Rockefeller attaches cybersecurity bill to National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2014

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. Where says:

    It would help a lot if you would point to the offending sections of the bill.

    • admin says:

      Wow. You didn’t read anything written nor are you aware of what your government is attempting to do behind your back. I usually don’t have time to reply to comments, but I’m begging you to read and watch everything I put on that article which will link you to what you need to know. We need ALL Americans on board. Thank you.

      • Drama is contagious says:

        Why don’t you just answer his question once. Then it will be posted and everyone can read it . You wouldn’t have to answer anymore than one time. If you are so concerned about this, you would think you could take the time from your busy schedule to help others see the tyranny you clearly see. Since you clearly know exactly where it is , please show the rest of us sheep the light.

        • Objectivity is key. says:

          I read the bill, although just about any piece of legislation can be interpreted to suit ones own interests, I did not see anything in there that would have any direct impact on an individual. In fact under section 3 it specifically states that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer any regulatory authority on any Federal, State, tribal, or local department or agency.”. It appears to be more of a cooperative effort between private corporation and government to increase malicious intent on the internet. Really the only part I read that couldbe an issue is where it lays the groundwork that the Director can implement new programs for cybersecurity later on at his/her own discretion, but nothing states any monitoring outright of individuals, or at least there is nothing that would give authority on top of what they already have.

    • John says:

      I’m with you where, I read it and can not find this wording. Admin, please point it out for me.

    • Mongoose says:

      Alphabet — is that you?

  2. Carl Collicott says:

    In order to ascertain the limits of any given “Act” of Congress, whether its legislation for the several states of the union, or for international agreements. Suffice it to sat Congress stopped legislating for the states about 100 years ago, a simply solution, is to enact “laws” according to foreign agreements, and then try to enforce the “laws” on the American citizen. Listed on the International labor Organization/ International Maritime Labor, website (below), is a host of “Acts” of Congress that have no application to the several states. Included in the list is the Homeland Security Act, the Patriot Act, the Public health Service Act, the later amended by the ACA. And of course the National Defense Authorization Act. Consistent with the nature of the NDAA, the definition of a “United states citizen”, is a “Shipping Corporation, Title 46 U.S.C., section 802.

    Homeland Security Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-296).

    *Uniting and strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act, 2001 (107-569).

    Public Health Service Act (42 USC, Chapter 6A). amended by section 1001 of public Law 111-148 ACA, OBAMAMCARE.

    2003-11-24 USA-2003-L-67183
    United States
    General provisions
    National Defence Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136).
    Congressional and Administrative News, 2004-02, No. 12, pp. 1392-1826

    Comprehensive legislation authorising appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defence. Provides for military contstruction, defence activities of the Department of Energy, and personnel strength for the Armed Forces. Also regulates military personnel policy, compensation and other benefits of military personnel, and health care of military personnel.

    The PTA (below) lists the mandatory regulation as Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations section 296

    Public Laws—Continued
    108–136 …………………………………..46 Part 296

    46 CFR 296.1 – PURPOSE.
    • CFR
    • Updates
    • Authorities (U.S. Code)
    prev | next
    § 296.1
    This part prescribes regulations implementing the provisions of Subtitle C, Maritime Security Fleet Program, Title XXXV of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, the Maritime Security Act of 2003 (MSA 2003), governing Maritime Security Program (MSP) payments for vessels operating in the foreign trade or mixed foreign and domestic commerce of the United States allowed under a registry endorsement issued under 46 U.S.C. 12105. The MSA 2003 provides for joint responsibility between the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) for administering the law. These regulations provide the framework for the coordination between DOD and DOT in implementing the MSA 2003. Implementation of the MSA 2003 has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Maritime Administrator, U.S. Maritime Administration and by the Secretary of Defense to the Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, respectively.

    46 CFR 296.2 – DEFINITIONS.
    • CFR
    • Updates
    • Authorities (U.S. Code)
    prev | next
    § 296.2

    Act means the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ).

    Section 2 Citizen means a United States citizen within the meaning of section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916, 46 U.S.C. 802, without regard to any statute that “deems” a vessel to be owned and operated by a Section 2 Citizen.

    46 U.S.C.—Continued
    802—803………………………………….46 Part 355
    • CFR
    • Updates
    • Authorities (U.S. Code)
    prev | next
    § 355.2
    Requirements regarding evidence of U.S. citizenship; affidavit guide.
    (a) In order to establish that a corporation is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of section 2, Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, the form of affidavit to be used as a guide is hereby prescribed for execution in behalf of the primary corporation and filing with an application or, if required, subsequent filing within 30 days after the annual meeting of the stockholders (if the primary corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary and contrary to the bylaw provision does not hold the annual meeting of stockholders, the subsequent filing should be annually and related to the date of the original filing) as evidence of the continuing U.S. citizenship of a “person” as defined in section 1, Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, which shall read as follows

    Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

    46 App.:802(a) (words before 3d comma and after 11th comma).
    Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 451
    Title The system of liability of articles III and IV of the Hague (Visby) Rules

    The Shipping Act, 1916, referred to in text, is act Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 451, 39 Stat. 728, as
    amended, which is classified generally to chapter 23 (§ 801 et seq.) of this Appendix.
    For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 842 of this Appendix
    and Tables.

    Title The system of liability of articles III and IV of the Hague (Visby) Rules

  3. disasterjunkie says:

    Revolution is coming!

    we number in the millions .. stop that.

  4. John says:

    Trust me, I am fully aware of the threats to my liberties in this administration. I do need help on this one though, I have read the entire bill. Please can you show me where it states that it gives the government the right to en-prison me for anti government postings.

  5. Nick says:

    Carl Collicot, thank you for posting that. I now know why Obama would even sign the NDAA, and why Fox and misguided hippie sites which I normally respect would pounce on it without reading it.

  6. Crystal says:

    After the my past 6 months of hell, I think any office of the Government nor any private citizen should be allowed to break my constitutional right of privacy! I live in America where I am suppose to have my personal freedom! If we don’t stand up as A Free Nation soon we will be walking Robots. And NO the President of US does not have a right to my privacy , nor do I have a right to his!

  7. Crystal says:

    Not be allowed!

  8. tinman says:

    There is only one reason a shit with the name ‘rockefeller’ would want anything to do with the internet…control.
    Fuck that douche bag!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>