Obama is locking down the net for YOUR safety!

[JoshLowry]

President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

Details about the "trusted identity" project are unusually scarce.

The Obama administration is currently drafting what it's calling the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html

[Philhelm]

Fuck. :(

[tangent4ronpaul]

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

[BenIsForRon]

Man WTF.


The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.

What the hell is CBS talking about? It doesn't matter which department is implementing the program.

I don't care if it is public or private initiative, any kind of push for a static online identity could make it easier for our privacy to be violated in the future.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Seems like only a matter of time with this folks.

As many have said in the past and say now, get ready.

Tell people who will listen. Organize locally.

[EndDaFed]

The move also is likely to please privacy and civil liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.


I guess the writer put that in their to calm the anxiety of the average reader. It's an obvious bullshit line. Let's face it. The established media has an incentive to show new government programs or proposals in a positive light because their very existence depends on the government. Those FCC broadcast licenses don't fall out of the sky. Not only that but given the recent bailouts of major media companies you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

[JoshLowry]

Schmidt stressed today that anonymity and pseudonymity will remain possible on the Internet. "I don't have to get a credential if I don't want to," he said. There's no chance that "a centralized database will emerge," and "we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this," he said.

You don't believe that, right? :D

[pcosmar]

Expected.
Several years ago, while researching computer security (and Linux) I ran across this on other forums. It was usually brought up in response to Bot-nets and zombie machines (windoze). The Idea was that machines that were not properly secured could be shut down remotely and that people would have to be certified and have an ID to access the net.

It was an Idea widely rejected, but often proposed.
I have been expecting it to rear it's ugly head again.
:(

[awake]

You need a license to ride the information highway. This also makes the net, in all intensive purposes, an issued state privilege to be revoked by the 'net police'; deeming your activity "unsafe" or "criminal". At first it will be child pornographers (and who can argue for child porn surfers), latter on it will be IP infringers and 'leakers'.

I would venture a guess that your net record of activity and behavior will be tied to this ID.

Will we see the The Outer-net or Black net ? Time will tell. The controllers vision of the internet is simply a net, and we are the fish.

[DXDoug]

Why obama!!! WHY!!!.... cries in shower :mad:

[moostraks]

The controllers vision of the internet is simply a net, and we are the fish.


Very eloquent and sadly so true...

[agitator]

Why obama!!! WHY!!!.... cries in shower :mad:

He promised "Change" didn't he?

[puppetmaster]

now THIS is news!.....bump

[sailingaway]

One of the wikileak leaks said the Chinese govt was very concerned about the internet until it discovered it could require 'real name registration' after which the internet was obviously manageable.

By what authority does our government 'manage' us?

[BenIsForRon]

bump, this could be a big deal. Corporations and government are colluding to keep tabs on us 24/7

[Anti Federalist]

Bump is right...

"No no, watch THIS hand..."

[Anti Federalist]

And what better time than now so that "officials" can more quickly identify "threats" and "dangerous persons" spouting "hate speech" on the net.

[eOs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsPJaIQNM5w

[YumYum]

This will take a toll on trolls.

[pcosmar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsPJaIQNM5w

And the author of that,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdkmQUjY6Mw

and this too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WninWFtO0Gg

:)

[Stary Hickory]

So when do we impeach this guy? I don't know which is scarier his collectivist views or his love of a police state.

Once again he tries to get around the Democratic process and attack free speech. It really needs to stop. I really thought Bush was bad, Obama for all his horrible faults at least had me convinced he was not like Bush in this regard.

However it's obvious he is much much worse.

[pacelli]

There's some more of that hope and change for you. Don't expect this to ever be undone. Once this is formalized, its a done deal.

[Romulus]

Obama is quite the trojan horse.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Obama is quite the trojan horse.

Quite the reverse psychology used in that election and selection of candidate.

[puppetmaster]

Still, blame seems to be pouring out from all kinds of sources. FBI Director Robert Mueller said in a Sunday press conference that the "ubiquitous nature of the Internet" has made hateful information "much more readily available to individuals than it was eight or 10 or 15 years ago and that absolutely presents a challenge to us particularly as it relates to lone wolfs."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/09/pima-county-sheriff-sets-debate-price-free-speech/#ixzz1AZjc6qVa


thanks mr fbi....now go away

[JustinTime]

This will take a toll on trolls.

WTF? Trolls? Trolls?!?!? Fuck the trolling, I can deal with it. Government control of the internet, I cant tolerate.

[ClayTrainor]

Im honestly not THAT worried about this. The market will Napster the hell out of whatever regulation the state passes on the internet. If they do somehow take ownership and control of the entire internet? Well, we'll just find new ways to hack our pc's and link them together in different ways to circumvent the whole statist owned network.

This is one issue where I don't really see the state as standing a chance. Looks like they will try though, and they will probably hurt a lot of people and destroy a lot of jobs in the process.

