscation of property, lacking due process;
        > imprisonment of citizens, without evidence or trial; and, engagement of war
        > lacking Constitutional declaration are but a few examples of past governance
        > abuses. Now Politicos move to potentially restrict our First Amendment Right
        > of expression, of dissent or support, under the guise of security and need.
        >
        > ...When will it stop!?!
        >
        > This issue crosses party lines, positions and agendas especially for those
        > Internet savvy; and, such is not a matter of opinion, but clear evidence.
        >
        > For example; encryption protocols (technology) currently exist to protect
        > cyberspace, thwarting malicious disruption of infrastructure, without the
        > need for implementation of draconian laws such as S-3480. BlackBerry's
        > recent troubles with United Arab Emirates member states, is but one
        > instance -- BlackBerry security being extremely robust.
        >
        > There are benign ways to address Net security issues.
        >
        > Thus I encourage each and every one of you, especially within U.S. boarders,
        > beginner and seasoned alike. To FULLY research S-3480 and take action based
        > on your conscience, your notions of right and wrong, your sense of
        > Constitutional duty to protect liberty even if only by expression of
        > opinion. But do nothing, and gain the consequence thereof; do nothing and
        > terrorists may succeed, by further changing who we are as U.S. Citizens...
        > Sum of their objective?
        >
        > S-3480 & RELATED RESEARCH LINKS:
        > http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/show
        > http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/?FuseAction=home.Cybersecurity
        > http://tinyurl.com/3480-Tech
        > http://tinyurl.com/blog-shut-downs
        >
        > Respectfully,
        > Mark Villaseñor,
        > http://www.TailTrex.tv
        > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
        > http://www.SOAR508.org
        > .
      • Mark Villaseñor
        David Jones: ...I d be far more concerned with getting rid of that horrific Patriot Act. Hey Dave: Almost two peas of the same pod; although the Patriot Act,
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 23, 2010
          David Jones: "...I'd be far more concerned with getting rid of that horrific
          Patriot Act."

          Hey Dave:
          Almost two peas of the same pod; although the Patriot Act, while troubling,
          does not itself potentially limit world-wide Net services as does S-3480.
          Reason being is that many of the heavy Internet infrastructures are located
          within the U.S., so a state side web shut-down potentially affects the
          global system.

          But the good news is that many (unlikely allies) here in the U.S. are
          getting vocal about this nonsense! I mean, come on: when the John Burks
          Society and ACLU are practically lock-step against S-3480; when uber Neocons
          like Fox's Shawn Hannity, effectively agrees with far-left liberal bloggers
          calling for its renouncement; etc., etc... Feels like the breeze of
          revolution is upon us, and clouds of a better direction gather the horizon.

          ...Perhaps Orwell will remain fiction, after all?

          Plainly, this issue has sobering elements for ANYONE who uses the Net for
          legitimate purposes.

          Mark Villaseñor,
          http://www.TailTrex.tv
          Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
          http://www.SOAR508.org
        • Joly MacFie
          Excuse me, but can you point out to me where in the wording of the bill anything it talks about a kill switch or interfering with the genral running of the
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 24, 2010
            Excuse me, but can you point out to me where in the wording of the bill
            anything it talks about a kill switch or interfering with the genral running
            of the Internet?

            The only thing I see is a bunch of stuff about establishing a czar and
            securing federal networks.

            j

            On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Mark Villaseñor <
            videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:

            > S-3480




            --
            ---------------------------------------------------------------
            Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
            WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
            http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
            Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
            ---------------------------------------------------------------


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mark Villaseñor
            Joly MacFie: ...can you point out to me where in the wording of the bill anything it talks about a kill switch or interfering with the genral running of the
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 24, 2010
              Joly MacFie: "...can you point out to me where in the wording of the bill
              anything it talks about a kill switch or interfering with the genral running
              of the Internet?"

              Hi Joly:
              THAT is one of the problems with this bill; it is grossly ambiguous as to
              what specific powers are granted to NCCC and a sitting President, to DECLARE
              a "cyber emergency." How a cyber emergency is defined, what constitutes a
              CCI system and, continuing action indefinitely; etc. are some components
              that are problematic.

