How do you feel about the US President having the power to shut down parts of the internet? - GoFuckYourself.com

CDSmith · 07-31-2010, 02:13 PM

The bill, dubbed by some as "Obama's Killswitch Plan" was approved by Homeland Security back in June, some say it was snuck through while the country was busy watching the oil spill in the gulf. It's proponents say the "killswitch" analogy is misguided and that it's a vital piece of US security.

http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/..._shut_down.php

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sec...0625-z8sf.html

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

Quote:

Senator Joseph Lieberman has got a bill going which will allow the Prez. to either shut down or seize complete control over portions of the World Wide Web. It?s a bill, known as the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA). Some are calling this an ?Internet kill switch? which is just mite exaggerated. To some this is a measure of optimum security, by controlling that which is the only real ?free space? on the planet means almost if not absolute control. It could also mean that anytime someone high-up gets a bit angsty about some issue they could simply wipe it out of existence, which is again messing with our freedom.

Quote:

Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "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," he said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies--cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

Quote:

Any internet firms and providers must "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by a new section of the US Department of Homeland Security, dubbed the "National Centre for Cybersecurity and Communications".

Quote:

The critics said that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace.

Australian academics criticised the description in the bill's title of the internet as a US "national asset", saying any action would disrupt other countries as most of the critical internet infrastructure is located in the US.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect...onal_Asset_Act

Senator Lieberman has been criticized for giving the President the power to use a "kill switch" which would shut off the Internet. He has called these accusations "total misinformation" and said that "the government should never take over the Internet".[3] However, the bill would allow the President to enact "emergency measures" in the case of a large scale cyber attack. [2] The original bill granted the US President the authority to shut down part of the internet indefinitely, but in a later amendment the maximum time for which the President could control the network was reduced to 120 days. After this period, the networks will have to be brought up, unless Congress approves an extension.

The Bill itself: (pdf) http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index...a-04b7f4cb0123

What do you think about this bill, and that it grants this power?

Are you suspicious of it or do you welcome it and think it's a great idea for improved US security?

Vendzilla · 07-31-2010, 02:23 PM

Knew this was going to happen, that guy can't leave anything alone

Agent 488 · 07-31-2010, 02:27 PM

feel good about it.

Brujah · 07-31-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Knew this was going to happen, that guy can't leave anything alone

Who, Joe Lieberman? lol

You're so partisan that you just make absolutely no sense. If the emergency grid is attacked through the internet, it's within reason to shut it off you would think. You act like because it's a power that the president would have, that it's all about Obama.

AlCapone · 07-31-2010, 02:32 PM

Does this have anything to do with WikiLeaks?

Brujah · 07-31-2010, 02:39 PM

The Kill Switch Myth?

Quote:

the President already has an Internet kill switch: he can't shut off a website, but he can shut off any and all wireless or wired Internet access

...

Quote:

But, surprising it was -- especially to Lieberman and his staff on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. They argued that, in fact, the bill limited the powers already invested in the President to shut down telecommunications providers. Leslie Phillips, the communications director for the committee, said, "The very purpose of this legislation is to replace the sledgehammer of the 1934 Communications Act with a scalpel." So, who is right?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ill-switch.php

Zester · 07-31-2010, 02:51 PM

no ones owns the internet

Vendzilla · 07-31-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

Who, Joe Lieberman? lol

You're so partisan that you just make absolutely no sense. If the emergency grid is attacked through the Internet, it's within reason to shut it off you would think. You act like because it's a power that the president would have, that it's all about Obama.

Yeah China has this ability, working great for them

And just because you disagree with what I'm saying about Obama, doesn't make me partisan, I agree with a lot of what he says he's doing, it's what he's actually doing that I hate

he passed the America recovery act to stimulate unemployment
it cost $715k per worker

He got healthcare passed
government agencies are already saying how much it will cost is way over what we were told, buddy of mine, his healthcare just went up $80 a month, that's not suppose to happen right?

He got the bank regulations he wanted
Why didn't he get Fannie and freddie on it?

He promised more troops in Afghanistan
OK, I have nothing but hate over this, anyway you look at it

he got paygo passed
day after passing a 1.7 trillion dollar spending bill, then he bitched at the GOP because they wanted the unemployment extension to comply to that

here's what Obama said in a speech

Quote:

It?s pretty simple. It says to Congress, you have to pay as you go. You can?t spend a dollar unless you cut a dollar elsewhere. This is how a responsible family or business manages a budget. And this is how a responsible government manages a budget, as well.

