Sorry, I cannot lump shutting down air traffic with wire tapping. Two different beasts.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Judah McAuley<[email protected]> wrote: > > Personally, I'd prefer to see authority specified in statute rather > than a company doing something rather severe just because the > President asked and may or may not have had the authority to do so. > That's one of my big problems with the warrantless wiretapping. The > telco's should not have rolled over just because they were asked to. > The action was illegal and only made pseudo-legal in retrospect in a > craven act of ass covering. > > If we want the President to have the power to do something drastic > like shut down air travel, shut down major Internet network segments, > apply a wire tap without a warrant, etc, that that is something that > needs to happen as part of a Congressionally authorized bill with full > visibility from the public. That didn't happen before. It is now. I'm > still not sure if I approve of the actual power or not but I'm glad it > is being done through actual legal channels for once. > > You seem to be favoring asking forgiveness for acts committed versus > asking permission. This is one of those big philosophical > debates...how much power should the Presidency have to protect the > country? I'd rather have that debate before the issue comes up this > time instead of just seeing what goes down when it does happen. > > Judah > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Robert Munn<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Robert Munn<[email protected]> wrote: >>> > It's a bad bill and a bad idea. The government needs to stay out of >>> private >>> > networks. >>> >>> I would tend to agree by and large but to play devils advocate here, >>> how is this different than shutting down all air travel after 9/11? >>> >> >> In principle, I'm not sure what the difference in power is. Bush didn't have >> specific authority to shut down air travel, but given the attacks and what >> we feared might even be tens of thousands of deaths in the WTC, he would >> have been reckless to do otherwise. >> >> More pragmatically, I don't see cyber attacks as posing the same level of >> threat. The essence of the problem after the initial 9/11 attacks was that >> every plane in the air was a potential WMD- thousands of individual threats >> that could only be dealt with by grounding every plane. I can't imagine a >> scenario in a cyberattack that would pose the same risk, and I can't imagine >> a responsible company ignoring a *request* from the President to cut of >> network segments in the event of a serious attack. >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:303085 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
