Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
1 edit | The Internet is Now Threatening to Crush "Big Brother".
The Internet is Now Threatening to Crush "Big Brother"
The Internet has rapidly become a very important media voice and force. No longer are we “imprisoned” in our insular caves and dependent on the major networks and newspapers for our news.
People like you, your friends and relatives are actually using social networking tools like Twitter and Facebook to bypass these outlets and information is capable of spreading like wildfire.
Is the government now getting nervous, realizing how little control they have over this? Are they now looking for ways to shut down your access, and contributions, to this free source of information and TRUTH?
As you may know, there are countries that do this as a matter of course, but here in the United States we are supposed to be free …
The Internet has really become one of the last bastions of independent, free-thinking news available around the world, so I am very glad to see that The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is drawing widespread and deserved criticism from Internet companies and civil liberty groups alike.
But even though the United States enjoys access to much more free press than many other countries, the system is clearly not without flaws, nor is it impervious to violations that threaten your freedom to access and share information.
Snippet from article source:
»articles.mercola.com/sites/artic···net.aspx |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Senate bill 773 (Rockefeller/Snowe) would establish this power for the President over private networks, but only the ones deemed "critical". In the context of the bill, this seems to imply that critical government systems rely on them.
So the bill is not quite as extreme as what some have implied that it says. On the other hand, it is very misguided and dangerous.
Disconnecting entire networks by government edict is a crude and stupid response to computer security problems. There are remedies for denial of service attacks, and for malware and other issues, but the simple-minded sledge-hammer approach in this bill is helpful for nothing except silencing communications.
It is discouraging to see harmful proposals for real problems. But mere ranting on forums won't help. If anyone reading this would like to help the situation, write to your representatives and ask them to support an approach to cyber-security that relies on better software on endpoint devices. Replacing Microsoft products with proven-default-secure, open-source equivalents would be a good start. |
|
DownTheShore
Maddie Knows Poopie
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| reply to Shriyash
said by Shriyash  : People like you, your friends and relatives are actually using social networking tools like Twitter and Facebook to bypass these outlets and information misinformation is capable of spreading like wildfire. Corrected that for ya. 
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals
I want to retire to the Isle of Sodor and ride the trains. |
|
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to swhx7
Perviously discussed at »Senate bill: Feds to police private sector cybersecurity?
IMO The most ridiculous part of this bill is Section 7's licensing requirements. I still stand by the rest of the posts I made in the above topics.
11SECURITY PROFESSIONALS.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Within 1 year after the date of
13 enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall
14 develop or coordinate and integrate a national licensing,
15 certification, and periodic recertification program for cy-
16 bersecurity professionals.
17 (b) MANDATORY LICENSING.—Beginning 3 years
18 after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful
19 for any individual to engage in business in the United
20 States, or to be employed in the United States, as a pro-
21 vider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or
22 an information system or network designated by the Presi-
23 dent, or the President’s designee, as a critical infrastruc-
24 ture information system or network, who is not licensed
1 and certified under the program.
Gotta love it when clueless bureaucratic lawyers try to deal with technical issues.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Let me play Devil's Avocado here for a minute.
Surely all that says is that if you want to do business with the US government pertaining to security or critical systems, you have to prove to the US government that you know WTF you're talking about with respect to security.
I have a hard time figuring out why it's a bad thing to keep amateurs from screwing things up. |
|
SafireDonkey
join:2006-10-29
89000
2 edits | reply to Shriyash
I think it all works in both directions. While sites like Twitter or Facebook or the countless others are blooming and giving users a voice, it also works the same way for "Big Brother" institutions for being able to create profile databases much easier than even before. With current pools of information and hardware, you can be sure they know even more about you than you know yourself today.
The only thing they are nervous about is the crumbling down of major institutions. Today we all no longer have Norton Anti-Virus as our master of protection or Nero as our master of the flames.
We have choice now, their biggest fear is that we have a little too much of it, so it gets beyond their control, and that can be good and evil. |
|
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to dave
said by dave :Let me play Devil's Avocado here for a minute. Surely all that says is that if you want to do business with the US government pertaining to security or critical systems, you have to prove to the US government that you know WTF you're talking about with respect to security. I have a hard time figuring out why it's a bad thing to keep amateurs from screwing things up. Good points! If the licensing section was better defined by people who deal with realities, that could be a positive result. However, what happens historically with government when they're given overreaching general powers is the usual bureaucratic nightmares and screwups.
The bill does not limit the coverage to government systems, employees or contractors. It extends to private sector entities as well, and those are not defined on the bill. DHS and a 1998 presidential directive did list some, but the bill does not reference them.
Requiring a poor schmuck who runs a scripted install of a piece of security software on a laptop or who runs security audit reports for IT staff go through a $3000 certification and licensing course or having to pay big bucks yearly for a federal license and CE recert courses is a real prospect given the broad language and lack of specificity of the bill.
Also consider that everyone at Microsoft, Apple, AV companies who, by the broad language of the bill deals even remotely in security related development, testing and support could be required to be certified and licensed whether they were script-reading phone support people in lower Slobbovia, end user testers or high level developers.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to EGeezer
said by EGeezer :IMO The most ridiculous part of this bill is Section 7's licensing requirements. I still stand by the rest of the posts I made in the above topics. 11SECURITY PROFESSIONALS.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Within 1 year after the date of
13 enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall
14 develop or coordinate and integrate a national licensing,
15 certification, and periodic recertification program for cy-
16 bersecurity professionals.
17 (b) MANDATORY LICENSING.—Beginning 3 years
18 after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful
19 for any individual to engage in business in the United
20 States, or to be employed in the United States, as a pro-
21 vider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or
22 an information system or network designated by the Presi-
23 dent, or the President’s designee, as a critical infrastruc-
24 ture information system or network, who is not licensed
1 and certified under the program.
That would probably turn out to be a certificate of incompetence.
That is to say, a person would be certified as having stale old knowledge that is not necessarily relevant to today's rapidly changing world.
--
AT&T Uverse; Zyxel NBG334W router (behind the 2wire gateway); openSuSE 11.0; firefox 3.0.14 |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | reply to swhx7
Isn't it interesting that our gov't is *reactive* when it comes to protecting the people.
But the gov't is *proactive* when it comes to protecting its control. |
|
TheRul
You couldn't think of something?
Premium
join:2007-09-18
Victorville, CA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to EGeezer
said by EGeezer :said by dave :Let me play Devil's Avocado here for a minute. Surely all that says is that if you want to do business with the US government pertaining to security or critical systems, you have to prove to the US government that you know WTF you're talking about with respect to security. I have a hard time figuring out why it's a bad thing to keep amateurs from screwing things up. Good points! If the licensing section was better defined by people who deal with realities, ... Ok, I had to stop reading here. I was laughing too hard. You forgot, we are dealing with lawyers and the government.
Ok, I need to catch my breath.
--
If you can't laugh at yourself, you have nothing to laugh at.
Come and spread the FUD »Pub Games |
|
DownTheShore
Maddie Knows Poopie
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| reply to SLD
said by SLD :Isn't it interesting that our gov't is *reactive* when it comes to protecting the people. But the gov't is *proactive* when it comes to protecting its control. That just reflects normal human behavior.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals
I want to retire to the Isle of Sodor and ride the trains. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Seems abnormal to me. |
|
ja2007123
join:2007-10-06
·AT&T Southeast
 ·Dish Network
1 edit | reply to Shriyash
If we let the Internet run free, it will serve as a platform for crime and invasion of privacy. But I do not want anyone to see what I am reading/watching. I don't want the government or my ISP to look over the stuff I do or to verify that Im not committing a crime.
The internet should stay anonymous like it used to be years ago. All of this social networking crap is just a gold mine for hackers and cyber criminals. Afterall these "new" websites spread lies and misinformation often backed by large corps. |
|
Loco
Premium
join:2002-11-09
So Cal | reply to Shriyash
Good. |
|
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to Shriyash
Joseph Mercola
quote:
Mercola has received two warnings from the FDA for marketing nutritional products in a manner which violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[4][5] A 2006 BusinessWeek editorial criticized Mercola's marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics."[
FDA Orders Dr. Joseph Mercola to Stop Illegal Claims
quote:
In 2005, the FDA ordered Mercola and his Optimal Wellness Center to stop making illegal claims for products sold through his Web site [7]. The claims to which the FDA objected involved three products:
* Living Fuel Rx, claimed to offer an "exceptional countermeasure" against cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, etc.
* Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease and has beneficial effects against Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and many infectious agents
* Chlorella, claimed to fight cancer and normalize blood pressure.
In 2006, the FDA send Mercola and his center a second warning that was based on product labels collected during an inspection at his facility and on claims made on the Optimum Wellness Center Web site [8]. This time the claims to which the FDA objected involve four products:
* Vibrant Health Research Chlorella XP, claimed to "help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future."
* Fresh Shores Extra Virgin Coconut Oil, claimed to reduce the risk of heart disease, cancer, and degenerative diseases.
* Momentum Health Products Vitamin K2, possibly useful in treating certain kinds of cancer and Alzheimer's disease.
* Momentum Health Products Cardio Essentials Nattokinase NSK-SD, claimed to be "a much safer and effective option than aspirin and other pharmaceutical agents to treating heart disease."
The warning letters explained that the use of such claims in the marketing of these products violates the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, which bans unapproved claims for products that are intended for curing, mitigating, treating, or preventing of diseases.
--
"I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants." |
|
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| Wow, interesting qualifications for a civil liberties legislation expert! I bet Mercola has a miracle potion to protect us against the legislation. Maybe he can get the irritating shamwow idiot to pitch it.
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio | reply to fatness
Oh, he's an anti-vaccination nut too. |
|
Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
| said by dave :Oh, he's an anti-vaccination nut too. Do you have any proof that he is a 'nut'?
Are you a qualified mental health professional?
Or are you just being obnoxious because he dosent agree with your beliefs on vaccines?
 |
|
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
·Callcentric
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
1 edit | fatness has pretty well summed up your source's health care "expert" qualifications... What a joke.  |
|
Shriyash
Sungazer
Premium
join:2005-02-23
PuNe, InDiA
| »www.mercola.com/forms/background.htm
Yeah, he is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.
D.O. is short for Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.
»www.mercola.com/forms/do.htm
The DO Difference
DOs are complete physicians who, along with MDs, are licensed to prescribe medication and perform surgery in all 50 states.
But DOs bring something extra to the practice of medicine. Osteopathic physicians practice a "whole person" approach to medicine, treating the entire person rather that just the symptoms. With a focus on preventive health care, DOs help patients develop attitudes and lifestyles that don't just fight illness, but help prevent it, too.
DOs are trained to be doctors first, and specialists second.
The majority of DOs are family-oriented primary care physicians. Many DOs practice in small towns and rural areas, where they often care for entire families and communities.
Now can we stay on topic please and stop derailing the thread? |
|
