Interesting that 2 old badgers would reach across the aisle to put forward legislation that solves a problem that does not exist.

I can't stress enough just how non-existant this problem is.

They talk about 40% staying home, but seem to ignore the fact that a fair larger proportion go home every night and jump on the internet, and yet it does not go down. Hell most of us don't even notice the increased traffic.

But yeah global pandemic hits, I'm sure the one thing we are all going to need to do is log into the internet. Yeah thats what usually comes to my mind when I'm running a 100+ fever and near death. And we are all going to bittorrent illegal software, movies, and porn, and if we don't the economy goes to shits is the only reasonable argument where this legislation makes sense.

Teleworkers are not exactly high-traffic users either even when they spend they're day downloading porn. Unless your teleworkers work for lucasfilms and do CGI movie editing all day long. In which case the internet was a horrible solution for you in the first place.

And they're solution to this "problem". Blocking of websites? Are you fucking kidding me? Tech Fact. There are a myriad of ways to reduce bandwidth used. Blocking of websites would not be one of them. This has nothing to do with national security unless of course you feel the free flow of ideas and information is a threat.

If the action is a solution to a problem that obviously doesn't exist then it must be a solution to a problem that is not obvious. So, are their reasons nefarious or just plain stupid?

#8 | Posted by STIRSUMUP at 2009-10-27 04:18 PM | Reply |

Both.

Rockefeller has been going on for some years now about the dangers of the internet. People have been going to him spouting off about the millions of cyberattacks that go on all the time. At least based on his comments, he believes attackers via the internet could do catastrophic harm. This is the stupid part.

The more nefarious angle is hes trying to bring government control to the internet, and will say anything he has to say to make that happen. He is without a doubt a big government sort and sees the internet as something he needs to personally tame.

And I don't disagree with him. But what I do disagree with, is just how he wants to go about doing it. Its one thing to say, you want to have an orderly conduct when it comes to speech on the internet. Its another to say that at times of your own choosing you will silence those voices.