The GOP asked that the money came from the unspent stimulus and was bashed for even considering that

So forgive me if I doubt this will be used for the reason intended

Brujah · 07-31-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

And just because you disagree with what I'm saying about Obama, doesn't make me partisan, I agree with a lot of what he says he's doing, it's what he's actually doing that I hate

It does because this is a bill, introduced by Joe Lieberman, an actual conservative bill that strengthens national security and defense... you know.. that thing the Republicans are always doing, yet all you can think to do is attack Obama because he's the current president, even though he has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

If this bill was introduced during the Bush years you'd have probably thought it was a good idea, and well, it probably is a good idea.

alias · 07-31-2010, 03:22 PM

The president works for google now?

$5 submissions · 07-31-2010, 03:24 PM

Minte · 07-31-2010, 03:31 PM

That explains why foxnews.com is 404 ;)

theking · 07-31-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

It does because this is a bill, introduced by Joe Lieberman, an actual conservative bill that strengthens national security and defense... you know.. that thing the Republicans are always doing, yet all you can think to do is attack Obama because he's the current president, even though he has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

If this bill was introduced during the Bush years you'd have probably thought it was a good idea, and well, it probably is a good idea.

Of course he has something to do with the Bill...as he does with every single Bill...that comes out of Congress. He can say yea or nay...as he has the power of veto.

Vendzilla · 07-31-2010, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

It does because this is a bill, introduced by Joe Lieberman, an actual conservative bill that strengthens national security and defense... you know.. that thing the Republicans are always doing, yet all you can think to do is attack Obama because he's the current president, even though he has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

If this bill was introduced during the Bush years you'd have probably thought it was a good idea, and well, it probably is a good idea.

Bush Or Obama, whats the difference? Do you really trust their intentions?

Besides, If I didn't attack Obama's agenda, this place would be boring for politics

$5 submissions · 07-31-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

That explains why foxnews.com is 404 ;)

Wittiest answer so far

Brujah · 07-31-2010, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Bush Or Obama, whats the difference? Do you really trust their intentions?

Besides, If I didn't attack Obama's agenda, this place would be boring for politics

So true, haha.

directfiesta · 07-31-2010, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

It does because this is a bill, introduced by Joe Lieberman, an actual conservative bill that strengthens national security and defense... you know.. that thing the Republicans are always doing, yet all you can think to do is attack Obama because he's the current president, even though he has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

If this bill was introduced during the Bush years you'd have probably thought it was a good idea, and well, it probably is a good idea.

During Bush, many bills would have been required to kill the " Internets " ....

spacedog · 07-31-2010, 04:58 PM

I don't trust it and I don't like it one bit.

An internet shut down for any period of time affects my bottom line as well as my business, therefore I do not like this at all, for ANY reason.

I do not trust the motives stated behind this and sincerely believe an ulterior motive exists.

What's to stop ANY president, present or future, of using this to shut down dissident speech or the exposure of news and information the .gov wishes to remain secret?

theking · 07-31-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacedog

I don't trust it and I don't like it one bit.

An internet shut down for any period of time affects my bottom line as well as my business, therefore I do not like this at all, for ANY reason.

I do not trust the motives stated behind this and sincerely believe an ulterior motive exists.

What's to stop ANY president, present or future, of using this to shut down dissident speech or the exposure of news and information the .gov wishes to remain secret?

Ever heard of the Supreme Court?

dyna mo · 07-31-2010, 05:02 PM

MYTH:
S. 3480 authorizes a “kill switch” that would allow the President to shut down the Internet.

REALITY:
Rather than granting a “kill switch,” S. 3480 would make it far less likely for a President to use the broad authority he already has in current law to take over communications networks.

Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” and “authorize the use of control of any such facility or station” by the Federal government. Exercise of the authority requires no advance notification to Congress and can be authorized if the President proclaims that “a state or threat of war” exists. The authority can be exercised for up to six months after the “state or threat of war” has expired.

The Department of Homeland Security, in testimony before the Committee on June 15, 2010, indicated that Section 706 is one of the authorities the President would rely on if the nation were under a cyber attack.

