Savage Banned in the UK! ......Why???????

Hi Everyone,

Here are 4 big news links. I can not believe Michael Savage was banned yesterday in the UK. The world gets stranger by the day. What is going on with the Govt's around the world? Freedom of Speech is very important. Even if you do not agree with Michael Savage this is what free speech is all about. Protecting speech even if we do not agree with it.

Thanks,
Tom Brown
603-556-7385
thomaslbrown@yahoo.com
northamericanfreedom.blogspot.com
Laconia NH

*********************************************************************
Freedom of Speech Alert #1
UK ‘goes Napolitano’ on US radio host Michael Savage
5-6-09
Seattle Conservative Examiner
Bryan Myrick
Go to Bryan's Home Page



There’s something the Brits may not be revealing about why Michael Savage won’t be summering in Derbyshire.
I’ll give you a hint: you’re getting warmer.

Twitter was been… all atwitter over Tuesday’s report at Politics Daily that inflammatory radio talk show host Michael Savage has been named on the British governments list of sixteen undesirable individuals who are banned from entering the United Kingdom.

The British Home Secretary (the equivalent of the US Secretary of Homeland Security), Jacqui Smith, is given credit in the Politics Daily article for making the decision to make the names public. According to Tuesday’s World Net Daily, Smith appeared on Britain’s GMTV and dispensed with subtlety.

Smith explained to Britain’s GMTV that she believed it was “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t be welcome in this country.”
“Coming to this country is a privilege,” she said. “If you can’t live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what’s more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-4295-Seattle-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m5d5-UK-goes-Napolitano-on-US-radio-host-Michael-Savage

**************************************************************************
Freedom of Speech Alert #2
between the lines Joseph Farah

Who's hunting Savage?
Posted: May 06, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

I don't believe for a minute that the United Kingdom decided to ban entry to U.S. talk-radio star Michael Savage on its own initiative.

First of all, Savage was not asking to enter the U.K.

Second of all, while Savage is a big fish in the U.S., his program is not widely known across the pond.

What would possess Home
Secretary Jacqui Smith to single out Savage on a short list of 16 people worldwide who would not be welcome?

I think I know the answer.

But first, you have to understand the backdrop to this story.


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97198


*******************************************************************

Free Market Update #1
No, the Free Market Did Not Cause the Financial Crisis
The Daily Reckoning
5-5-09
By Thomas E. Woods



leadimage

05/05/09 Auburn, Alabama In March 2007 then-Treasury secretary Henry Paulson told Americans that the global economy was “as strong as I’ve seen it in my business career.” “Our financial institutions are strong,” he added in March 2008. “Our investment banks are strong. Our banks are strong. They’re going to be strong for many, many years.” Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said in May 2007, “We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system.” In August 2008, Paulson and Bernanke assured the country that other than perhaps $25 billion in bailout money for Fannie and Freddie, the fundamentals of the economy were sound.


Paste in your browser for the rest of the story.


http://dailyreckoning.com/no-the-free-market-did-not-cause-the-financial-crisis/

*************************************************************************
Free Market Update #2

How Unions and Governments Destroy Businesses
The Daily Reckoning
5-4-09

By Bill Bonner

leadimage

05/04/09 London, England In the newspapers there is much discussion of what General Motors should do. This discussion has gone on for many years. Until now, it was a conversation carried on by serious analysts and auto industry experts. They all said the same thing: GM needed to clear out its management, dump much of its expensive, “legacy” overhead, and produce better cars. Why didn’t it do so?


And now, it’s broke. And even politicians think they know how to run an auto company. Just read the papers. “Obama insists on changes,” says one headline.


Paste in your browser for the rest of the story.


http://dailyreckoning.com/how-unions-and-governments-destroy-businesses/

**********************************************************************

Add me to the email list: thomaslbrown@yahoo.com
Take me off the email list: thomaslbrownjr@gmail.com

Read this and pass it on.

Hi Everyone,

I picked a few stories to get your blood boiling. But we did have one good thing happen last week. Jeb Bradley won a NH Senate seat. Good Job Jed!
I will be on the Neil Young's Radio Show this morning. Please feel free to call in or email us at the show.

