Except that a large portion of internet communications get routed through the US at some point. My guess would be that shutting down the internet for the US would impact more countries than just the US.
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.
I don't want to politicize this argument, especially so since I am not a U.S. citizen, but my perception is that if Bush had tried to acquire such powers, people would have gotten hysterical. Obama, being a "liberal" can get away with more.
Obama isn't the one trying to get this power. Read the article - it's a bill being proposed by Joe Lieberman, not by Obama. The article doesn't state anywhere what opinion, if any, Obama may have about this bill.
I read the article. Read my comment. I never claimed that Obama is trying to get this power, so your accusation has no merit. I stand by my observation: the Obama administration can get away with more than the Bush administration did, as the people (rightly) think he's smart and wise, and (wrongly) assume that he can do no evil.
Trust, but verify. When people blindly trust in authority, things go wrong. It's the stick that disciplines the donkey, not the donkey's desire to be "good".
I never said Lieberman is part of it. If you want to distort my words as you please, go ahead. It amuses me. You can accuse me of thread-jacking, but you can't accuse me of Obama-bashing.
Infowars?! Surely you can find a more informative and less sensationalist source than this conspiracy-mongering cesspit. What next, the great UFO cover-up?
Its interesting how the internet went from a network that was designed to survive a nuclear attack or other major disasters to something where a bureaucrat will be able to flick it off for "national emergencies".
I wonder what the practicality of a kill switch really is, it seems next to impossible.
Unintended consequences aside, this is less about a kill switch or government censorship and more about forcing a industry that has not taken security seriously to get their act together.
Many providers don't actively police their customers for botnet activity or respond to security incidents that don't affect their network infrastructure or back office systems.
This appears to establish a regulatory framework where network security officially becomes more than a law enforcement issue.
I assume it also gives him a switch to dynamite the entire Interstate highway system? That would probably have about the same effect on the economy, and be about as likely to be signed into law.
As usual, the older-generation "OMG COMPUTERS" disconnect is probably at work here.
Highways, dump trucks, these are nice, solid things that we can understand. Computers, networks, the internet, hackers... Hackers can do anything, right? More legislation becomes the only safe answer.
I really do think putting "Obama" in the title is complete sensationalism. Yeah, he would get the figurative "kill switch" - but he didn't request it nor is there any proof of endorsement (?). Just read the comments - they mention BS anti-Obama propaganda just because his name is mentioned in the article.
> "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."
They leave out the fact that after that he finishes his sentence and says "and that's a stupid thing to say."
If they ever shut it off in the USA, just get a dial up account in Canada or Mexico. Like they used to say, "Let your fingers do the walking".
Also if they pass it, make sure to use a Euro or Asian data center for your business. The first time they shut it off in the USA I could see a mass exodus from US based data centers. That is a lot of investment in infrastructure that could go idle very quickly.
33 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 71.9 ms ] threadI don't like where this is heading to.
Trust, but verify. When people blindly trust in authority, things go wrong. It's the stick that disciplines the donkey, not the donkey's desire to be "good".
I wonder what the practicality of a kill switch really is, it seems next to impossible.
I'd wager the president could direct the telecoms to do this without any kind of legal device and they would capitulate.
See telecom immunity, for example:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-27/bay-area/17190307_1_ob...
This is such a bad precedent. It's an uncontested executive power grab.
Many providers don't actively police their customers for botnet activity or respond to security incidents that don't affect their network infrastructure or back office systems.
This appears to establish a regulatory framework where network security officially becomes more than a law enforcement issue.
Highways, dump trucks, these are nice, solid things that we can understand. Computers, networks, the internet, hackers... Hackers can do anything, right? More legislation becomes the only safe answer.
Second, we've already given President Obama a kill switch that shuts down the entire world.
It got sent to committee, and will most likely never come out. Just like the last three bills that do almost the same thing.
If you want to follow it, here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.03480:
From the article:
> "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."
They leave out the fact that after that he finishes his sentence and says "and that's a stupid thing to say."
Also if they pass it, make sure to use a Euro or Asian data center for your business. The first time they shut it off in the USA I could see a mass exodus from US based data centers. That is a lot of investment in infrastructure that could go idle very quickly.