Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Is this just a way DHS to regulate the Internet more?

Fears of Web clogs during major H1N1 outbreak
GAO: Homeland Security not ready if pandemic causes more telework...

Answer Question

Asked by Anonymous at 5:26 PM on Oct. 27, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Answers (11)
  • Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:26 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • Sounds like another false flag operation to me -- just an excuse for the gov't to get more entangled in people's lives.

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:28 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • The road is getting bumpier. Can you imagine what would happen if there was a major shutdown of the internet? Would you have phone service? Could you access your bank accounts quickly? How do you pay your bills...communicate with loved ones? Do you work online? It is a scary scenario.

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 5:43 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • It's one thing asking to shut down busy websites that don't conduct business - but asking - not forcing regulation - and of course there would have to be reimbursement for money lost on advertising etc (like Facebook, MySpace, even CafeMom) Commerce websites though (Like eBay or Amazon) would be more expensive to reimburse due to the amount of traffic...I don't know -- there's something to be said for gold or silver currency...maybe a better solution (for the short term) is ASK the public to only go online if necessary...JMO...

    Answer by Anonymous at 5:51 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • It's not an unreasonable expectation, though. We know that phone lines jam with overuse in a major disaster such as an earthquake or fire. Computer networks are subject to the same ills.

    Answer by gdiamante at 5:57 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • This flu is not any worse than any other. This is hype from the govt to scare you. In a normal flu season 35,000 people die. This is from the regular flu not H1N!. Obama wants control over the media and telacommunications. What better way than to call this a national emergency. A national emmergency is when there is a large terrorist attack with threats on other sites.

    Answer by Scorpio359 at 6:13 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • The article ends with: "An expectation of unlimited Internet access during a pandemic is not realistic," he added.

    And it sums up the whole article.

    People are NOT morons who need gov't regulation imposed IN CASE an epidemic MIGHT keep a lot of people at home & using their computers. Americans have responded many times before to shortages, emergency rationing, etc.

    So we don't get "unlimited Internet access" ... so what? We adjust. No federal system needs to be imposed to give "gov't permission" for Internet carriers to take emergency measures.

    Answer by waldorfmom at 6:14 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • Its more of a way to open the doors for silencing the opposition

    Answer by Carpy at 6:41 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • Well, BO did say he would regulate the internet during a national emergency. Voila, he has one. That was all he needed to get it. I hope he has more sense than to restrict access to the internet. I still hold out hope that his handlers are not stupid enough to allow him to say something like that. Or, maybe, he should. Then he would be finished (impeached for misuse of presidental power) and we can get on to the next.

    Answer by jesse123456 at 8:10 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

  • Umm it says internet providers are the ones who would need to ask for the right to block certain websites. This would be your internet provider not the government, the government would not be the one actually doing it. All Obama is stating is he would work with them if it was needed and there isn't even a plan on the books for it, so how is it some big government plan to control us if there isn't even a plan yet??

    Answer by PsychMommie at 8:21 PM on Oct. 27, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.