Aye. Though, I was going more for wire tapping infringes on Constitutional rights, shutting down air traffic just inconveniences people.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Judah McAuley<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:303094 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