Thanks,
Tom Brown
603-556-7385
thomaslbrown@yahoo.com
northamericanfreedom.blogspot.com
Laconia NH


*******************************************************************
Freedom Alert #1
EDITORIAL: Thought crimes
Punishing people for what they think
Washington Times

By | Thursday, April 30, 2009


Democrats are making it illegal to think certain things. The House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday that extends federal so-called hate-crimes laws to include sexual orientation. This is a move to provide special status for specific groups. It is also unnecessary. If a miscreant kills or rapes somebody, he should be prosecuted for murder or rape. What he might have been thinking is beside the point.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/30/thought-crimes/

***********************************************************************
Economy Alert #1
Sapping America's Energy
Global-warming legislation would drive up the cost of everything.
Wall Street Journal

April 16, 2009

By Pete Du Pont

If Americans don't start paying attention to what Congress is up to, our nation's energy policy may seriously change for the worse. A bill styled the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, soon goes before the House. The enactment of laws to combat global warming is an established priority of the new administration and Congress, and their impact on the lives and opportunities of America's people would be substantial and detrimental.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980462156321035.html

*********************************************************************
Gun Control Alert #1

Lou Dobbs on May 1st, 2009

A renewed effort, tonight, that could curtail our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms if President Obama has his way. He wants the Senate to ratify a little known treaty that would create a national registry for guns. Under that treaty other nations would be able to identify gun owners in the United States. Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2009/05/01/ldt.tucker.gun.rights.cnn


BILL TUCKER, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President Obama went to Mexico and brought back a 12-year-old treaty.

BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: I am urging the Senate in the united states to ratify an interamerican treaty known as SIFTA, to curb small arms trafficking that is a source of so many of the weapons used in this drug war.

TUCKER: The treaty, signed by President Clinton in 1997, was never ratified by the Senate. It calls for the institution of a regime of gun control never before seen in the United States, creating a gun registration system that would be open to international sharing. Offenders would be prosecuted under treaty law and they would be eligible for extradition.

Proponents, like Senator Dick Luger, are urging passage saying, "We should consider ratifying during this Congress the Inter-American Convention against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, and related materials." Gun rights activists are incensed.

LARRY PRATT, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA: It reflects a deep distrust that the government of the United States has had toward the people that somehow we need to be regulated because of other people's inability to have a peaceful and orderly society?

TUCKER: Which cuts to the deep distrust some gun owners have for government in general and specifically this administration. President Obama as a senator consistently supported gun control legislation. His attorney general, Eric Holder, is also in favor of gun control. But one strong supporter of the Second Amendment in the Senate is determined to see the president does not get his wish.

SEN JOHN BARRASSO (R), WYOMING: The president said it is a very high priority for him to get this treaty that takes away our Second Amendment rights ratified by the Senate. It is a very high priority for me to make sure this treaty never gets ratified by the United States Senate. And we will find the votes to defeat it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Gun control is an issue the Democratic congressional leadership has not been eager to embrace just yet but that is what has gun rights groups concerned about this treaty. It isn't being presented as gun control. Instead, Lou, it's being presented as an international treaty that has been ratified by 29 other countries so therefore it must be right that we ratify it as well.

DOBBS: Well, I don't know who -- what do you mean, it must be right? Because 29 other countries don't have a Second Amendment or a constitution?

TUCKER: Correct. And that seems to be President Obama's logic. This is an international treaty.

DOBBS: Well, we're fools if we don't pay attention to what is being done before our very eyes. And that is what's taking place. And no one can blame President Obama. We have only ourselves to blame because he has made it very clear, as has his attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer in the country, they just want to do a few things with gun laws like take them away in large measure. Bill Tucker, thank you very much.

******************************************************************
The Advocates
Hosted by Neil Young

The principled conservative voice in the Lakes Region of NH, 14 years running!

Still the fastest four hours in radio on WEZS 1350 AM

The May 2nd, 2009 Show

8:05-8:40 *TOM BROWN* & *SCOTT WHEELER* (TOM STAYS UNTIL 9)
9:05-9:30 *BRAD O'LEARY* ("SHUT UP, AMERICA!" AUTHOR) P HOPFGARTEN-WM. SMITH
*PAUL & WILLIAM* REMAIN UNTIL NOON

- and perhaps others!

