PDA

View Full Version : Bill gives Obama power to shut down Internet



Wallace108
06-16-2010, 09:32 PM
I eagerly await the cries of outrage from liberal free-speech advocates (the same ones who attacked George Bush over the Patriot Act) ...


New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.

Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-bill-gives-obama-kill-switch-to-shut-down-the-internet.html

venom
06-16-2010, 09:44 PM
Liberals believe in free speech if only they agree with it .

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:yoMHjUXmDGCFiM:http://blogs.citypages.com/gop/FreeSpeechZone.jpg (http://blogs.citypages.com/gop/FreeSpeechZone.jpg)http://rlv.zcache.com/liberals_believe_in_free_speach_unless_you_are_tsh irt-p23549975602061118835jn_400.jpg

steeldevil
06-16-2010, 09:57 PM
Is that even possible? :noidea:

X-Terminator
06-16-2010, 10:02 PM
This does not surprise me in the least. The Internet is the last bastion of true freedom left in the world, so of course the government wants to control it. The next time some politician says they are about protecting our freedoms, they should be kicked right in the gonads. Because they've repeatedly shown that they are NOT. They are all about taking away as much freedom from the people as they can, while giving themselves more and more power.

SteelCityMom
06-16-2010, 10:02 PM
Is that even possible? :noidea:

No...not really. Not when there are hundreds of thousands of internet pirates out there who can hack nearly any business, site or government they wanted to.

Wallace108
06-16-2010, 10:11 PM
This does not surprise me in the least. The Internet is the last bastion of true freedom left in the world, so of course the government wants to control it. The next time some politician says they are about protecting our freedoms, they should be kicked right in the gonads. Because they've repeatedly shown that they are NOT. They are all about taking away as much freedom from the people as they can, while giving themselves more and more power.

You couldn't be more correct. And Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. Both parties have sold us out.

Vincent
06-16-2010, 10:12 PM
Is that even possible? :noidea:

Its the same sort of thing as making guns illegal and confiscating them. Only the criminals would have guns.

There's not going to be a "kill switch". That would kill all communications including phones and TV.

'Sides... http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2010/6/3/cisco-predicts-fourfold-rise-internet-use-2014/#ixzz0r22DLgiS Way too much money at stake here. They'll fold that little stalinist tool up and, and... put him on a post.

5 more months and the post turtle will be a eunuched post turtle.

Mach1
06-16-2010, 10:13 PM
He did say in his speech that we should be more like China!

fansince'76
06-16-2010, 10:16 PM
Is that even possible? :noidea:

Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. The government could force service providers to give them the "keys" to their Internet backbones by threat of fines and whatnot, but "shutting down" the Internet would essentially shut down the economy as a whole at the same time. Business, commerce, communications and the Internet are all so intertwined at this point that such a move would be a disaster, and political suicide, for anyone to do so.

steeldevil
06-16-2010, 10:24 PM
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. The government could force service providers to give them the "keys" to their Internet backbones by threat of fines and whatnot, but "shutting down" the Internet would essentially shut down the economy as a whole at the same time. Business, commerce, communications and the Internet are so intertwined at this point that such a move would be a disaster, and political suicide, for anyone to do so.

yea if the government does find a way to make this happen Obama will have a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1% chance of being re-elected.

Wallace108
06-16-2010, 10:29 PM
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. The government could force service providers to give them the "keys" to their Internet backbones by threat of fines and whatnot, but "shutting down" the Internet would essentially shut down the economy as a whole at the same time. Business, commerce, communications and the Internet are all so intertwined at this point that such a move would be a disaster, and political suicide, for anyone to do so.

I think the only reason they would shut it down is because of a cyber attack. But they're definitely looking for ways to control it. I don't think it's a coincidence we're seeing this bill at the same time they're talking about propping up newspapers. They can control mainstream media. And they need traditional media until they can get control of the Internet. (Was that a black helicopter I just saw fly overhead? :chuckle:)

fansince'76
06-16-2010, 10:50 PM
I think the only reason they would shut it down is because of a cyber attack.

Doubtful, since any cyber attack of that scope would manifest itself as a denial of service (DOS) attack, which would essentially achieve the same thing as the government "shutting the Internet down," so to speak. I honestly can't think of any sensible reason for the government to "kill" Internet communications on a widespread scale.