              The term "kill switch" is a misnomer of sorts in that a wide range of
              non-partisan experts agree, the most likely scenario in a declared cyber
              emergency is to shut down and/or limit (control) Internet accesses. The
              latter is also connectively consistent with an established DHS Communication
              Plan (http://tinyurl.com/DHS-Plan).

              What IS NOT in the bill is most troubling.

              For example; the Supreme Court has long held that the government has
              authority to infringe upon Free Speech Rights during emergencies, but only
              under very narrowly expressed parameters: 1) the action must further a
              compelling governmental interest; 2) scope must be narrowly defined to
              advance that interest; and, 3) action taken must be the least restrictive
              means of achieving that interest. S-3480, as presently written, does not
              meet this standard due to its ambiguity and connectivity to unknown (or
              unspecified) elements.

              Plainly its how the bill reads presently, what is not expressed, that is the
              source of vigorous objection by broad-interest credible sources. And from a
              good number of years dealing with governmental agencies; I tell you with
              extreme confidence. If controlling laws are not clearly defined, subjective
              interpretations invariably become prevalent.

              Mark Villaseñor,
              http://www.TailTrex.tv
              Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
              http://www.SOAR508.org
            • elbowsofdeath
              Also worth remembering that one unwritten safeguard against the internet being switched off is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This ensures
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 26, 2010
                Also worth remembering that one unwritten safeguard against the internet being switched off is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This ensures that the government are unlikely to take a decision to switch it off lightly, due to the economic implications.

                Depending on the situation I can well imagine scenerios where the internet could be disabled for a brief period of time, and also times when they may just restrict access in a certain geographical area. I think they'd likely only go further than this if something big enough was going on that the government considered itself at risk of collapse.

                Given the history of conflict around the world and the new connectivity the web brings, Im not going to presume that a global single internet is a given, under certain circumstances, eg at war with a powerful enemy, I could imagine national or regional networks becoming the norm, which would be a great tragedy but then so's war in general and we shouldnt expect the internet to escape unscathed. So lets hope peace prospers.

                Cheers

                Steve

                --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
                >
                > Joly MacFie: "...can you point out to me where in the wording of the bill
                > anything it talks about a kill switch or interfering with the genral running
                > of the Internet?"
                >
                > Hi Joly:
                > THAT is one of the problems with this bill; it is grossly ambiguous as to
                > what specific powers are granted to NCCC and a sitting President, to DECLARE
                > a "cyber emergency." How a cyber emergency is defined, what constitutes a
                > CCI system and, continuing action indefinitely; etc. are some components
                > that are problematic.
                >
                > The term "kill switch" is a misnomer of sorts in that a wide range of
                > non-partisan experts agree, the most likely scenario in a declared cyber
                > emergency is to shut down and/or limit (control) Internet accesses. The
                > latter is also connectively consistent with an established DHS Communication
                > Plan (http://tinyurl.com/DHS-Plan).
                >
                > What IS NOT in the bill is most troubling.
                >
                > For example; the Supreme Court has long held that the government has
                > authority to infringe upon Free Speech Rights during emergencies, but only
                > under very narrowly expressed parameters: 1) the action must further a
                > compelling governmental interest; 2) scope must be narrowly defined to
                > advance that interest; and, 3) action taken must be the least restrictive
                > means of achieving that interest. S-3480, as presently written, does not
                > meet this standard due to its ambiguity and connectivity to unknown (or
                > unspecified) elements.
                >
                > Plainly its how the bill reads presently, what is not expressed, that is the
                > source of vigorous objection by broad-interest credible sources. And from a
                > good number of years dealing with governmental agencies; I tell you with
                > extreme confidence. If controlling laws are not clearly defined, subjective
                > interpretations invariably become prevalent.
                >
                > Mark Villaseñor,
                > http://www.TailTrex.tv
                > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                > http://www.SOAR508.org
                >
              • Joly MacFie
                I believe this bill is about just what it says it is, ensuring in a worst possible scenario that federal government services continue to function. Just as
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 26, 2010
                  I believe this bill is about just what it says it is, ensuring in a worst
                  possible scenario that federal government services continue to function.

                  Just as you might want make a plan to unplug your home network and have some
                  alternative method of communicating with your family & friends if you were
                  personally hit with a DoS attack. Redundancy and backups - we all needs
                  them.

