Obama to be given the right to shut down the internet with 'kill switch' Read more:

[rosie]

Well, it is official. Seems the internet looks like a weapon now to the governments. Not a good day for free expression. :suspicious:

Quote:
He would be able to order popular search engines such a Google and Yahoo to suspend access their websites in times of national emergency.

Other US based Internet service providers as well as broadband providers would also come under his control in times of a 'cybersecurity emergency.' Any company that failed to comply would be subject to huge fines.

Critics of the new law, which has been proposed by former presidential candidate Joe Liebermann, said it would be an abuse of power to let the White House control the internet.

TechAmerica, one of the largest U.S. technology lobby groups, said the new law had the 'potential for absolute power.'.

The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by Lieberman who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.

A sustained terror attack on multiple cities would be considered a national emergency as would a cyber attack by 'hackers' on the US financial system.

The director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair warned earlier this year that the US is 'severely threatened' by malicious cyber attacks.

The number of attacks on Government departments has increased by 400 per cent in the last three years.

Under the proposed bill, which has been dubbed an Internet kill switch', the US Government would effectively seize control of access to the internet.

Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to 'preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people'.

He said: 'For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287695/Obama-given-right-shut-internet-kill-switch.html#ixzz0rJAU6MIq

[Humble Janitor]

You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it. The internet is not going away as long as there are people dedicated to hacking/cracking it. I would bet that people would work behind the scenes to keep some semblance of the internet going. If not, then there was life before the internet and there will be life after.

[unplugged]

You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it. The internet is not going away as long as there are people dedicated to hacking/cracking it. I would bet that people would work behind the scenes to keep some semblance of the internet going. If not, then there was life before the internet and there will be life after.

I agree with you. In fact, such a move may backfire in that while the "average" non-techie user is shut out, those who are the real targets to shut up are going to be the very ones who figure out a way to continue access sans the controllers.

In any event, the primary area of concern should NOT be the "googles," etc. on the web. It is the ACCESS nodes controlled by wireless, fiber optic and satellite providers.

[Operator]

I am on an island in the Caribbean. Internet is interrupted very frequently lately and sometimes slower than a dial-up connection. The reason given by the one and only ISP here is maintenance.

But I think after so many weeks it is not the case ... If I speed test to their servers it's ok (locally everything is fine). It's the connection from the island to the outside world that's degraded ...
(I know satellite is one of their main connections ... did they lose a satellite connection ?)

Bottom line is: "You never miss the water until the well runs dry". There is nothing to solve through hacking here ... just degrade the capacity and you will get an idea what it is like not to be
connected to the rest of the world like it used to be. When info stops flowing ... a lot more comes to a screeching halt. I think we should listen once more to the Dan Sherman (http://projectcamelot.org/dan_sherman.html) interview

[jeannacav]

Here is another thought about that.
Business and banking and government is being done over the internet more and more all the time.
They need it to stay up.
[Business is better on the net than anywhere unless you live in a big city.
Banking is almost exclusively done over the net, and we know they want the way to collect money.
Government services like paying property taxes and auto plates and social security activities are all being accomplished online.]

They COULD threaten us with shutting it down, and if we are so easily thrown into fear (I was at first, too) that we lose our senses, we could get bullied into accepting an unacceptable kind of non freedom, but we do not have to accept that, if we know it is not something that would ever happen.
If we say..., "Go ahead, shut it down!" then they will need to find some excuse to open it up again because they need it perhaps more than we suspect.
They rely on it.
If we knuckle under in fear, we could be made to accept the unacceptable.

Please everyone, think this through!

jeanna

[Fredkc]

Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to 'preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people'.
First of all, ANY time you hear this phrase, you know for a fact, someone is lieing to you. Nobody in Congress, or the Administration takes an oath to "protect people".

What they all take an oath to do is "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

There are specific jobs given to government. They have no others, except through usurpation. They have their oaths...
Article II Section 1: (The President) "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article IV: (Everyone else) "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution"

... but keeping anyone safe is really only mentioned in terms of insuring domestic Tranquility.


Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.


He said: 'For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets.

Part 1: "the Internet can also be a dangerous place"
Not his damned job! Says so, right here:
"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. "

Here is the biggest, dirtiest lie in US politics today. No one, and I mean nobody "gets" ANY rights from the Constitution! Nope! Not even in the so-called Bill Of Rights! Go read them (http://fredsitelive.com/politics/usconst.htm#amd0)!

Each and every Amendment is written "in the negative". They are NOT about what you get... as a US citizen you had all this already! Had it before the Constitution was even written. They are written in the negative, because they are very specific declarations about what government will never do, and has no authority to touch. Get it?!?