MasterOfPuppets
06-16-2010, 10:51 PM
You couldn't be more correct. And Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. Both parties have sold us out.
yup if the reps were in control, the same thing would have happend


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_zcfn2lZIs

The WH
06-17-2010, 08:01 AM
You can't kill the internet. It's almost impossible. Did you see Die Hard 4? You'd have to do something like that, but bigger, more effective, and global.

Mach1
06-17-2010, 08:33 AM
You can't kill the internet. It's almost impossible. Did you see Die Hard 4? You'd have to do something like that, but bigger, more effective, and global.

Yes, we all know what you see in the movies is real, just like pro wrestlin.

The WH
06-17-2010, 11:47 AM
Yes, we all know what you see in the movies is real, just like pro wrestlin.
It's about as real as being able to shutdown the freakin' internet.

Oh, BTW, on wrestling


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKIGXiI

suitanim
06-17-2010, 12:29 PM
Well, giving Obama MORE power is certainly always a really good idea...:sarcasm2:

The WH
06-17-2010, 12:47 PM
i love that smiley

cold-hard-steel
06-17-2010, 01:10 PM
The internet rocks ! I guess it can be used for both good and evil . Good and evil never got along , but they've been living side by side since the beginning . Never ending constant battle to prevail over the other . It's maddness i say !

MasterOfPuppets
06-17-2010, 01:53 PM
No...not really. Not when there are hundreds of thousands of internet pirates out there who can hack nearly any business, site or government they wanted to.

they only need one....the rat..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UKUGZz5Hjw

The WH
06-17-2010, 02:03 PM
Also, I honestly thought that I was going to read that some dude named Bill was going to give Obama power over the internet. My first reaction was (before clicking) ''Who the hell is Bill and where does he get all this power?''

stlrtruck
06-17-2010, 02:32 PM
Isn't this exactly what China does? Control the Internet? What happen to Freedom?

Wallace108
06-17-2010, 11:30 PM
Doubtful, since any cyber attack of that scope would manifest itself as a denial of service (DOS) attack, which would essentially achieve the same thing as the government "shutting the Internet down," so to speak. I honestly can't think of any sensible reason for the government to "kill" Internet communications on a widespread scale.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How are you defining cyber attack? If government computers are hacked into, this could constitute a cyber attack. What does it have to do with a DOS attack?

As far as a reason for the government to kill Internet communications on a widespread scale, what if a foreign entity, say China, launched a massive attack and breached hundreds or thousands of corporate and/or government sites? Would this give the government a reason to kill Internet communications?

Wallace108
06-17-2010, 11:34 PM
You can't kill the internet. It's almost impossible. Did you see Die Hard 4? You'd have to do something like that, but bigger, more effective, and global.

Why do you say it's almost impossible?

The WH
06-18-2010, 12:38 AM
To kill the internet, globally? You tell me.

Wallace108
06-18-2010, 07:27 AM
To kill the internet, globally? You tell me.

I never said anything about a global shutdown. The bill is designed to protect U.S. communications systems. Other countries, not just China, already have similar powers. Though unlikely, it's certainly possible to shut down the Internet within a country.

Here's some info from cnet.com:

A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.

The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html


We can debate whether it WOULD happen, but I think it's apparent that it CAN happen.

BnG_Hevn
06-18-2010, 11:22 AM
I thought it was a joke meaning Bill Gates gave him power...

The only real way to shut down the internet is to shutdown all the companies that provide internet access. Otherwise you just twisting in the wind.

it is akin to shutting down all electricity. Can it be done? Sure. But you'd have to have all the providers of electricity on board.

The internet, in it's simplest of terms, is just a bunch of computers connected together. You have relay points all through the country/world. When a relay point goes down, the "signal" would simply find another path. This is called traceroute.

Again, the only effective way to shut down the internet is if EVERYONE was on board. What are the odds on that?

The WH
06-18-2010, 11:58 AM
I never said anything about a global shutdown. The bill is designed to protect U.S. communications systems. Other countries, not just China, already have similar powers. Though unlikely, it's certainly possible to shut down the Internet within a country.

Here's some info from cnet.com:

A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.

The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html


We can debate whether it WOULD happen, but I think it's apparent that it CAN happen. Sure, we can debate semantics all night long, but it's near impossible to shut down The Internet. By cutting off the internet in the States, you're doing just that, cutting off the internet in the US, you're not ''shutting down the internet''

Dino 6 Rings
06-18-2010, 12:16 PM
Didn't Iran shut down its internet then claim it didn't slaughter 1000s of people during an uprising?

First, don't allow the footage out, then you can kill whoever you want.

Cold Dead Hands Fed...come and get them.

Wallace108
06-18-2010, 04:45 PM
The only real way to shut down the internet is to shutdown all the companies that provide internet access. Otherwise you just twisting in the wind.

it is akin to shutting down all electricity. Can it be done? Sure. But you'd have to have all the providers of electricity on board.

That's exactly what the bill would give the president the power to do ... order companies to shut off access.


Sure, we can debate semantics all night long, but it's near impossible to shut down The Internet. By cutting off the internet in the States, you're doing just that, cutting off the internet in the US, you're not ''shutting down the internet''

Again, we're not talking about a global shutdown. We're talking about the U.S. president having the power to tell U.S. companies to shut down access, whether it's to a single website or a mass shutdown. No one is talking about global access to the Internet.


Didn't Iran shut down its internet then claim it didn't slaughter 1000s of people during an uprising?

First, don't allow the footage out, then you can kill whoever you want.

Cold Dead Hands Fed...come and get them.

I'm not sure about shutting it down, but Iran definitely censors the Internet. China and other countries do the same. Pakistan recently blocked access to Facebook because of a group that poked fun of the Prophet Muhammad. Regardless of the ability to "shut down" the Internet, this bill would give the president the power to censor it. Is that likely? Therein lies the debate ...

Dino 6 Rings
06-18-2010, 04:51 PM
Still, the idea of the US President being able to shut down the Local United States internet in the time of an emergency is a scary proposition.

So if the cops roll into the LA riots after the Lakers win and start blasting people with guns, that could be considered "emergency" and the internet in California can be "shut down". That is something I'm not comfortable with at all. The Internet is a very Freeing Tool for the Citizens of a nation. It allows us to have dialog, communicate on a mass scale and Whistleblow. Word of mouth is great, and the news organizations on the ground could still send their videos out over the airwaves, unless of coarse they are doing it via Wi Fi. That would be shut down. So then we'd have to go all Old School to get the word out.

The censorship in regards to the oil spill is already rather disheartening. Reported today the first dead whale found. I want pictures, I want to see the carnage that BP caused by Violating Federal Drilling Regulations. I want to see the mess that is being caused by the lack of quicker action by the Feds and the US Coast Guard and Navy. We as a nation need to see first hand the ineptness that our Federal Government has shown in this dire ecological disaster.

HometownGal
06-18-2010, 05:00 PM
Isn't this exactly what China does? Control the Internet? What happen to Freedom?

The same thing that happened to Hopey and Changey. :jerkit:

http://theforceofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Bush-miss-me-yet1-500x375.jpg

Wallace108
06-18-2010, 05:00 PM
Still, the idea of the US President being able to shut down the Local United States internet in the time of an emergency is a scary proposition.

So if the cops roll into the LA riots after the Lakers win and start blasting people with guns, that could be considered "emergency" and the internet in California can be "shut down". That is something I'm not comfortable with at all. The Internet is a very Freeing Tool for the Citizens of a nation. It allows us to have dialog, communicate on a mass scale and Whistleblow. Word of mouth is great, and the news organizations on the ground could still send their videos out over the airwaves, unless of coarse they are doing it via Wi Fi. That would be shut down. So then we'd have to go all Old School to get the word out.

The censorship in regards to the oil spill is already rather disheartening. Reported today the first dead whale found. I want pictures, I want to see the carnage that BP caused by Violating Federal Drilling Regulations. I want to see the mess that is being caused by the lack of quicker action by the Feds and the US Coast Guard and Navy. We as a nation need to see first hand the ineptness that our Federal Government has shown in this dire ecological disaster.

I think that's the real fear, Dino. Just as we've seen other countries block or limit access to the Internet, I don't think it's a good idea for our president to have the same power.