                  If the wording needs to be improved, so be it - but to spread fud about the
                  'Internet kill switches' isn't really all that helpful. IMO. Yest the USA
                  does control the root, but who else would you prefer? the UN, the ITU,
                  ICANN?

                  j

                  On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:07 PM, elbowsofdeath <steve@...> wrote:

                  > Also worth remembering that one unwritten safeguard against the internet
                  > being switched off is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This
                  > ensures that the government are unlikely to take a decision to switch it off
                  > lightly, due to the economic implications.
                  >
                  > Depending on the situation I can well imagine scenerios where the internet
                  > could be disabled for a brief period of time, and also times when they may
                  > just restrict access in a certain geographical area. I think they'd likely
                  > only go further than this if something big enough was going on that the
                  > government considered itself at risk of collapse.
                  >
                  > Given the history of conflict around the world and the new connectivity the
                  > web brings, Im not going to presume that a global single internet is a
                  > given, under certain circumstances, eg at war with a powerful enemy, I could
                  > imagine national or regional networks becoming the norm, which would be a
                  > great tragedy but then so's war in general and we shouldnt expect the
                  > internet to escape unscathed. So lets hope peace prospers.
                  >
                  > Cheers
                  >
                  > Steve
                  >
                  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor
                  > <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Joly MacFie: "...can you point out to me where in the wording of the bill
                  > > anything it talks about a kill switch or interfering with the genral
                  > running
                  > > of the Internet?"
                  > >
                  > > Hi Joly:
                  > > THAT is one of the problems with this bill; it is grossly ambiguous as to
                  > > what specific powers are granted to NCCC and a sitting President, to
                  > DECLARE
                  > > a "cyber emergency." How a cyber emergency is defined, what constitutes a
                  > > CCI system and, continuing action indefinitely; etc. are some components
                  > > that are problematic.
                  > >
                  > > The term "kill switch" is a misnomer of sorts in that a wide range of
                  > > non-partisan experts agree, the most likely scenario in a declared cyber
                  > > emergency is to shut down and/or limit (control) Internet accesses. The
                  > > latter is also connectively consistent with an established DHS
                  > Communication
                  > > Plan (http://tinyurl.com/DHS-Plan).
                  > >
                  > > What IS NOT in the bill is most troubling.
                  > >
                  > > For example; the Supreme Court has long held that the government has
                  > > authority to infringe upon Free Speech Rights during emergencies, but
                  > only
                  > > under very narrowly expressed parameters: 1) the action must further a
                  > > compelling governmental interest; 2) scope must be narrowly defined to
                  > > advance that interest; and, 3) action taken must be the least restrictive
                  > > means of achieving that interest. S-3480, as presently written, does not
                  > > meet this standard due to its ambiguity and connectivity to unknown (or
                  > > unspecified) elements.
                  > >
                  > > Plainly its how the bill reads presently, what is not expressed, that is
                  > the
                  > > source of vigorous objection by broad-interest credible sources. And from
                  > a
                  > > good number of years dealing with governmental agencies; I tell you with
                  > > extreme confidence. If controlling laws are not clearly defined,
                  > subjective
                  > > interpretations invariably become prevalent.
                  > >
                  > > Mark Villaseñor,
                  > > http://www.TailTrex.tv
                  > > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                  > > http://www.SOAR508.org
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  --
                  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                  Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
                  WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
                  http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
                  Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
                  ---------------------------------------------------------------


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mark Villaseñor
                  Steve: ...one unwritten safeguard against the internet being switched off is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This ensures that the government
                  Message 8 of 17 , Aug 26, 2010
                    Steve: "...one unwritten safeguard against the internet being switched off
                    is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This ensures that the
                    government are unlikely to take a decision to switch it off lightly..."

                    Steve:
                    Respectfully, you are mistaken. The only element to "ensure" proper action
                    is compliance with law, clearly defined law; nothing more nothing less.
                    Application aside from this principle is folly, and relies too much on
                    speculative intentions of those in power (whoever they may be); i.e., the
                    road to hell is paved with good intentions and trust of the people. And this
                    is not just my opinion, but one supported by current and historical
                    evidence -- unquestionably!

                    Please know, so that we're clear, I am not among those who purport the
                    government should not take measures in the spirit of S-3480. Taking no
                    measures to protect vital Net structures would be foolish, in the extreme.
                    But doing so under poorly crafted and hastily targeted means such as S-3480;
                    neither provides real security nor adequately addresses preservation of
                    civil liberties.

