I guess the US have reached a point where they have searched all the caves in Afghanistan for terrorists and need to move on somehow and find new ways to fight the threats out there. So where might the dangers be lurking this time? Well, the answer could be somewhere right in front of you. The Internet has evolved from something benign into a ticking bomb just waiting to blast off.
In the video below, Jay Rockefeller vents his concerns over the Internet. Apparently it is "the number one national hazard".
Sponsored by Rockefeller, Obama has decided to take on the beast of cyberspace by introducing the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. Apparently, "Al Queda and other terrorist groups have spoken of their desire to unleash a cyber attack on our country - attacks that are harder to detect and harder to defend against. Indeed in today's world , acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few key strokes on the computer - a weapon of mass disruption"
The President assures us that our privacy will be protected, but if the Internet is the new battle field against terror and criminals, is there a way to avoid collateral damage? I think not.
Reading through sec. 18. Cybersecurity Responsibilities and authority I notice that "The President (2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network" which could pretty much mean anything if left without further clarification. He could have full authority to introduce Martial law over the Internet.
As I have written before, it is important to safeguard democracy on the Internet. In Sweden, our civil liberties have come under attack with the infamous FRA law that passed a year ago during the Midsummer holiday. Perhaps in an effort to keep the public from informing themselves, since they would be too busy dancing around the Midsummer pole and drinking schnapps. It was still met with huge protests, but apparently not enough since it still passed.
I think the people are tired of politicians trying to pull their legs. We know that they lied over and over again in order to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Could the same be said for Obama's alleged "weapon of mass disruption"? Against whom will this cyberwar be fought? If history can provide us with any kind of guidance, it tells us that the real victims of war are not the criminals or terrorists. In the war on the the Internet, we do not have to pay with our lives, but we might just have to pay by loosing our freedoms.
In the video below, Jay Rockefeller vents his concerns over the Internet. Apparently it is "the number one national hazard".
Sponsored by Rockefeller, Obama has decided to take on the beast of cyberspace by introducing the Cybersecurity Act of 2009. Apparently, "Al Queda and other terrorist groups have spoken of their desire to unleash a cyber attack on our country - attacks that are harder to detect and harder to defend against. Indeed in today's world , acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few key strokes on the computer - a weapon of mass disruption"
The President assures us that our privacy will be protected, but if the Internet is the new battle field against terror and criminals, is there a way to avoid collateral damage? I think not.
Reading through sec. 18. Cybersecurity Responsibilities and authority I notice that "The President (2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network" which could pretty much mean anything if left without further clarification. He could have full authority to introduce Martial law over the Internet.
As I have written before, it is important to safeguard democracy on the Internet. In Sweden, our civil liberties have come under attack with the infamous FRA law that passed a year ago during the Midsummer holiday. Perhaps in an effort to keep the public from informing themselves, since they would be too busy dancing around the Midsummer pole and drinking schnapps. It was still met with huge protests, but apparently not enough since it still passed.
I think the people are tired of politicians trying to pull their legs. We know that they lied over and over again in order to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Could the same be said for Obama's alleged "weapon of mass disruption"? Against whom will this cyberwar be fought? If history can provide us with any kind of guidance, it tells us that the real victims of war are not the criminals or terrorists. In the war on the the Internet, we do not have to pay with our lives, but we might just have to pay by loosing our freedoms.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment