Internet Kill Switch

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I disagree. While someone from 1950 does have certain era-related prejudiced ideals, they also have 60 years of life experience. Now a 30-year-old might have an alternative perspective that may be beneficial to a modern world, but I would not so easily trust a 30-year-old in a place of authority.

But is that life experience valid in today's world? That's what you always have to ask yourself. It seems like a lot of politicians base their decisions around false information and era-related idealism. Put simply, they're just unable to really understand what's beneficial today. Because, very obviously, what's beneficial today is not the same as even just fifteen to twenty years ago. Basing policy on preconceived, incorrect notions is not just bad, it's detrimental to everyone. There need to be younger people in politics who understand more of the issues concerning at least technology.

 

Just as someone who is 60 can be a complete moron, so can someone who is 30, 40, 50, or any other age. Nearly everyone is influenced by their generation and peers, and that can cause problems if they are unable to relate to everyone.

You just proved my point. The old guy from the 1950s is less likely to side with anyone pushing technological issues, or he just will refuse to understand. And this is very bad for the rest of us just because he doesn't understand them. When you idealize a different time, you limit yourself in your ability to grow, and think rationally in a modern world. This is one of the key reasons the aging politicians are slowly becoming less beneficial.

 

As an old guy can find difficulty in pleasing our generation, it is no wonder our elders have difficulty accepting a younger person. However, the old guy has the advantage of double the years of life experiences to draw from. If I had to choose between some guy still living in the past or some collage graduate that believes he now knows all the world has to offer, I'll take the old guy, because frankly, most of our generation are imbeciles, even if we can figure out how to fix our parents' electronic gadgets for them.

However, as pointed out, that idealizing of a dead generation causes more issues than it solves, especially concerning technology, domestic affairs and, to some extent, foreign policy and affairs as well. A lifetime of experience makes no difference if that experience is applied in the wrong direction, which it sometimes does as in the case of the "Internet Kill Switch." The old guy doesn't, and some refuse, to understand technology, which leads to poor decision making, which does not benefit anyone, anywhere.

 

But, you take my meaning of the younger generation a little too literally. I don't mean the 22 year old straight out of college. I mean more along the lines of people in their mid thirties and early forties. People who grew up while technology boomed and have pulled in a more serious grasp of how it works and what would be beneficial. These are the people who need to step up and be heard, then transition the next generation in when they're the same age. Most of our generation will have enough experience by their mid-thirties to be a powerful leading force.

 

We may inherit the world, but it is not ours yet and we do not have the right to usurp it. In some cultures, the oldest people are held in the utmost respect, and for a good reason. Our generation has no more business running everyone's lives as they see fit than the 1950s generation, but at least they have experience to back up knowledge, something no diploma, charisma, or even genius is going to equal.

But if that experience is outdated, it does not translate into good ideas, and it never will. I'm not saying I don't respect my elders, because I do, but we have to face the reality - they're not the best choice for the modern world. And yes, I have to keep hammering that point because it is an inevitable reality.

 

[Nmenth 291]

It's not just our mindset that changes. Our entire lifestyle has been changing quite rapidly over the last couple of hundred years, in which case the best option would be a candidate, with life experience, and awereness, but more importantly, understanding of the current developements in society.

 

Naturally. But wouldn't you rather go with a 60-year-old who is the least nostalgic and conservative? I would.

I think a politician must understand both the past and the present before they are qualified to shape the future.

 

An older person has lived the past and present and can adapt to the current world (if they are willing to try). A younger person has lived only the present and would find it much harder to adapt to the past (if they are even willing to try).

 

No, I would not pick the least nostalgic and conservative, these traits are actually a good thing (in moderation, of course). It is a well known saying that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", do not underestimate the truth in that lesson. If we abandon the past, we are only setting ourselves up to fall in the future.

 

 

Edit: DD responded while I wrote this, but I think my answers here are sufficient as a reply to him too.

[dbjs2009 25]

I think a politician must understand both the past and the present before they are qualified to shape the future.

An older person has lived the past and present and can adapt to the current world (if they are willing to try). A younger person has lived only the present and would find it much harder to adapt to the past (if they are even willing to try).

 

You're right at this point Nmneth..

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I think a politician must understand both the past and the present before they are qualified to shape the future.

The past was filled with isolationist policy, racist policies, anti-women policy and other ideas that are outmoded in today's societal climate. So no, you don't need to 'understand' the past so much as comprehend why the policies were bad ideas.

[Nmenth 291]

The past was filled with isolationist policy, racist policies, anti-women policy and other ideas that are outmoded in today's societal climate.

You can't seriously believe that any significant number of people from the 1950s are isolationists, racists, and misogynists now. Sure, you can find an occasional nut job that literally wants the world to return to its former ideals, but those types of people aren't usually even interested in politics, much less running for an office. Besides, it was their generation that changed that world into the one in which we were born.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

The people who made the decisions back then were definitely racist, isloationist and misogynistic. And yes, that attitude from people who grew up during that time is still very evident, but it's not as obvious as it used to be, and some did grow with the times. Fortunately, the hardcore are a dying breed, but you missed my point. I said the past was not worth as much because of the policies put forth so understanding why the policies were exceptionally bad is very necessary.

[Nmenth 291]

Well I don't really see it that way, I still think someone that has lived twice as long is in a better position than someone younger. As a generalization anyway, there are always exceptions.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

In terms of life lessons, yeah, I would agree but politically, age is starting to become a huge detriment for a lot of issues because many of them still idealize the past. That's not how we look forward.

[Malevolence 6]

Obama 'Internet kill switch' plan approved by US Senate panel

President could get power to turn off Internet

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

 

Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet "kill switch." Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

 

The committee unanimously approved an amended version of the legislation by voice vote Thursday, a committee spokeswoman said. The bill next moves to the Senate floor for a vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.

 

The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.

 

The legislation would give the US Department of Homeland Security authority that it does not now have to respond to cyber-attacks, Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said earlier this month.

 

"Our responsibility for cyber defence goes well beyond the public sector because so much of cyberspace is owned and operated by the private sector," he said. "The Department of Homeland Security has actually shown that vulnerabilities in key private sector networks like utilities and communications could bring our economy down for a period of time if attacked or commandeered by a foreign power or cyber terrorists."

 

Other sponsors of the bill are Senators Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat.

 

One critic said Thursday that the bill will hurt the nation's security, not help it. Security products operate in a competitive market that works best without heavy government intervention, said Wayne Crews, vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank.

 

"Policymakers should reject such proposals to centralize cyber security risk management," Crews said in an e-mail. "The Internet that will evolve if government can resort to a 'kill switch' will be vastly different from, and inferior to, the safer one that will emerge otherwise."

 

Cybersecurity technologies and services thrive on competition, he added. "The unmistakable tenor of the cybersecurity discussion today is that of government steering while the market rows," he said. "To be sure, law enforcement has a crucial role in punishing intrusions on private networks and infrastructure. But government must coexist with, rather than crowd out, private sector security technologies."

On Wednesday, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors. The bill gives the new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications "significant authority" over critical infrastructure, but doesn't define what critical infrastructure is covered, the letter said.

 

Without a definition of critical infrastructure there are concerns that "it includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free speech and to access information," said the letter, signed by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups.

 

"Changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests," the letter added.

http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198...d-by-us-senate/

[Luk3us 63]

Yaa for America.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

And this is why old people are bad for today's environment. But who knows. Maybe it'll be like that red button and never used. I ****ing hope not.

[Inferno 22]

And this is why old people are bad for today's environment. But who knows. Maybe it'll be like that red button and never used. I ****ing hope not.

Indeed. They don't know the slightest thing of today's technology.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Good lord, 120 days!??! He could kill the Internet for THAT long before he'd have to get an extension from Congress? It'll be total anarchy if that happens!

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Kids without their mySpace and Facebook, and their Xbox Live. What a tragedy.

 

On the flipside, everyone who ears their living on the Internet would be totally ****ed.

[Nmenth 291]

And this is why old people are bad for today's environment.

It is ridiculous that you just blame this on older people.

 

It'll be total anarchy if that happens!

Maybe England will adopt this plan as well, then Saracen would be overjoyed.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

It is ridiculous that you just blame this on older people.

Most people from this generation wouldn't push for something like this.

[CraftManiac 1]

Kids without their mySpace and Facebook, and their Xbox Live. What a tragedy.

 

On the flipside, everyone who ears their living on the Internet would be totally ****ed.

 

Woah... it would save them

 

Ok it would be a disaster...

(for those ''Internet making money'' peapole)

 

Oh ByTheWay.

 

No internet = No CnCnZ

 

 

[Nmenth 291]

No internet = No CnCnZ

Only if CNCNZ.com is based in American servers...

 

So Sonic, is this site in any danger?

[Doctor Destiny 41]

It's hosted on the same server I use so... yes.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

On the flipside, everyone who ears their living on the Internet would be totally ****ed.

Shutting down the net would kill Wall Street and take the economy with it.