S. 3480 would bring Presidential authority to respond to a major cyber attack into the 21st century by providing a precise, targeted, and focused way for the President to defend our most sensitive infrastructure.

• The authority in S. 3480 would be limited to 30-day increments and may be extended beyond 120 total days only with Congressional approval.
• The President must use the “least disruptive means feasible” to respond to the threat.
• The authority does not authorize the government to “take over” critical infrastructure.
• It does not authorize any new surveillance authorities.
• The President would be required to provide advance notice to Congress of the intent to declare a national cyber emergency or as soon as possible after a declaration, with reasons why advance notice was not possible.
• Owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure would be allowed to propose alternative security measures to respond to the national cyber emergency. Once approved by the Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), these security measures could be implemented instead of those previously required to respond to the cyber threat.
• Owner/operators that implement these emergency measures receive limited, civil liability protections for their actions.

MYTH:
S. 3480 would give the President the authority to take over the entire Internet.

REALITY:
S. 3480 would direct the President to set risk-based security performance requirements and, in a national cyber emergency, order emergency measures for our nation’s most critical infrastructure - those systems and assets that are most critical to our telecommunications networks, electric grid, financial system, and other components of critical infrastructure.

The bill authorizes only the identification of particular systems or assets – not whole companies, and certainly not the entire Internet. Only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill’s mandatory security requirements.

To qualify as a national or regional catastrophe, the disruption of the system or asset would have to cause:
• mass casualties with an extraordinary number of fatalities;
• severe economic consequences;
• mass evacuations of prolonged duration; or
• severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions.

The bill expressly prohibits the Secretary from identifying systems or assets as covered critical infrastructure “based solely on activities protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.” This prohibition would also prevent the identification of specific websites for censorship.

The owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure identified by the Secretary could appeal the inclusion of the particular system or asset on the list through administrative procedures.

The list of covered critical infrastructure would be developed collaboratively, working with the private sector.

CDSmith · 07-31-2010, 08:05 PM

Dyna mo, where did you copy and paste that from? Post link if possible.

I'm not questioning it's validity, I just want it for the sake of future discussions with others on this topic.

Agent 488 · 07-31-2010, 08:11 PM

https://www.google.com/

CDSmith · 07-31-2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

That explains why foxnews.com is 404 ;)

Ha ha, made me look. :D

Btw there's been some interesting articles and rhetoric posted on this issue. Here's one from your favorite, Minte...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...own-terrorism/

I particularly found this quote of interest:

Quote:

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

Do quotes like that leave you unconcerned, a little concerned, or chill you to the bone?

CDSmith · 07-31-2010, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

MYTH:
S. 3480 authorizes a ?kill switch? that would allow the President to shut down the Internet.

REALITY:
Rather than granting a ?kill switch,? S. 3480 would make it far less likely for a President to use the broad authority he already has in current law to take over communications networks.

Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to ?cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication? and ?authorize the use of control of any such facility or station? by the Federal government. Exercise of the authority requires no advance notification to Congress and can be authorized if the President proclaims that ?a state or threat of war? exists. The authority can be exercised for up to six months after the ?state or threat of war? has expired.

The Department of Homeland Security, in testimony before the Committee on June 15, 2010, indicated that Section 706 is one of the authorities the President would rely on if the nation were under a cyber attack.

S. 3480 would bring Presidential authority to respond to a major cyber attack into the 21st century by providing a precise, targeted, and focused way for the President to defend our most sensitive infrastructure.

? The authority in S. 3480 would be limited to 30-day increments and may be extended beyond 120 total days only with Congressional approval.
? The President must use the ?least disruptive means feasible? to respond to the threat.
? The authority does not authorize the government to ?take over? critical infrastructure.
? It does not authorize any new surveillance authorities.
? The President would be required to provide advance notice to Congress of the intent to declare a national cyber emergency or as soon as possible after a declaration, with reasons why advance notice was not possible.
? Owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure would be allowed to propose alternative security measures to respond to the national cyber emergency. Once approved by the Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), these security measures could be implemented instead of those previously required to respond to the cyber threat.
? Owner/operators that implement these emergency measures receive limited, civil liability protections for their actions.

MYTH:
S. 3480 would give the President the authority to take over the entire Internet.