[JustinTime]

Im honestly not THAT worried about this. The market will Napster the hell out of whatever regulation the state passes on the internet. If they do somehow take ownership and control of the entire internet? Well, we'll just find new ways to hack our pc's and link them together in different ways to circumvent the whole statist owned network.

This is one issue where I don't really see the state as standing a chance. Looks like they will try though, and they will probably hurt a lot of people and destroy a lot of jobs in the process.

Im not tech savvy at all, but didnt Napster eventually give up an effectively become a pay site?

And what happens to us non tech savvy people who cant hack our pcs and link them and all? We're screwed?

[ClayTrainor]

Im not tech savvy at all, but didnt Napster eventually give up an effectively become a pay site?

Well yes, but then the marketplace just created brand new ways to share music for free, and the state cant effectively stop it unless they maybe go full on nazi or something... even then, I bet it would continue to some extent.

But yea, my point was, even though the government tried to stop file-sharing with copyright law, The Napster case, etc. The market creates alternatives that do the same thing, and in large supply.



And what happens to us non tech savvy people who cant hack our pcs and link them and all? We're screwed?

Specialization and Division of labor. You should likely be able to find someone to hack it for you, and trade with them for their services. Sort of like how I don't know how to fix my car engine, but I can find someone to do it for me.

[JustinTime]

Specialization and Division of labor. You should likely be able to find someone to hack it for you, and trade with them for their services. Sort of like how I don't know how to fix my car engine, but I can find someone to do it for me.

Thats a poor analogy, unless the government is intentionally screwing with your car and forcing you to hire a mechanic.

[ClayTrainor]

Thats a poor analogy, unless the government is intentionally screwing with your car and forcing you to hire a mechanic.

For the analagy, It doesn't really matter who screwed your car, if you still need a car. The point is, you need your car fixed and/or you need your computer "fixed".

The market will handle it. That's the point. You dont need to be a mechanic to get a car fixed, yo u just have to find a mechanic willing to do it. You don't need to be a hacker to have a modded xbox or computer, you just need to find a hacker willing to do it.

[JustinTime]

The market will handle it. That's the point. You dont need to be a mechanic to get a car fixed, yo u just have to find a mechanic willing to do it. You don't need to be a hacker to have a modded xbox or computer, you just need to find a hacker willing to do it.

Thats why Im unconcerned about government taking over health care, anyone who doesnt like it can take their ass to Costa Rica. See, market handled it.

Druggies, thats what black market street dealers are for, market handled it.

See how silly that sounds? If we start justifying government regulation of our lives with the fact that someone will find a way around it later, we really dont stand for anything.

[ClayTrainor]

Thats why Im unconcerned about government taking over health care, anyone who doesnt like it can take their ass to Costa Rica. See, market handled it.

Druggies, thats what black market street dealers are for, market handled it.

See how silly that sounds?

You seem to be missing my point. First of all, I didn't say im unconcerned, i said im not "THAT" concerned. I am indeed concerned about all regulation, but in this case, I don't think the state has a chance.

If the worst case scenario did happen, and the government did monopolize the net (i think it's unlikely), new networks would unfold, and someone in the marketplace would hook you up if you don't know how to get on one yourself.

The black market on the internet is nothing like the black market you describe with the war on drugs. Music file-sharers online are not bringing guns and mafia-style violence to protect their assets. Torrent file sharing is not backed up by the threat of a gun to your head. The internet is different, and it is 100% based on sharing information and voluntarily interacting with others. It is where free market principles are demonstrated and put into action on a regular basis. The internet is the free-market, and it has already demonstrated will take measures to circumvent fascist regulations.

So yes, I am concerned about state regulation of the internet, for the same reasons I'm concerned about state regulation of health care, banks, etc. However, I think computer networking solutions are far more equipped to circumvent such things, and therefore, I worry about it less.



If we start justifying government regulation of our lives with the fact that someone will find a way around it later, we really dont stand for anything.

Are you kidding me? I'm not justifying any government regulation, whatsoever! With due respect, You're not comprehending my points very well, i dont think. It's probably because I may not be explaining them very well.

[JustinTime]

You seem to be missing my point. First of all, I didn't say im unconcerned, i said im not "THAT" concerned.

Nothing personal, Ive read your posts before and I respect you, but it sounds like you are splitting hairs.


I am indeed concerned about all regulation, but in this case, I don't think the state has a chance.

If the worst case scenario did happen, and the government did monopolize the net (i think it's unlikely), new networks would unfold, and someone in the marketplace would hook you up if you don't know how to get on one yourself.

