S.3480 - Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010

A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and other laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States. view all titles (4)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and other laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States. as introduced.
  • Popular: Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 as introduced.
  • Short: Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 as reported to senate.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 39 total comments.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    dennycraine 06/18/2010 11:21am

    that’s because you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand how the internet works. You can’t just “turn off” the internet, even if it were possible (it’s not) doing so would cause catastrophic damage to the economy, All our financial systems, all our security systems … we’re so reliant on the internet that if you shut it down there’s a question of whether society will continue to operate normally anywhere in the Western world. Also the internet does NOT operate via international borders, turning off the internet in the US would turn it off all around the world. That’s like giving a single country the right to poison the ocean or the atmosphere. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO US.

  • Comm_reply
    Trisha 06/21/2010 6:39am

    You do realize that other countries block access to much of the internet don’t you? It seems to me that if they can do it, then the US could do it too.

  • Comm_reply
    Trisha 06/21/2010 6:41am

    To clarify – I mean that it is physically possible. I am absolutely against the government having the authority to do this.

  • Comm_reply
    mastermeerkat 06/25/2010 12:45pm

    the internet is not based in the US, it has no true base.

  • Comm_reply
    zxcvmjg 07/13/2010 10:24pm

    that’s because you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand how the internet works. You can’t just “turn off” the internet,

    How the hell do they plan to do this? I mean, specifically how would you go about shutting down the internet? Good luck.
    I’m writing a paper for school right now about this. I will probably post it. I told my entire class and my professor about this bill and they all laughed at the idea. This is a joke right?

  • Comm_reply
    americanita 12/12/2010 7:26am

    If it is a joke, it’s a very bad one. Slowly but surely the govt is diminishing our freedoms in the name of “National Securtiy” & other BS. I have a lot of family & friends from Cuba & other “oppressive” govt’s & they all say the same thing..what happened in thier country is starting to happen here on the DL of course they can’t make it obvious b/c they know we would fight it ASAP so they do it slowly, saying that it’s good for us, that it will protect us from the ppl who hate us 4 absolutely no good reason. This is an excuse to CENSOR the internet, to CENSOR Americans.We need to fight this bill-go to www.infowars.com-viewer discretion advised…

  • Comm_reply
    zeocrash 06/21/2010 6:27am

    there is no way that this bill can be created to preserve people’s freedoms. the bill it’s self is an attack on people’s freedoms. You say it’s important to protect against attacks on the internet. This bill will allow the government to take down the internet within the US, disrupting communications in a way that most cyber attackers could only dream of.

  • DR1665 06/18/2010 8:14am

    What would such a large scale cyber-attack seek to accomplish?

    More than likely, the complete and total shut down of the internet – commerce and communication – within the United States.

    What would this bill give the President the power to do?

    Mandate a complete and total shut down of the internet – commerce and communication – within the United States.

    This sort of thing goes on in China and Venezuela. It shouldn’t happen in America. Give them an inch, they take a mile.

    What happens when we give them a mile?

  • FallenMorgan 06/18/2010 11:23am

    Sure is fascism in here.

  • AbbeyNormal 06/18/2010 8:25pm
    Link Reply
    + 12

    I think a cyber attack would be far more safe than the government willy nilly shutting down parts or all of the internet.

    The federal government has far too many powers that were never granted them. They most certainly do not need this one. If they are worried about government leaks then the government should move off of the internet and set up their own government network that is completely separate from the public internet. That way they can protect themselves without infringing on more rights of the citizens.

  • mdimore 06/19/2010 8:18am

    this bill is the cyber 9/11 that it is supposed to defend against. i think it is an absurd idea that could and probably would be abused horribly.

  • ikester8 06/19/2010 9:00am

    The logic behind this is identical to the logic in every war against civilians: “We had to kill the Internet in order to save it.”

  • Comm_reply
    zeocrash 06/21/2010 6:30am

    Indeed, shutting down the internet in the US is the same logic as nuking new york to make sure it’s inhabitants aren’t killed by terrorists (i admit i added some comic exageration, but the principal is the same)

  • Labyrinth 06/19/2010 11:20am

    In the ideology of our founding fathers and the Constitution this bill is a travesty. As it reads a company doesn’t have to comply if they are willing to pay a fine. Everyone knows the government loves to put thier foot in the door, often mis-using the new powers they obtain, and hardly ever respond fast enough to prevent a catastrophy… they only show up after the damage is done. The bill might look good on paper but the government has never proven themselves to be competant or trustworthy enough to have such powers. And they are going to ‘create’ anther agency. Government is too big as it is, many agencies never play nice or coordinate with each other as it is. Even in this oil spill they have no central figure of authority. Government needs to be limited to merely providing opportunity for its citizens and protect us from obsticals in our path. Past that, they need to get the hell out of our way and let citizens enjoy thier liberties and freedom without favoritism to any one group.