REALITY:
S. 3480 would direct the President to set risk-based security performance requirements and, in a national cyber emergency, order emergency measures for our nation?s most critical infrastructure - those systems and assets that are most critical to our telecommunications networks, electric grid, financial system, and other components of critical infrastructure.

The bill authorizes only the identification of particular systems or assets ? not whole companies, and certainly not the entire Internet. Only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill?s mandatory security requirements.

To qualify as a national or regional catastrophe, the disruption of the system or asset would have to cause:
? mass casualties with an extraordinary number of fatalities;
? severe economic consequences;
? mass evacuations of prolonged duration; or
? severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions.

The bill expressly prohibits the Secretary from identifying systems or assets as covered critical infrastructure ?based solely on activities protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.? This prohibition would also prevent the identification of specific websites for censorship.

The owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure identified by the Secretary could appeal the inclusion of the particular system or asset on the list through administrative procedures.

The list of covered critical infrastructure would be developed collaboratively, working with the private sector.

I did find that posted on another message board, and found this reply in direct reference to it posted by another poster there...

"If you'll notice, "Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to ?cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication?" refers to communications; if, under the rubric of "communications", S 3480 "gives" any authority to the president, for which there is no Constitutional authority incidentally, then, indeed, "the FCC ......" must begin "the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service ? it?s current classification?, and is doing so..... for multiple purposes.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68003

No government, Federal/state/local should have the power to implement what S 3480 proposes and it would serve to endorse that view regardless of which president did what when. What we need be concerned about right now is this president, and from the myriad of unConstitutional and illegal actions he has so far taken, should be concerned."

He raises an interesting point. (highlighted)

epitome · 07-31-2010, 10:09 PM

It's funny how EVERYTHING Obama says, does or has control over is somehow a conspiracy theory to everyone right of center but the same people cannot fathom for a nanosecond that 9/11 was anything but that which was told to them.

baddog · 07-31-2010, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlCapone

Does this have anything to do with WikiLeaks?

No. They were talking about doing this months ago when Joe realized that the Chinese had that kind of power over the Internet there. He figures if it is good enough for them . . . .

baddog · 07-31-2010, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

. . . . agencies are already saying how much it will cost is way over what we were told, buddy of mine, his healthcare just went up $80 a month, that's not suppose to happen right?

He's lucky. My group policy went up close to $200/mo and WorkComp insurance went up too. Never used any of it. I would hate to know what would happen if a claim had been filed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minte

That explains why foxnews.com is 404 ;)

CDSmith · 07-31-2010, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

It's funny how EVERYTHING Obama says, does or has control over is somehow a conspiracy theory to everyone right of center but the same people cannot fathom for a nanosecond that 9/11 was anything but that which was told to them.

One thing 9/11 did do though was get people questioning the government more than ever before, especially when bold moves are being made or in this case contraversial bills being passed.

Thus this discussion.

Paul Markham · 08-01-2010, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zester

no ones owns the internet

Maybe. And look at what the effect is.

With an uncontrolled Internet we have children able to access things they should be kept away from. People stealing anything they can. And the potential profit and future of the Internet stifled.

Governments around the world pass laws that control what we do. You really think the ability to control the Internet leads to that less freedom.

Freedom to do what? Is the question.

Most here live in a Democracy, a Government that did anything too outrageous will have to go to the electorate and explain it in the future.

Black Ops · 08-01-2010, 02:45 AM

"Adapt or die." - Obama

Vendzilla · 08-01-2010, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

He's lucky. My group policy went up close to $200/mo and WorkComp insurance went up too. Never used any of it. I would hate to know what would happen if a claim had been filed.

What he paid was a small compared to some companies, he's with Coca-Cola and they have more buying power than most

Vendzilla · 08-01-2010, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I did find that posted on another message board, and found this reply in direct reference to it posted by another poster there...

"If you'll notice, "Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to ?cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication?" refers to communications; if, under the rubric of "communications", S 3480 "gives" any authority to the president, for which there is no Constitutional authority incidentally, then, indeed, "the FCC ......" must begin "the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service ? it?s current classification?, and is doing so..... for multiple purposes.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68003

No government, Federal/state/local should have the power to implement what S 3480 proposes and it would serve to endorse that view regardless of which president did what when. What we need be concerned about right now is this president, and from the myriad of unConstitutional and illegal actions he has so far taken, should be concerned."