                    Were the latter not accurate; why would so many diverse and normally
                    opposing groups band together to address correction of S-3480, before
                    implementation? The short answer is they wouldn't; such would not be in
                    their common interest.

                    Notwithstanding; I'd be happy to provide ample supportive material to
                    further demonstrate why I believe your notion (above) is error, and do so in
                    the spirit of friendly conversation. In the alternative suffice it that your
                    sentiment, while understandable, does not take into account other critical
                    factors.

                    Best Regards,
                    Mark Villaseñor,
                    http://www.TailTrex.tv
                    Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                    http://www.SOAR508.org
                  • Mark Villaseñor
                    Joly MacFie: If the wording needs to be improved, so be it - but to spread fud about the Internet kill switches isn t really all that helpful. Hey Joly:
                    Message 9 of 17 , Aug 26, 2010
                      Joly MacFie: "If the wording needs to be improved, so be it - but to spread
                      fud about the 'Internet kill switches' isn't really all that helpful."

                      Hey Joly:
                      Please forgive me if you got the impression I was spreading "fud" regarding
                      the topic. My intent by broaching the thread was to inform, certainly not
                      infuse histrionics. And because of the serious implications to us all I am
                      fully prepared to argue valid issues with irrefutable evidence, should that
                      be necessary and appropriate. In short; I have not and do not comment on
                      this subject from a casual or uninformed position.

                      Thanks in advance for your grace and understanding.

                      Happy Trails,
                      Mark Villaseñor,
                      http://www.TailTrex.tv
                      Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                      http://www.SOAR508.org
                    • elbowsofdeath
                      Hello, Well there are no complete certainties in life, and whilst the written laws can help, they arent a total safeguard either, they can quickly be
                      Message 10 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
                        Hello,

                        Well there are no complete certainties in life, and whilst the written laws can help, they arent a total safeguard either, they can quickly be overridden by emergency legislation thats rushed through once the 'justifying situation' has already begun.

                        I would be mistaken if I thought that the commerce stuff I went on about is a license to be completely complacent about this stuff. But it remains a real factor that really would prevent government from taking this action too readily, in the USA especially. Governments may end up screwingcertain sectors of commerce from time to time, but in this age they really arent going to mess with a variety of corporate interests unless there is an extremely strong reason to do so.

                        Still whatever the outcome of this stuff,I dont expect governments to tie their own hands completely, so I dont expect a conclusion that is completely reassuring.

                        Probably not worth arguing about this stuff too much, not trying to change opinions and Im not even in the USA anyway. Im in the UK where the game is played mostly the same way, except here the masses tend to be so worn down and cynical that we mostly wont bother having these legislative battles as we dont expect to be listened to or for it to safeguard us much if the going gets tough one day.

                        Cheers

                        Steve
                        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Steve: "...one unwritten safeguard against the internet being switched off
                        > is the amount of business & commerce that goes on. This ensures that the
                        > government are unlikely to take a decision to switch it off lightly..."
                        >
                        > Steve:
                        > Respectfully, you are mistaken. The only element to "ensure" proper action
                        > is compliance with law, clearly defined law; nothing more nothing less.
                        > Application aside from this principle is folly, and relies too much on
                        > speculative intentions of those in power (whoever they may be); i.e., the
                        > road to hell is paved with good intentions and trust of the people. And this
                        > is not just my opinion, but one supported by current and historical
                        > evidence -- unquestionably!
                        >
                        > Please know, so that we're clear, I am not among those who purport the
                        > government should not take measures in the spirit of S-3480. Taking no
                        > measures to protect vital Net structures would be foolish, in the extreme.
                        > But doing so under poorly crafted and hastily targeted means such as S-3480;
                        > neither provides real security nor adequately addresses preservation of
                        > civil liberties.
                        >
                        > Were the latter not accurate; why would so many diverse and normally
                        > opposing groups band together to address correction of S-3480, before
                        > implementation? The short answer is they wouldn't; such would not be in
                        > their common interest.
                        >
                        > Notwithstanding; I'd be happy to provide ample supportive material to
                        > further demonstrate why I believe your notion (above) is error, and do so in
                        > the spirit of friendly conversation. In the alternative suffice it that your
                        > sentiment, while understandable, does not take into account other critical
                        > factors.
                        >
                        > Best Regards,
                        > Mark Villaseñor,
                        > http://www.TailTrex.tv
                        > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                        > http://www.SOAR508.org
                        >
                      • Mark Villaseñor
                        Steve: I would be mistaken if I thought that the commerce stuff I went on about is a license to be completely complacent about this stuff. But it remains a
                        Message 11 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
                          Steve: "I would be mistaken if I thought that the commerce stuff I went on
                          about is a license to be completely complacent about this stuff. But it
                          remains a real factor that really would prevent government from taking this
                          action too readily..."