  • KenOziah 06/19/2010 12:57pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    This is just another push by liberals to get more government control over our lives….‘to make our world better’…blah, blah, blah. Anyone ever see Demolition Man? Yeah, I know it’s a Stallone flick, but the system of government installed in the movie reminds me of what these liberals want. Bad, bad, bad.

  • Comm_reply
    zeocrash 06/21/2010 6:34am

    I’m not entirely sure how this is a push by liberals. lieberman isn’t particularly liberal.

  • Comm_reply
    mica1884 06/27/2010 6:32pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    His daring to move out of lock step with the Democrat party on one issue doesn’t make him anything other than a liberal. You can’t change an old leopard’s spots . . . just the same as Susan Collins isn’t particularly conservative.

    Admit it. They own him.

  • Comm_reply
    zeocrash 06/29/2010 7:39am

    lieberman is a centrist.

    as for this being a push by liberals, it’s not.

    The problem with bipartisan politics is that it encourages the group mentality with respect to politics (“either you’re on our side or you’re the total opposite to us”). In reality politics is much broader than just a simple line from left to right. As well as left to right there is also a scale from authoratarianism to libertarianism. It’s possible to be both conservative or liberal and in favour of personal freedoms. Just as it’s possible to be both conservative or liberal and against personal freedoms (hitler and stalin).

  • Comm_reply
    Trisha 06/21/2010 6:44am

    Right, because liberals are always the first to limit freedoms. Try again.

  • Comm_reply
    tpcreef 06/21/2010 7:04pm

    As a liberal, I have to tell you that you are misinformed. We do not want this bill, and this bill is not one based in liberal principles. I believe that this bill follows conservative principles, and it honestly reminds me of Bush and the PATRIOT Act.

  • Comm_reply
    mica1884 06/27/2010 6:23pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Oh puh-lease. Where do you get off equating limiting government with pushing for an all-powerful nanny state? I’m insulted that you would even try to shove this under a “conservative” label. Not only that, there’s only so much you can stick on Bush, and that trick ran dry along with the Red Sea. Try again.

  • Comm_reply
    zeocrash 06/30/2010 12:48am

    i hate to break it to you but the red sea is still very much full of water

  • Comm_reply
    americanita 12/12/2010 7:32am

    In case you haven’t noticed, most ppl here are against it. Btw, the GOP AND the Dem’s are supporting this bill. It’s not conservative vs liberal anymore, it’s the working class citizens of America vs their ineffective,oppressive government..

  • voter517 06/20/2010 10:27pm

    Shutting of ALL of the interet?? U mean not just united states but 100% of internet??? If so, united states definetly shouldn’t have right to shut off the internet!! But if it would be JUST united states, it would still be wrong for the country itself and the other countries because over 50% of websites are from united states and lots of people are dependent from internet. It’s like that because our world is all build around electricity and almost everything works with electricity, we are depend from electricity. If all electricity would suddely have taken off, what would we have? Dead people (without electric devices that keep them alive), junk, crap, sucides, broken cars (because lights doesn’t work), out of order-hospitals, no defense-systems against criminals….. Closing internet is smaller thing than closing electricity, but effect would be still breaking for many many systems….

  • tpcreef 06/21/2010 7:03pm

    This bill is a threat to our freedom, and provides the government with too much power over one of the last truly free mediums. First, government passed the PATRIOT Act, a shameful piece of American legislation. This is a bill that is being proposed out of irrational fear and it needs to be stopped.

    As a liberal, I vehemently oppose this bill. This is not a bill based in liberal principles, but follows the conservative approach to defense. This is an extension of the abuse of power we saw with the PATRIOT Act. This is unconstitutional and needs to be stopped.

  • Comm_reply
    Trisha 06/22/2010 4:32am

    I agree completely. If it makes it through Congress, I think Obama will veto it. I think we need to make it clear to him and everyone in Congress that we are opposed to this. Let them know we aren’t fooled by the fear tactics.

  • Comm_reply
    diegueno 06/22/2010 8:50am

    With all due respect, your faith in Obama is naïve. Any POTUS seems to want to accumulate as much power as possible for himself and the office in that order.

  • Comm_reply
    mastermeerkat 06/25/2010 12:46pm

    this bill expands executive power, and obama is just another slimy politicians. hes gonna sign it.

  • Comm_reply
    JeffWasHere 07/24/2010 1:50pm

    well this may be along the conservative approach…. but the liberals are pushing for it now.


Vote on This Bill

4% Users Support Bill

22 in favor / 485 opposed
 

Send Your Senator a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments