Yeah, wire tapping is way more pernicious. On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Scott Stroz<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:303088 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