He raises an interesting point. (highlighted)

so what's being said is that they would be putting the internet under a classification that the FCC would be in charge of?

Yeah,more government oversight, we need that

VGeorgie · 08-01-2010, 11:00 AM

The US retains full capability and authority to "shut down the Internet" as all the 13 main name servers are on US soil. Nameservers in other countries could be called to route traffic but they all depend on the US name servers. It would be havoc for months, and whatever threat was present to cause the shutdown would have passed.

"Shutting down the Internet" would cost US companies BILLIONS per day. No president is going to do it unless for extreme national security - our ass is about to get fried by some nukes, for example.

Otherwise, the debate is pointless. Any president, democrat, republican, or otherwise, will take whatever steps required in the name of national security. Get used to the idea.

CDSmith · 08-03-2010, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

Otherwise, the debate is pointless. Any president, democrat, republican, or otherwise, will take whatever steps required in the name of national security. Get used to the idea.

Orrr.. people could question it, talk about it, while others try to verify if what they're doing is even legal.

I see no harm in people weighing in on how they feel about it.

Ethersync · 08-03-2010, 04:58 AM

Government does not like what it can not control.

Highest Def · 08-03-2010, 05:28 AM

I'm a lot more worried about all the ignorance, paranoia and mis-information in this thread than I am about the government having the ability to shut down the internet.

Imagine if we had no way to stop all aircraft during 9/11? That's the type of event that would have to happen for them to ever use this power. They're not going to shut down the web every second Tuesday of every other month.

CDSmith · 08-03-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highest Def

I'm a lot more worried about all the ignorance, paranoia and mis-information in this thread than I am about the government having the ability to shut down the internet.

Believe it or not I'm actually trying to promote awareness in this thread, and for exactly that reason... that there are a lot of people out there who either haven't a clue about this bill or else they think Obama has gone and gotten himself a kill switch that allows him to "shut off the internets".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highest Def

Imagine if we had no way to stop all aircraft during 9/11? That's the type of event that would have to happen for them to ever use this power. They're not going to shut down the web every second Tuesday of every other month.

Exactly. But a lot of people don't realize all that, and many just don't like anyone having that kind of power in the first place. I've seen many posts around many other boards (mostly non-adult) that indicates to me that people don't quite understand why something like this would be necessary.

I'm of the mind that healthy discussion about anything important is always a good thing.

_Richard_ · 08-03-2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zester

no ones owns the internet

VGeorgie · 08-03-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Orrr.. people could question it, talk about it, while others try to verify if what they're doing is even legal.

I see no harm in people weighing in on how they feel about it.

No problem with the concept of debate, but how is the Internet any different than US airspace or the interstate system or the phone lines. The US government controls those, too, in times of national crisis. Was the Bush administration wrong in stopping all air flights immediately after 9/11? Of course not, and no one faults him for it. Better safe than sorry.

If the US shut down the Internet for some reason it would affect other countries, because --well -- the US built and owns most of the Internet infrastructure. The more other countries build up their own the less they'll be affected by any action taken by the US.

But let's be serious here: if anything happens where the Internet in the US has to be taken down the last thing you'll be worrying about is your Web sites. You'll be looking where to buy gas masks and geiger counters.

This thread isn't really about debate, it's spreading political FUD against whoever is currently in office. Silly stuff, because it has nothing to do with the current standing president.

SallyRand · 08-03-2010, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Maybe. And look at what the effect is.

With an uncontrolled Internet we have children able to access things they should be kept away from. People stealing anything they can. And the potential profit and future of the Internet stifled.

Governments around the world pass laws that control what we do. You really think the ability to control the Internet leads to that less freedom.

Freedom to do what? Is the question.

Most here live in a Democracy, a Government that did anything too outrageous will have to go to the electorate and explain it in the future.

The United States is not, nor has it ever been a democracy. The USA is and always has been a (Federal) Representative Constituional Republic and it was not until the administration of FDR that the myth began to be perpetrated.

Democracy is merely tyranny of the majority and has never worked anywhere in the world.

The United States is the world's oldest federal constitutional republic.

First, it is federal because a union composed of fifty partially self-governing states and federal one federal district united by a central ("federal") government. The self-governing status of the component states are constitutionally well-established and may not be altered by a independent decision of the central government.