WEZS 1350AM
Every Saturday 8:05am - NOON
Call in at:603-524-6288
Call Toll Free at:1-800-830-8469
Listen live: http://www.wezs.com/advocates
Email during the show: advocates@wezs.com

Feel free to call in or email your comments
Listen to the podcast if you miss the show.
**************************************************************

Add me to the email list: thomaslbrown@yahoo.com

Take me off the email list: thomaslbrownjr@gmail.com

Sapping America's Energy

Hi Everyone,

Here is a great essay from Pete du Pont. I voted for Pete back in 1988 when he ran for President. He had great ideas then and still does now. Read and tell me what you think.

Have a good one
Tom Brown.
***************************************************************

Sapping America's Energy
Global-warming legislation would drive up the cost of everything.

By Pete du Pont
Wall Street Journal
April 16, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980462156321035.html


If Americans don't start paying attention to what Congress is up to, our nation's energy policy may seriously change for the worse. A bill styled the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, soon goes before the House. The enactment of laws to combat global warming is an established priority of the new administration and Congress, and their impact on the lives and opportunities of America's people would be substantial and detrimental.

As Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted last month, "Waxman-Markey would put big government in charge of how much energy people can use. It would be the biggest government intervention in people's lives since the second world war, which was the last time people had to have rationing coupons in order to buy a gallon of gas." And for what? According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth's average rate of warming in the 30 years from 1977 to 2007 was just 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and the global surface temperature has remained virtually flat since 1998.

The Waxman-Markey bill contains some serious mistakes. Slighting nuclear power is one. Nuclear plants generate no carbon dioxide or other pollution, and the 104 already in operation provide America with 73% of its CO2-free electricity generation. It is estimated that each new nuclear plant would employ some 2,000 workers to build and 500 to 600 people to operate. America could use some 40 more nuclear plants, but in the Waxman bill and the Obama administration's policies, additional nuclear power plants are likely nonexistent.

Cap-and-trade policies are another part of the bill intended to give the government more regulatory authority over the energy industry and a great deal more money--perhaps trillions of dollars--some of which would be available to grant to favored people and industries. The bill's outline does not say who would the energy allowances free, who would have to pay for them, and how much they would pay, but it does intend to make energy much more expensive and less available to consumers. Electricity, oil and large manufacturing businesses (which are jointly responsible for 85% of America's greenhouse emissions) would have to obtain at some price federal government pollution permits--"tradable federal permits," or "allowances," for each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. These permits would require reduced plant emissions over time, from a mandate of 3% below 2005 levels in 2012, to 20% in 2020, 42% in 2030, and 83% in 2050.

Another economic mistake at the core of the Waxman bill is the reinstatement of protectionism. Since America's energy restrictions would not apply to manufacturers of goods America imports, unregulated foreign companies could sell their goods in America at lower costs, and thus U.S. manufacturers could be "put at a disadvantage relative to overseas competitors." The Waxman bill would seek to remedy this by making companies eligible for rebates determined and allocated by Washington. If the president found that the rebates "do not substantially correct competitive imbalances" he could establish what Mr. Waxman calls a "border adjustment program" that would require foreign companies to pay for special allowances to "cover" the "carbon contained in U.S.-bound products."

In other words, America would add an international carbon tariff--a global energy tax--to imported goods (just as there was in the Boxer-Lieberman bill that was defeated last year). That would amount to strong protectionism and lead to matching tariffs on goods exported from America.

Not included in the Waxman discussion draft summary is the question of what will become of the cash the government would receive from selling the cap-and-trade allowances. In the Boxer-Lieberman bill, it was estimated that auctioning off half the permits would gain the government some $3.3 trillion by 2050, and that would be handed out by the government to pet projects like "environmental" job training, "wildlife adaptation," international aid, domestic mass transit and so on.

But rather than creating a new subsidy, wouldn't we be better off distributing those revenues to the American people, who would have to pay the carbon tax through higher-priced electricity and manufactured goods? Such an idea was recently offered by author Peter Barnes: send the trillions of dollars received from the companies buying the permits to people as a "cap-and-trade dividend" in the form of equal personal checks for all Americans. The Obama administration thinks the opposite--that a majority of the money raised by cap-and-trade should be sent only to taxpayers making under a certain amount as a part of his Making Work Pay credit.

