Bill gives Obama power to shut down Internet

[Dino 6 Rings]

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]

Isn't this exactly what China does? Control the Internet? What happen to Freedom?

The same thing that happened to Hopey and Changey.

[Wallace108]

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]

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]

The same thing that happened to Hopey and Changey.

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 ...

[ALLD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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/ne...#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

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...

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.

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.

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]

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]

The same thing that happened to Hopey and Changey.

No, George, stay in Texas.

[Wallace108]

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-a...urity-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/oba...tion,7478.html

[The WH]

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]

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.

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.