Second, the country is a constitutional republic because it is is a state where the head of state (President) and other officials (Legislative Branch: Senate and House of Representatives) are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law (The Constitution of The United States) that limits the government's power over citizens.

Furthermore, in a constitutional republic, the executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power (Checks and Balances). The fact that there is a constitutional law limiting the government's power; makes the country constitutional.

The fact that the head of state (the President) and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the United States republican in nature.

Recent administrations, including the current one have been actively egaged in the erosion of civil rights and will not stop until every move of the citizens is subject to the control of Big Brother.

Sally.

Rochard · 08-03-2010, 01:31 PM

The president has always had this ability. You should read up on what the president of our nation can do. It's scary really.

SallyRand · 08-03-2010, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The president has always had this ability. You should read up on what the president of our nation can do. It's scary really.

True and it is more than scary!

Sally.

Ethersync · 08-03-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Maybe. And look at what the effect is.

With an uncontrolled Internet we have children able to access things they should be kept away from. People stealing anything they can. And the potential profit and future of the Internet stifled.

Be a parent and monitor your kids when they are online and buy software to block porn if you are worried about it.

People steal in real life too. You make it sound like you can get away with anything online.

More regulation is what will stifle the future of the Internet. The lack of government bureaucracy is what has helped the Internet explode in popularity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Governments around the world pass laws that control what we do. You really think the ability to control the Internet leads to that less freedom.

Yes.

The Chinese government controls the Internet there and they filter out anything they do not want people to read about (e.g. Tienanmen Square).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Freedom to do what? Is the question.

To do whatever the fuck you want to do as long as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Most here live in a Democracy, a Government that did anything too outrageous will have to go to the electorate and explain it in the future.

Germany lived in democracy when Hitler was elected into power.

Wizzo · 08-03-2010, 02:00 PM

I bet many that oppose it will be 1st ones crying about why the president didn't do anything when the power grid or banking system gets hacked and goes down...

Ethersync · 08-03-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizzo

I bet many that oppose it will be 1st ones crying about why the president didn't do anything when the power grid or banking system gets hacked and goes down...

And this passing prevents that from happening how exactly?

CDSmith · 08-03-2010, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

but how is the Internet any different than US airspace or the interstate system or the phone lines.

You really need to do some reading on the subject. I think the answers will surprise you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

This thread isn't really about debate, it's spreading political FUD against whoever is currently in office. Silly stuff, because it has nothing to do with the current standing president.

Incorrect.

And that political "FUD" as you call it is all over the web on news source sites. Debate about it is precisely what this thread is about.

La_Sexorcist · 08-03-2010, 07:19 PM

I don't really like it. I just read a novel about a plague breaking out in a small village in China so they cut the internet off so the rest of China wouldn't find out about it and then figure out that they killed them all to prevent it from spreading.

CDSmith · 08-04-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by La_Sexorcist

I don't really like it. I just read a novel about a plague breaking out in a small village in China so they cut the internet off so the rest of China wouldn't find out about it and then figure out that they killed them all to prevent it from spreading.

But... shit like that would never happen in the US. Would it?

What was that book's title?

07-31-2010, 02:23 PM	#2
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,201	Knew this was going to happen, that guy can't leave anything alone __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

07-31-2010, 02:32 PM	#5
AlCapone Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 708	Does this have anything to do with WikiLeaks? __________________ "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”

07-31-2010, 02:51 PM	#7
Zester Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,344	no ones owns the internet __________________ * Mainstream ? $65 per sale * new male contraception

07-31-2010, 03:22 PM	#10
alias aliasx Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 19,010	The president works for google now? __________________ https://porncorporation.com

07-31-2010, 03:24 PM	#11
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	__________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

07-31-2010, 02:27 PM	#3
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	feel good about it.

07-31-2010, 03:31 PM	#12
Minte Babemeister Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Madison Posts: 7,081	That explains why foxnews.com is 404 ;) __________________ You might not be as anonymous as you think you are.

07-31-2010, 04:58 PM	#18
spacedog Yes that IS me. Bitch. Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 14,149	I don't trust it and I don't like it one bit. An internet shut down for any period of time affects my bottom line as well as my business, therefore I do not like this at all, for ANY reason. I do not trust the motives stated behind this and sincerely believe an ulterior motive exists. What's to stop ANY president, present or future, of using this to shut down dissident speech or the exposure of news and information the .gov wishes to remain secret?