The Waxman-Markey plan intends to give the federal government near-total control of America's energy supplies and usage. Depending upon how the allowances are organized, it may also create the largest redistribution of money from American families to the federal government since the creation of the American income tax. To keep America prospering, our economy growing, and jobs expanding, we need not less energy, but more of it; not higher energy prices but lower ones; and more energy generation through nuclear power, clean coal and offshore oil and gas as well as possible new energy sources. Waxman-Markey will take us in one direction, but to keep America prospering we need to go in the opposite one.

Ms.Napolitano should step down now!

I can not believe what the Obama Administration is doing with Ms. Napolitano. As an American I am ashamed at treating Canada like this. Canada is America's best friend. Free Trade with Canada works unlike Mexico. We have the largest undefended border in the world and for Ms. Napolitano comparing it to Mexico is totally crazy. I believe President Obama should ask her to step down.

Below are two article that appeared in a Canadian Newspaper National Post. See what they say about her. I agree with them.

Tom Brown
North American Freedom

******************************************************************************
National Post editorial board
Published: Wednesday, April 22, 2009


"U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, in January 2009.

Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

Just what does that mean, exactly?

Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.


In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Story Link
http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1520295

*********************************************************************

Don Martin: Napolitano makes Bush administration look well informed
Posted: April 21, 2009, 6:05 PM by NP Editor
Full Comment, Don Martin

Update: Chris Selley: Making the Bush administration look well-informed


This is borderline insanity.

The most worrisome American official confronting Canada today is a former Arizona governor who thinks the U.S. northern border, which she’s only flown over and never actually crossed on the ground, is a security threat on par with the drug-running, immigrant-smuggling, terrorist-sneaking border wall with Mexico.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is moving unapologetically forward on beefed-up border staffing and enhanced documentation requirements that will make Canadians and travelling Americans yearn for the security paranoia of the George W. Bush administration.

Ms. Napolitano’s brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we’re dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can’t differentiate between a secure border linking the world’s largest trading partners and one that’s a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what’s been described as an ‘invasion’ of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north.

She actually invoked the bogeyman of 9/11 terrorists sneaking into the United States from Canada to bolster the case for a crackdown, even though the most elementary research would have told her there’s no evidence to support that bogus claim.

When challenged on her concerns, she insisted still-secret data, undoubtedly buried with the aliens at Roswell, justifies her concern. She surely must know that only 12 of the 48 al-Qaeda operatives caught between 1993 and 2001 were illegal immigrants and none of those came from Canada.

And there’s simply no comparison between the illegal entry trickle from Canada and the alien immigrant wave and drug smuggling surge pouring into the U.S. from the south. Of the estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. each year, 57% come from Mexico. Just six per cent of those living illegally in the United States are Canadian.

Somebody should also warn the Secretary that recent statistics show 500,000 Canadians spent tourist dollars in her Mexican border state in 2006 and that Arizona rates Canada its second-largest trading partner with almost $3 billion in trade.

The infamous quote from early in her Homeland Security posting was to fret at Mexico’s hurt feelings. “If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border,” she said.

What’s that precisely? Build another Texas wall? Does she have any concept that this 5,013-kilometre land border bisects towns and villages (heck, it even divides the stage from the seats in one Vermont-Quebec movie theatre)?

“The pattern at the Canadian border has been informality,” she went on to say. “The borders are going to be enabled with greater technology, but it’s not going to be going back and forth as if there’s no border anymore.”

Having crossed the border last week, let me assure you there’s nothing informal or lacking about it. When friends on an annual golf getaway crossed at the 1,000 Islands, we joined a bunch of others in getting a major passport shakedown by armed American guards casting a very suspicious eyes at our duty-free haul of booze sandwiched between the bags carrying our instruments of fairway destruction.

They called me forward and demanded to know if I’d ever been arrested. Yes, yes, I confessed, there was a minor drug possession charge when I was just 18 (and I still insist it was Bob Green’s pot), but it was wiped clean by a judge. It took a long discussion with border guards about the dangers of allowing in somebody never convicted of anything criminal before my born-in-the-U.S.A. birth certificate got me waved across.

I digress, but my point is that technology which can alert guards to a 34-year-old minor arrest that never resulted in a conviction shouldn’t have much trouble fingering a known terrorist.