ALLD
06-18-2010, 06:11 PM
I hope he doesn't confuse this new button with the one that launches our nuclear arsenal.

The angle behind the bill is to reduce the logistics involved if/when we have another 911. Not to keep us from looking at titties. Terrorists use cell phones and the internet to communicate. Reducing the chain of command and time to shut it all down would give us an advantage with our backup system and also reduce the worst-case scenrio in a sneak attack.

MasterOfPuppets
06-18-2010, 06:21 PM
The same thing that happened to Hopey and Changey. :jerkit:

http://theforceofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Bush-miss-me-yet1-500x375.jpg

if you don't think this idea wasn't already on the GOP to do list, your wrong. newt gingrich has already kicked this idea around in public long ago ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_zcfn2lZIs

ALLD
06-18-2010, 06:25 PM
It wasn't a good idea back then because a Republican thought of it and would be incontrol. Now we have a democrat spinning the idea without giving credit to where it originated from. You think if the bill's sponsor mentioned where the idea came from it would have some effect??...maybe not because some groups would justify that a Democrat would be in control, so everything will be alright...

Wallace108
06-18-2010, 08:00 PM
It wasn't a good idea back then because a Republican thought of it and would be incontrol. Now we have a democrat spinning the idea without giving credit to where it originated from. You think if the bill's sponsor mentioned where the idea came from it would have some effect??...maybe not because some groups would justify that a Democrat would be in control, so everything will be alright...

I remember when Obama was campaigning, he spoke out against the Patriot Act. But as soon as he became president, one of the first things he did was reauthorize the Patriot Act. I can't imagine the outrage if the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act was passed while Bush was president!! Every liberal group would be screaming for Bush's head. I think MOP is right on target when he said, more or less, that both Republicans and Democrats wanted this kind of power. But since the Democrats are in control, few people, especially the mainstream media, are questioning it.

SteelCityMom
06-18-2010, 08:17 PM
I'm on the fence about this I guess...though I still stand firm that there are plenty of hackers in this country who would still have internet access despite a nation-wide "shut-down".

On one hand, I understand the government wanting to be able to do this. There are a lot of ways to attack a country and its people, and one of them is through a computer.

On the other hand, I agree with many others who think this gives the government way too much power. Kind of a double edged sword.

The internet is a great thing, and a dangerous thing.

Texasteel
06-18-2010, 08:29 PM
For some reason a quote popped into my head.

A people that will trade freedom for security will often end with neither one.

I believe it was Ben Franklin, or possibly Thomas Jefferson.

HometownGal
06-18-2010, 08:42 PM
if you don't think this idea wasn't already on the GOP to do list, your wrong. newt gingrich has already kicked this idea around in public long ago ...



Well - Newt is a kookbag so I really don't take much of what he says seriously. :der:

This latest "revelation" doesn't surprise me in the least, as I think Obaaaaaaaaaaaama has more than proven that he is out of his league and is feeling around in the dark for something - anything - to save face no matter how outlandish or insane it may be or how much the people oppose it.

ONE AND DONE.

Wallace108
06-18-2010, 10:26 PM
I'm on the fence about this I guess...though I still stand firm that there are plenty of hackers in this country who would still have internet access despite a nation-wide "shut-down".

On one hand, I understand the government wanting to be able to do this. There are a lot of ways to attack a country and its people, and one of them is through a computer.

On the other hand, I agree with many others who think this gives the government way too much power. Kind of a double edged sword.

The internet is a great thing, and a dangerous thing.

I agree with you SCM. It's definitely a double-edged sword. It's much like the Patriot Act ... in the right hands, it's a great tool. In the wrong hands, a lot of bad things can happen.


For some reason a quote popped into my head.

A people that will trade freedom for security will often end with neither one.

I believe it was Ben Franklin, or possibly Thomas Jefferson.
That was Ben Franklin ... that quote became popular after the Patriot Act was passed. It was true then, and it should be true now.


ONE AND DONE.

We can only hope ...

SteelCityMan786
06-19-2010, 12:54 AM
You couldn't be more correct. And Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats. Both parties have sold us out.

That statement was proven that much more true in the last 10 years.


