Some tyrants are again pushing to end freedom on the Internet, perhaps the last place any semblance of freedom exists. Along with "hate crimes" legislation criminalizing free speech, patrolling the Internet will spell an end to free speech online.

Here's my favorite part of the tyrants' argument:

This [cybersecurity] is a strategic issue on par with weapons of mass destruction and global jihad.

Folks like me who can properly name our global enemy, Koranic Islam, and our domestic ones, socialists, are "on par with weapons of mass destruction and global jihad," because on our blogs we oppose the government's fantasies. Sweet! I'm a weapon of mass destruction! If only that were true, I'd be a lot more effective in the war for freedom, truth, and holiness.

The tyrants continue:

Civil libertarians may worry that, in a world consumed with terrorism, the protection for civil liberties may take a back seat to national security and public safety.

There's no back seat about it. Civil liberties will be (already have been?) expelled, never to return without another armed revolution.

And then:

But in a world where the Internet citizen is about to embrace cloud computing (or, put another way, in a world where a citizen's most sensitive data may routinely be globally accessible and in the possession of third parties), we have a unique opportunity to proactively decide what the right rules should be.

I have far less concern about third parties being in possession of my most sensitive data--as long as I can still defend my family with lawful force--than I do about the government being in possession of the same information.

Here, they demonstrate their immense wisdom:

We believe that cyberspace cannot be secured without regulation.

Yes, regulation has worked so well in ending crime in the physical world. Our 20,000 gun-related regulations have really done their job to prevent violent crime (as opposed to the abundant evidence proving freedom [for gun-owners], not regulation, reduces crime). I'm sure we can expect the same bang-up job in cyberspace.

They conclude with this wonderful example of doublethink:

Our discussions made it clear that government programs must provide security while also protecting privacy and civil liberties. Greater security must reinforce citizens' rights, not come at their expense.