                          Again, I respectfully disagree.

                          First quarter 2010 total US gross domestic retail sales numbers are cited at
                          960 Billion, with an online (Ecommerce) percentage of slightly over 3.99%;
                          roughly 38.7 Billion, respectively (Source: U.S. Department of Commence).
                          What you are suggesting is that the US government would not quickly
                          sacrifice less than four percent of an economic base, if it potentially
                          meant preserving 96+ percent. Such is not realistic, especially in these
                          economic times.

                          Considering you're in the UK I'll mention two facts about compliant efficacy
                          of our US government...

                          Thus far we've spent billions on New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, yet
                          the bulk of rebuilding homes has been done by charities due to government
                          failures to act as mandated. And almost ten years after the attack on New
                          York, Ground Zero is still a hole in the earth. Why? Primarily because
                          ambiguous laws make interdepartmental frays common, and real action subject
                          to interpretation of those statutes. Few things get done as promised, or
                          expected.

                          I could go on, but hopefully you get the gist.

                          Under U.S. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) the government must act in a
                          coherent manner, pursuant to applicable statute. But if that statute is
                          unclear and ambiguous, then interpretation is left to the lawyers (who,
                          believe me, argue positions not necessarily truth or intent of law). What we
                          are left with are gapping loopholes, too often resulting in unintended
                          consequences.

                          ...And there are overabundant examples of the latter, rest assured.

                          Happy Trails,
                          Mark Villaseñor,
                          http://www.TailTrex.tv
                          Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                          http://www.SOAR508.org
                        • elbowsofdeath
                          Retail sales are only one part of the picture, one which will continue to grow,bus asides from that most companies use the internet for a variety of different
                          Message 12 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
                            Retail sales are only one part of the picture, one which will continue to grow,bus asides from that most companies use the internet for a variety of different things, and increasingly so do government departments. This is often seen as a way to reduce costs & staff, and business wont be at all happy to lose that, especially at extremely short notice which would cause a lot of disruption.

                            Of course you are correct that its balancing act, and that if the wider economy, institutions or society are deemed to be under serious threat then the net is not beyond sacrifice, especially if its only taken down for a short time.

                            And yes of course you should aim to have sane and clear laws. My point is only that under certain conditions they would shut the net down, and that the law is far from the only factor that will influence the judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many people to be shut down on a whim for weak reasons.

                            Cheers

                            Steve

                            --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Steve: "I would be mistaken if I thought that the commerce stuff I went on
                            > about is a license to be completely complacent about this stuff. But it
                            > remains a real factor that really would prevent government from taking this
                            > action too readily..."
                            >
                            > Again, I respectfully disagree.
                            >
                            > First quarter 2010 total US gross domestic retail sales numbers are cited at
                            > 960 Billion, with an online (Ecommerce) percentage of slightly over 3.99%;
                            > roughly 38.7 Billion, respectively (Source: U.S. Department of Commence).
                            > What you are suggesting is that the US government would not quickly
                            > sacrifice less than four percent of an economic base, if it potentially
                            > meant preserving 96+ percent. Such is not realistic, especially in these
                            > economic times.
                            >
                            > Considering you're in the UK I'll mention two facts about compliant efficacy
                            > of our US government...
                            >
                            > Thus far we've spent billions on New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, yet
                            > the bulk of rebuilding homes has been done by charities due to government
                            > failures to act as mandated. And almost ten years after the attack on New
                            > York, Ground Zero is still a hole in the earth. Why? Primarily because
                            > ambiguous laws make interdepartmental frays common, and real action subject
                            > to interpretation of those statutes. Few things get done as promised, or
                            > expected.
                            >
                            > I could go on, but hopefully you get the gist.
                            >
                            > Under U.S. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) the government must act in a
                            > coherent manner, pursuant to applicable statute. But if that statute is
                            > unclear and ambiguous, then interpretation is left to the lawyers (who,
                            > believe me, argue positions not necessarily truth or intent of law). What we
                            > are left with are gapping loopholes, too often resulting in unintended
                            > consequences.
                            >
                            > ...And there are overabundant examples of the latter, rest assured.
                            >
                            > Happy Trails,
                            > Mark Villaseñor,
                            > http://www.TailTrex.tv
                            > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                            > http://www.SOAR508.org
                            >
                          • Mark Villaseñor
                            Steve: ...the law is far from the only factor that will influence the judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many people to be
                            Message 13 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
                              Steve: "...the law is far from the only factor that will influence the
                              judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many
                              people to be shut down on a whim for weak reasons."

