For what? Allowing us to keep a privacy, how is having the right to read all of our e-mails and know everything everyone does on the internet really helping a cyber attack. Its not."This is one of those days when I fear for our country and I'm not proud of the United States Senate"
Yes, I can tell you, I for one am not being hacked by the Chinese government for my personal info. Maybe you need to beef up the pentagon and security intranet. I can tell you from experience the security measures it has in place are a joke at times. You don't need a bill to pass for this, just do it."We've got a crisis, and it's one that we all acknowledge. It's not just that there's a theoretical or speculative threat of cyber attack against our country - it's real."
Again, that's where the threat is. They want government information mostly. And this bill lacks any security measures that cover the area between civilian side and government side.-and the Senate proposal would need to be reconciled with a House bill that lacks any mention of standards and that focuses instead on the exchange of cyberthreat data between industry and government.
Another case of government knows best. So all the politicians are pushing for it, but people are actively trying to stop it. And this isn't like the anti-gun laws, no one is really fighting for the other side. Its the government vs the people and the government is getting all pissy because thanks to the internet the people now have a voice."Despite the president's repeated calls for Congress to act on this legislation, and despite pleas from numerous senior national security officials from this administration and the Bush administration, the politics of obstructionism, driven by special interest groups seeking to avoid accountability, prevented Congress from passing legislation to better protect our nation from potentially catastrophic cyber-attacks"
So there is already a large private sector of companies that provide security to these people but its not good enough? In might experience private sector ran operation are a lot smoother and cutting edge then any government ran one. And this way the company providing security has more of a reason not to screw up, because they will lose that huge customer, if the government runs it, that fear is removed.The challenge surrounding cybersecurity is that most of the nation's vulnerable systems - the computer networks that run the nation's power, water, banking, transportation and communications - are overseen by the private sector. Legislators have sought to strike the right balance between regulating the private sector and encouraging companies to voluntarily tighten security measures.
A bill effecting my privacy not even going through due process, kinda is an issue in my eyes.Opponents also voted against the bill because Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) denied them an opportunity to propose related amendments and because the bill - drafted quickly by its Democratic and Republican cosponsors - never went through the normal committee process.
"We all recognize the problem. That's not the issue here"
Those crazy Democrats, trying to sneak it in, very respectable."This is a big, complicated, far-reaching bill that involves several committees of jurisdiction," he added. "Democrat leaders haven't allowed any of these committees to improve the bill or even vote on it."
Sorry for the long rant, right to privacy and guns rights are two topics I'm a bit passionate about.Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some "reasonable" gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
This was what they intended, my friend.Somebody might read the name and think it is a good bill, when in reality so much crap has been shoehorned in there that it has nothing to do with the title.