So government is not only given no authority, but is specifically prohibited from passing any law that lets government interfere with speech, press, and people to peaceably assemble. The Internet represents all three.

Part 2: "electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets."

"personal bank accounts": Not Congress' job!
"industrial secrets": Not their job either.
"key infrastructure to government": Well golly! He finally hit on something that IS their job. Also, it's a job government has totally failed at. The US government's computer infrastructure leaks like a G-d Damned sieve!

If Liebermann has a shred of credibility in this (relax, he doesn't) then it's because he knows damned well the government's computers are sitting ducks. What he is proposing is a pure Statist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism) approach to a specific problem.

He wants to: Throw away his oath (did that decades ago), Throw away the Constitution, and just make something up. Government giving itself more power it never had, and never should have. Power it will never give back.

Link to a good CNet.com article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html).
Link to the 197 page proposed bill (http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=4ee63497-ca5b-4a4b-9bba-04b7f4cb0123) (PDF).

Here endeth the rant. ;)

Fred

[Anchor]

LOL - as if stopping Google will help with cyber attacks

[Jonathon]

Realize that the oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States has nothing to do with the subjects (mostly you and I). The Constitution is a security defined as:
Something given or deposited as surety for the fulfillment of a promise or an obligation, the payment of a debt, etc. One who becomes surety for another. An evidence of debt or of property, as a bond or a certificate of stock.

See CONSTITUTOR, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

What they protect and defend are the creditors who financed/purchased this security (The Blessings of Liberty) - that being the international bankers whom we all unwittingly tithe and serve with our ignorance etc. We live in the Democracy - the de facto bankrupt state created when we defaulted twice (70 years per instance) on the original post Revolutionary War debt (The Constitution) and lost our individual sovereignty (1929).

My apologies for the quick cliff notes version, however supporters of The Constitution have no clue what it is they are actually supporting. It's all smoke and mirrors.

As far as taking the internet down. That's GREAT news - talk about a mass wake-up event. Washington will be nothing but 7 bricks and 1/2 a charred monument inside of a week.

[Lost Soul]

Facism lives!

Remember, the more desperately they try to control us, the closer they are to losing control. Earth changes are coming and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

[unplugged]

. . . As far as taking the internet down. That's GREAT news - talk about a mass wake-up event. Washington will be nothing but 7 bricks and 1/2 a charred monument inside of a week.

LOVED this comment! Of course you're right! What's interesting is the Liebermann's of this slimy world aren't showing an equivalent concern for shutting down the garbage spewed daily into people's homes via television. That is a nicely controlled contrivance owned and operated almost exclusively by the PTWannabes. The internet? Not so! This is a worldwide phenomenon that allows people of all races, creeds, beliefs and cultures to be linked together in completely non-controllable ways. THAT's what bugs the hell out of them.

The internet is a lot like Pandora's box. Once opened it's gonna be close to impossible to pack it all back in.

[Operator]

As far as taking the internet down. That's GREAT news - talk about a mass wake-up event. Washington will be nothing but 7 bricks and 1/2 a charred monument inside of a week.

That's why they won't take it down ... but with new technology of Internet 2.0 they can selectively slow down or shut of certain sites, parts of the internet or types of connections. They are not stupid.
The masses can still watch all the rubbish ... they know how to avoid revolution ... (it will happen anyway of course).

[unplugged]

That's why they won't take it down ... but with new technology of Internet 2.0 they can selectively slow down or shut of certain sites, parts of the internet or types of connections. They are not stupid.
The masses can still watch all the rubbish ... they know how to avoid revolution ... (it will happen anyway of course).

I don't think web 2.0 will work in their preferred "free market" economy EXCEPT in countries that have only one ISP available to them. It would be close to impossible for them to get ALL ISPs to move toward Web 2 simultaneously. If that is not accomplished, folks will simply terminate their service with the Web 2 ISP that is denying them universal access and hop over to those that continue universal access. That means lost revenue for the ones who comply. AOL is an excellent example of this. AOL had a model that interposed their technology between the user and direct access to the web. It didn't take long for the business plan to get exposed and for hundreds of thousands of users to quit the AOL accounts for direct access accounts. AOL never recovered financially from the mass defections.

I agree the PTB want that level of control. However it's far more difficult to constrain AFTER THE FACT than it is to do so BEFORE the fact. In any event, what would they do with 'youtube" and other exceedingly popular services equivalent to "youtube?"

[Kra]

http://digg.com/d31V5sU