                              Well, at least we agree on the latter.

                              However LAW is not functioned, here in the U.S. anyway, to "influence"
                              judgment but rather authorize or prohibit action. And therein rests my
                              distain for S-3480 because by way of ambiguity, it AUTHORIZES precisely what
                              we agree should not be done. And I'm not suggesting that a sitting U.S.
                              President would necessarily act "on a whim," yet under S-3480 as current
                              he/she would have that power/authority. (Does the matter of WMD existence
                              ring any bells?)

                              Although we could discuss (debate) the ancillary elements and possible
                              contributing factors of a Net shut-down at length, such distracts from the
                              historical core; indisputable truth. Unless clearly restrained, a government
                              will act of its own will. When it does this in affect thwarts the purpose of
                              a republic, the U.S. foundation. Whereas weak or nonexistent governmental
                              restraints brought about by a lack of vigilance, invariably robs THE PEOPLE
                              of secure liberties.

                              ...My resistance is a Yank thing, Steve. :D

                              Happy Trails,
                              Mark Villaseñor,
                              http://www.TailTrex.tv
                              Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                              http://www.SOAR508.org
                            • elbowsofdeath
                              Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this group, and have a history of posting too much about too few subjects, because Im enjoying this
                              Message 14 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
                                Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this group, and have a history of posting too much about too few subjects, because Im enjoying this discussion, but better make this my last post on the subject.

                                In theory there are a variety of aspects of the U.S system of government that are superior to the system here. The way your system is written down, in theory you have much better separation between the different branches of government. Here we dont have proper separation between the judicial arm, the executive has progressivly taken power away from the parliament, and one of our chambers isnt even elected. So Im not the sort of European that finds it easy to take cheap shots at the US of A.

                                In practice however, the system is subject to the usual powerful human influences which are always looking to erode the safeguards, with mixed results. It is said that every generation has to fight to retain its previously hard won freedoms, and maybe even win some new ones. In some senses and in many places round the world, this battle seems to have been somewhat lost in recent times, perhaps because we've appeared to have the luxury of not needing to pay as much attention, or the game seems to heavily stacked against us to bother fighting. All sorts of horror can result from such complacency or sense of powerlessness and defeat. So I dont want to discourage people fighting for stuff they believe is important. I was merely musing on some of the reasons why I dont think this particular issue is that all that much of a threat unless we happen to end up in a world which will be horrific in many other more dramatic ways. I could more easily imagine a time when the net still exists, but people become more afraid of the consequences of saying certain things on it, than I can imagine them just switching it off completely for reasons that dont pass the smell test.Time will tell eh, hope you get a better law than that currently proposed, but am personally cynical as to whether it will be enough to save you if the times of real strife arrive.

                                As for WMD, its a shame that the US has massive double standards when it comes to sovereignty and the law for them as compared to the rest of the world. USA uses its might to get other countries to sign up to things that are not reciprocated, eg extradition treaties, and its attitude towards international law is little better than using them as justification for starting wars when it suits, but not to feel bound by these international laws itself when it doesnt want to be.