Its the same sort of thing as making guns illegal and confiscating them. Only the criminals would have guns.

There's not going to be a "kill switch". That would kill all communications including phones and TV.

'Sides... http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2010/6/3/cisco-predicts-fourfold-rise-internet-use-2014/#ixzz0r22DLgiS Way too much money at stake here. They'll fold that little stalinist tool up and, and... put him on a post.

5 more months and the post turtle will be a eunuched post turtle.

Under 4 Months from now he can prepare himself to see his majority in congress die so fast that a cheeath won't be able to keep up.


He did say in his speech that we should be more like China!

They have the bulk of our debt, so it doesn't surprise me he said that.


Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. The government could force service providers to give them the "keys" to their Internet backbones by threat of fines and whatnot, but "shutting down" the Internet would essentially shut down the economy as a whole at the same time. Business, commerce, communications and the Internet are all so intertwined at this point that such a move would be a disaster, and political suicide, for anyone to do so.

The government knows that the internet is a vital part of our economy. If they were to do this, it wouldn't surprise me if another economic downturn comparable to the great depression if not worse.


yea if the government does find a way to make this happen Obama will have a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1% chance of being re-elected.

He has 0 chance of getting my vote at this point.


yup if the reps were in control, the same thing would have happend


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_zcfn2lZIs

The Military Commissions Act was passed under Republican leadership. Basically quite a few of them have sold us out, but there Democratic counterparts are no more innocent then they are. In fact, they're much worse. Just because something is "new" doesn't mean it's for the better of this country. People need to get it through their heads that if you let one party keep control of all three branches of government, more times then not, corruption is going to take place. The Bush administration is a PRIME example


Well, giving Obama MORE power is certainly always a really good idea...:sarcasm2:

Basically overpowering the president is a ticket to failure. I know I plan on cutting that majority in the senate when Pat Toomey runs. I don't want Sestak to take backstabber's seat.


The internet rocks ! I guess it can be used for both good and evil . Good and evil never got along , but they've been living side by side since the beginning . Never ending constant battle to prevail over the other . It's maddness i say !

Coming into the 21st century :rofl


The same thing that happened to Hopey and Changey. :jerkit:

http://theforceofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Bush-miss-me-yet1-500x375.jpg

I really don't care to have him back.


It wasn't a good idea back then because a Republican thought of it and would be incontrol. Now we have a democrat spinning the idea without giving credit to where it originated from. You think if the bill's sponsor mentioned where the idea came from it would have some effect??...maybe not because some groups would justify that a Democrat would be in control, so everything will be alright...

This control on the internet was NEVER a good idea. I still believe that a free market economy is the way to go. It can be done right if properly regulated and the laws are enforced.


Well - Newt is a kookbag so I really don't take much of what he says seriously. :der:

This latest "revelation" doesn't surprise me in the least, as I think Obaaaaaaaaaaaama has more than proven that he is out of his league and is feeling around in the dark for something - anything - to save face no matter how outlandish or insane it may be or how much the people oppose it.

ONE AND DONE.

Don't remind me of Newt ran the show. He makes me want to hurl and has seriously made me want to question WHY I even am registered with a political party.

The WH
06-19-2010, 02:47 AM
Until the internet is shut down in the States (since we've started being specific to suit our arguments) and not one single person can access anything, I still say it's near impossible.

The WH
06-19-2010, 02:49 AM
The same thing that happened to Hopey and Changey. :jerkit:

http://theforceofreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Bush-miss-me-yet1-500x375.jpg
No, George, stay in Texas.

Wallace108
06-19-2010, 05:38 AM
Until the internet is shut down in the States (since we've started being specific to suit our arguments) and not one single person can access anything, I still say it's near impossible.

Can you cite one example of me or anyone else (other than yourself) talking about a global shutdown? If the U.S. passes a law outlining procedures for companies to follow, it applies only to U.S. companies. Congress can't pass a law telling companies in Russia, China, Germany, or any other country what to do.