The black market on the internet is nothing like the black market you describe with the war on drugs. Music file-sharers online are not bringing guns and mafia-style violence to protect their assets. Torrent file sharing is not backed up by the threat of a gun to your head. The internet is different, and it is 100% based on sharing information and voluntarily interacting with others. It is where free market principles are demonstrated and put into action on a regular basis. The internet is the free-market, and it has already demonstrated will take measures to circumvent fascist regulations.

So yes, I am concerned about state regulation of the internet, for the same reasons I'm concerned about state regulation of health care, banks, etc. However, I think computer networking solutions are far more equipped to circumvent such things, and therefore, I worry about it less.

Are you kidding me? I'm not justifying any government regulation, whatsoever! With due respect, You're not comprehending my points very well, i dont think. It's probably because I may not be explaining them very well.

Im comprehending your points fine, you are saying you arent 'that concerned' because somebody will find a way around it.

Im confident somebody will get around it, but we dont know much about this, how easy will it be to get around it? How will I get in touch with somebody to get me around it? How much more will it cost me? If those barriers are great enough a lot of people, most perhaps, might settle for the new filtered and 'safe' internet, something like what TV is now, pointless 'approved' information. Effectively, the free exchange of information's shaping of society will be over because most of society will be at Fox.com or shopping.

Dont you see that is reason for this?

[ClayTrainor]

Nothing personal, Ive read your posts before and I respect you,

Thanks for that and likewise.


[Quote]but it sounds like you are splitting hairs.


Fair enough, maybe you're right, so I'll try to address that as best I can.



Im comprehending your points fine, you are saying you arent 'that concerned' because somebody will find a way around it.


Well, yes, but I'm emphasizing that the internet does this in a peaceful way, unlike other black markets that form in other markets. The internet has so far demonstrated that it will consistently circumvent government regulation, through voluntary interactions, without getting the mob or violent criminals involved.



Im confident somebody will get around it, but we dont know much about this, how easy will it be to get around it? How will I get in touch with somebody to get me around it?

My guess would be about as easy as it is to download music, or mod an xbox 360.



How much more will it cost me? If those barriers are great enough a lot of people, most perhaps, might settle for the new filtered and 'safe' internet, something like what TV is now, pointless 'approved' information. Effectively, the free exchange of information's shaping of society will be over because most of society will be at Fox.com or shopping.

You're right, a lot of people might settle for the new government internet for those kinds of reasons. . However, to me, I definitely wouldn't be satisfied with such a service. Most people I know, libertarian or not, would be outright pissed the internet as we know it was taken away from us, and replaced with a heavily regulated version.


Dont you see that is reason for this?

Yes, for sure, especially after you pointed it out so well. However, I just dont think this is one that the state can win. It's not too often I'm optimistic on this kind of stuff, but on this issue, I am. The internet is the closest representation to a real free-market that this world has ever had. I think it's WAY more powerful than the state, but only time will tell.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Yes, for sure, especially after you pointed it out so well. However, I just dont think this is one that the state can win. It's not too often I'm optimistic on this kind of stuff, but on this issue, I am. The internet is the closest representation to a real free-market that this world has ever had. I think it's WAY more powerful than the state, but only time will tell.

Friend, I think the State will prevail because the master of most people on this planet is fear. When the moment of choice comes, all those who serve fear, will also cut off the hand of Mace Windu destroying liberty's most powerful defender in order to preserve the institutions of fear, the State. There is, has been, and only ever will be one solution for liberty... those who believe in it must defend it.

[ClayTrainor]

Friend, I think the State will prevail because the master of most people on this planet is fear.

Very True that most people on this planet live in fear, but we don't need to convince a majority or anything like that to circumvent whatever regulation the state enacts to prevent freedom on the internet. There will be a number entrepreneurs from around the world actively appealing to the demographic that wants to circumvent it, I don't doubt it. They will find ways to do so anonymously. They will produce empirical results, and we will pay attention to them. People will see the freedom that can exist, that others are experiencing, and they will want it for themselves.

That's how i see it going down, if the state really goes all out on this.



When the moment of choice comes, all those who serve fear, will also cut off the hand of Mace Windu destroying liberty's most powerful defender in order to preserve the institutions of fear, the State. There is, has been, and only ever will be one solution for liberty... those who believe in it must defend it.

I'm 100% with you. I still maintain that the power of the internet is largely underestimated. It is the closest representation of a global free-market that humanity has ever experienced, and free-markets tend to self-regulate against force, coercion and fraud. This will not be an easy one for the state.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic on this, but that's how i see it.

[JustinTime]

Well I stayed up reading about this, details are scant, but basically you will have one sign-on, one password when you go online, and every site you visit will pick up that same sign-on.

You wont be 'Justintime' on RonPaulforums and 'Wanker Boy' on Nude Catfights.com. You will be you, no matter where you go.

Thinking you will give a fake name? Think again.

The government will encourage banks and credit card companies to use these government IDs as well, so if you bank or buy online, you will basically be forced to use your real name and other info.