                                Cheers

                                Steve
                                --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogroup@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Steve: "...the law is far from the only factor that will influence the
                                > judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many
                                > people to be shut down on a whim for weak reasons."
                                >
                                > Well, at least we agree on the latter.
                                >
                                > However LAW is not functioned, here in the U.S. anyway, to "influence"
                                > judgment but rather authorize or prohibit action. And therein rests my
                                > distain for S-3480 because by way of ambiguity, it AUTHORIZES precisely what
                                > we agree should not be done. And I'm not suggesting that a sitting U.S.
                                > President would necessarily act "on a whim," yet under S-3480 as current
                                > he/she would have that power/authority. (Does the matter of WMD existence
                                > ring any bells?)
                                >
                                > Although we could discuss (debate) the ancillary elements and possible
                                > contributing factors of a Net shut-down at length, such distracts from the
                                > historical core; indisputable truth. Unless clearly restrained, a government
                                > will act of its own will. When it does this in affect thwarts the purpose of
                                > a republic, the U.S. foundation. Whereas weak or nonexistent governmental
                                > restraints brought about by a lack of vigilance, invariably robs THE PEOPLE
                                > of secure liberties.
                                >
                                > ...My resistance is a Yank thing, Steve. :D
                                >
                                > Happy Trails,
                                > Mark Villaseñor,
                                > http://www.TailTrex.tv
                                > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                                > http://www.SOAR508.org
                                >
                              • Mark Villaseñor
                                Steve: Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this group... Actually, I (and I hope others) don t see it that way. After all discussing
                                Message 15 of 17 , Aug 27, 2010
                                  Steve: "Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this
                                  group..."

                                  Actually, I (and I hope others) don't see it that way. After all discussing
                                  topics and related issues such as this has extreme relevance to vlogging, in
                                  much the same way Twitter had affect on information dissemination during
                                  Iranian issues. (Not to suggest the U.S. is in any way headed for such
                                  unrest, but that the value of speaking candidly is recognized.)

                                  The FREE flow of information and ideas is what has made the Internet what it
                                  is, even with inherent pitfalls. Our collective concern is presumably to
                                  this end and so long as Net-folk have unfettered web accesses, one can
                                  presume this would not change. The latter is my underlining motivation for
                                  engaging this topic, as I'm certain is yours.

                                  ...As for some of your other remarks.

                                  After many years of dealing with governmental agencies, I am encouraged that
                                  U.S. citizens are finally waking up to select points you raised. And over
                                  the last five years or so I've notice that, irrespective political
                                  affiliation (despite appearances), when us Yanks clearly grasp issue
                                  elements; we understand each other better, and can therefore find
                                  commonality. Yet given we lack the longevity of Europe, I'd say we haven't
                                  done half bad thus far -- but there's still room for improvement.

                                  So don't give up on Uncle Sam, getting his act more together. :D

                                  Happy Trails,
                                  Mark Villaseñor,
                                  http://www.TailTrex.tv
                                  Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                                  http://www.SOAR508.org
                                • David Jones
                                  ... At least someone of note is willing to stand up and hang their balls on the line for this one: http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/ Dave.
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Aug 29, 2010
                                    On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:59 AM, elbowsofdeath <steve@...> wrote:
                                    > As for WMD, its a shame that the US has massive double standards when it comes to sovereignty and the law for them as compared to the rest of the world. USA uses its might to get other countries to sign up to things that are not reciprocated, eg extradition treaties, and its attitude towards international law is little better than using them as justification for starting wars when it suits, but not to feel bound by these international laws itself when it doesnt want to be.

                                    At least someone of note is willing to stand up and hang their balls
                                    on the line for this one:
                                    http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/

                                    Dave.
                                  • Mark Villaseñor
                                    David Jones: At least someone of note is willing to stand up and hang their balls on the line... Hey Dave: Please stay on-topic rather than spouting off
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Aug 29, 2010
                                      David Jones: "At least someone of note is willing to stand up and hang their
                                      balls on the line..."

                                      Hey Dave:
                                      Please stay on-topic rather than spouting off about matter clearly out of
                                      your depth -- demonstrating how utterly ignorant of U.S. governmental
                                      dynamics, you truly are. I'm not ticked, mind you; it's just that lending
                                      webtime to Bugliosi's bull is both inappropriate for and rude to the list.

                                      Thank So Much,
                                      Mark Villaseñor,
                                      http://www.TailTrex.tv
                                      Canine Adventures For Charity - sm
                                      http://www.SOAR508.org
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.