If you still think it's impossible to shut it down in a particular country, here's some different views:

The bill would grant President Obama the power to declare a “national cyber-emergency” at his discretion and force private companies tied to the Web, including Internet service providers and search engines, to take action in response—moves that could include limiting or even cutting off their connections to the World Wide Web for up to 30 days.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-18/new-bill-would-let-obama-police-internet-for-national-security-reasons/


Bill Allows Obama Power to Shut Down Internet
7:41 PM - April 6, 2009 by Marcus Yam - source: Tom's Hardware US

The President of the United States is said by some to be the most powerful man in the world -- but should he have control of the spread of information.

A legislation proposed on April 1 is no joke. The proposed bill would grant President Obama the authority to shut down public and private networks -- including the restriction of internet traffic -- as part of a cybersecurity emergency plan.

The bill was introduced by West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller and Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican from Maine. The aim of the bill is to unite both public and private network operators to develop regulations for what to do in case of a cyber attack.

For obvious reasons, many are concerned about what such power could mean if the wrong actions were taken. Leslie Harris, president and CEO at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), said in a NetworkWorld story, “This is pretty sweeping legislation. Seems the President could turn off the Internet completely or tell someone like Verizon to limit or block certain traffic. There is a lot to worry about in this bill.”

While the public sector may be used to more government regulation and involvement, such control will undoubtedly bother corporations. CDT’s Harris added that regulatory rules could force companies to all conform to a similar system, which could hamper security and innovation. For example, if a critical security flaw was found in a mandated system, then the entire network could be susceptible to such a flaw.

Corporations, particularly internet-centric companies, are keeping close watch on how this will pan out.

“We are currently studying this legislation,” said Dan Martin, a spokesman for Google. “Security has been a priority at Google from the beginning of the company – we recognize that secure products are instrumental in maintaining the trust our users place in us.”

The politicians behind the bill do clarify that this is just the first proposal and that there is still room for much revision and evolution.

“This legislation is the beginning of the process - the objective of this cybersecurity bill is to start the debate and chairman Rockefeller welcomes comments from all parties, he is sitting down with stakeholders already and he welcomes input from all those supportive of the legislation and those with concerns,” said Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/obama-shut-down-internet-legislation,7478.html

The WH
06-19-2010, 06:38 AM
Get fired up, wallace, FIRED UP!

You will never be able to convince me that the government will be able to shut down the internet connection to the entire US. You couldn't impose a fine big enough that would convince some of the giant internet service provider companies to shut down ALL of their internet service for 10 minutes, much less 30 days. Verizon would pay the fine for the 30 days and keep their service up. Time Warner, Comcast, etc.... would do the exact same thing.

Sure they did it (sort of) in China, but the US ain't China now, is it?

If the day comes that the government prevents every single person in the united states of america (that includes keeping people that border Canada from accessing their canadian buddy's router and getting online)from being able to access the internet for longer than an hour, I will pay you 10 million dollars. The odds are better for me winning the lottery twice than a nationwide DOS.

Wallace108
06-19-2010, 10:09 AM
Get fired up, wallace, FIRED UP!

I'm not getting fired up ... you accused me of changing my argument, which I didn't do. I see that you couldn't find one example.


You will never be able to convince me that the government will be able to shut down the internet connection to the entire US. You couldn't impose a fine big enough that would convince some of the giant internet service provider companies to shut down ALL of their internet service for 10 minutes, much less 30 days. Verizon would pay the fine for the 30 days and keep their service up. Time Warner, Comcast, etc.... would do the exact same thing.
A lot of companies didn't like the Patriot Act, but they went a long with it. It's debatable if it would happen, but if something jeopardized national security, such as a massive cyber attack, and the president ordered ISPs to shut down access, I assure you they would comply.


Sure they did it (sort of) in China, but the US ain't China now, is it?
Not yet, but in some regards it seems we're heading that way.


If the day comes that the government prevents every single person in the united states of america (that includes keeping people that border Canada from accessing their canadian buddy's router and getting online)from being able to access the internet for longer than an hour, I will pay you 10 million dollars. The odds are better for me winning the lottery twice than a nationwide DOS.
I never argued that it would happen, only that it was possible.
If you're saying there's nothing I can say to convince you, then there's no point in trying. A lot of experts who know a lot more about it than I do seem to think it's possible. :noidea:

Besides, the real issue isn't whether it's possible to shut down all access, seeing as how most of us believe it wouldn't happen anyway. The real issue is the president having the power to limit or block access at all.