The new Homeland Security boss has a well-known Monty Python fetish. Perhaps she’s decided to pattern herself after the black knight of Holy Grail movie fame, who declares “none shall pass,” only to have his arms and legs hacked off in a swordfight even while insisting the amputations are ‘but a scratch’.

If Janet Napolitano adopts a similarly defiant posture to squeeze her northern border into a business barrier, the United States will be cutting off the arms and legs of its integrated manufacturing base to block an enemy that doesn’t exist.
National Post
dmartin@nationalpost.com

Link to the story
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/04/21/don-martin-napolitano-s-makes-bush-administration-look-well-informed.aspx

www.nationalpost.com

*********************************************************************

Thomas More Law Center Files Suit

This story DHS story is on the Thomas More Law Center website. Check it out.
Thanks
Tom

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Janet Napolitano Over Homeland Security’s Rightwing Extremism Policy

April 16, 200

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed a federal lawsuit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The lawsuit claims that her Department’s “Rightwing Extremism Policy,” as reflected in the recently publicized Intelligence Assessment, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” violates the civil liberties of combat veterans as well as American citizens by targeting them for disfavored treatment on account of the political beliefs. Click here to read the Law Center’s complaint.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham (President of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc (CBR)), and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray. The Law Center claims that Napolitano’s Department (DHS) has violated the First and Fifth Amendment Constitutional rights of these three plaintiffs by attempting to chill their free speech, expressive association, and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims that the Department of Homeland Security encourages law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center stated, “The Obama Administration has declared war on American patriots and our Constitution. The Report even admits that the Department has no specific information on any plans of violence by so-called ‘rightwing extremists.’ Rather, what they do have is the expression of political opinions by certain individuals and organizations that oppose the Obama administration’s policies, and this expression is protected speech under the First Amendment.”

Thompson added, “Janet Napolitano is lying to the American people when she says the Report is not based on ideology or political beliefs. In fact, her report would have the admiration of any current or past dictator in the way it targets political opponents.”

The Report specifically mentions the following political beliefs that law enforcement should use to determine whether someone is a “rightwing extremist”:

• Opposes restrictions on firearms
• Opposes lax immigration
• Opposes the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship and the expansion of social programs
• Opposes continuation of free trade agreements
• Opposes same-sex marriage
• Has paranoia of foreign regimes
• Fear of Communist regimes
• Opposes one world government
• Bemoans the decline of U.S. stature in the world.
• Upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
• . . . and the list goes on

The Law Center is asking the court to declare that the DHS policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments, to permanently enjoin the Policy and its application to the plaintiffs’ speech and other activities, and to award the plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the lawsuit.

Click here to read the Department of Homeland Security’s Report.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

What was DHS thinking?

Hi Everyone,

Today, I am commenting about The DHS Report on right wing extremists. This report is very dangerous to our nation. It states that our own people need to be spied on. . The odd thing about it is that after we ended calling it “a war on terror” We have report going after the right wing citizens in this country. The report warms law enforcement to look out for this people. I do not see left wing groups on this list or anyone from the Presidents party.

From the Report- “It identified as potential terrorist threats people who collect guns, veterans, supporters of border control, and pro-life advocates.” These are Republicans not Democrats.

The question to ask you, is this the kind of Government we want? The paragraph down below is the telling law enforcement what to do if they see a Republican. This passage sounds like East German police state during the cold war.

“DHS encourages recipients of this document to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to DHS and the FBI. When available, each report submitted should include the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people and type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact.”

Ms. Napolitano stands by the report. In my view, Ms. Napolitano should step down. The American people are not going to trust DHS until she does.

Here is the link to the report

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/video/extremismreport.pdf

Let me know me what you think.

Freedom Alert Story! 4-15-09

This is a interesting blog from motherjones. There is a link with the whole bill in it. Please read it and let me know what you think.

-Tom Brown 4-15-09
*****************************************************************************
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet?t=1239779339

Should Obama Control the Internet?

A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.

—By Steve Aquino

181 Comments | Post Comment

Share

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Propeller
• Reddit
• Magnoliacom

• Newsvine
• Furl
• Facebook
• Google
• Yahoo
• Technorati

—Photo from flickr user marcos papapopolus used under a Creative Commons license.

Thu April 2, 2009 12:33 PM PST

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."