07-31-2010, 05:02 PM	#20
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 63,913	MYTH: S. 3480 authorizes a “kill switch” that would allow the President to shut down the Internet. REALITY: Rather than granting a “kill switch,” S. 3480 would make it far less likely for a President to use the broad authority he already has in current law to take over communications networks. Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” and “authorize the use of control of any such facility or station” by the Federal government. Exercise of the authority requires no advance notification to Congress and can be authorized if the President proclaims that “a state or threat of war” exists. The authority can be exercised for up to six months after the “state or threat of war” has expired. The Department of Homeland Security, in testimony before the Committee on June 15, 2010, indicated that Section 706 is one of the authorities the President would rely on if the nation were under a cyber attack. S. 3480 would bring Presidential authority to respond to a major cyber attack into the 21st century by providing a precise, targeted, and focused way for the President to defend our most sensitive infrastructure. • The authority in S. 3480 would be limited to 30-day increments and may be extended beyond 120 total days only with Congressional approval. • The President must use the “least disruptive means feasible” to respond to the threat. • The authority does not authorize the government to “take over” critical infrastructure. • It does not authorize any new surveillance authorities. • The President would be required to provide advance notice to Congress of the intent to declare a national cyber emergency or as soon as possible after a declaration, with reasons why advance notice was not possible. • Owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure would be allowed to propose alternative security measures to respond to the national cyber emergency. Once approved by the Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), these security measures could be implemented instead of those previously required to respond to the cyber threat. • Owner/operators that implement these emergency measures receive limited, civil liability protections for their actions. MYTH: S. 3480 would give the President the authority to take over the entire Internet. REALITY: S. 3480 would direct the President to set risk-based security performance requirements and, in a national cyber emergency, order emergency measures for our nation’s most critical infrastructure - those systems and assets that are most critical to our telecommunications networks, electric grid, financial system, and other components of critical infrastructure. The bill authorizes only the identification of particular systems or assets – not whole companies, and certainly not the entire Internet. Only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill’s mandatory security requirements. To qualify as a national or regional catastrophe, the disruption of the system or asset would have to cause: • mass casualties with an extraordinary number of fatalities; • severe economic consequences; • mass evacuations of prolonged duration; or • severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions. The bill expressly prohibits the Secretary from identifying systems or assets as covered critical infrastructure “based solely on activities protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.” This prohibition would also prevent the identification of specific websites for censorship. The owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure identified by the Secretary could appeal the inclusion of the particular system or asset on the list through administrative procedures. The list of covered critical infrastructure would be developed collaboratively, working with the private sector.

07-31-2010, 08:05 PM	#21
CDSmith Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: My network is hosted at TECHIEMEDIA.net ...Wait, you meant where am I located at? Oh... okay, I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oops. :) Posts: 51,460	Dyna mo, where did you copy and paste that from? Post link if possible. I'm not questioning it's validity, I just want it for the sake of future discussions with others on this topic. __________________ *Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!* ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!! Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

07-31-2010, 08:11 PM	#22
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	https://www.google.com/

07-31-2010, 10:09 PM	#25
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,158	It's funny how EVERYTHING Obama says, does or has control over is somehow a conspiracy theory to everyone right of center but the same people cannot fathom for a nanosecond that 9/11 was anything but that which was told to them.

08-01-2010, 02:45 AM	#30
Black Ops Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 292	"Adapt or die." - Obama __________________ If you can read this sig, you're already dead.

08-01-2010, 11:00 AM	#33
VGeorgie Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 359	The US retains full capability and authority to "shut down the Internet" as all the 13 main name servers are on US soil. Nameservers in other countries could be called to route traffic but they all depend on the US name servers. It would be havoc for months, and whatever threat was present to cause the shutdown would have passed. "Shutting down the Internet" would cost US companies BILLIONS per day. No president is going to do it unless for extreme national security - our ass is about to get fried by some nukes, for example. Otherwise, the debate is pointless. Any president, democrat, republican, or otherwise, will take whatever steps required in the name of national security. Get used to the idea.

08-03-2010, 04:58 AM	#35
Ethersync Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: London, Saint-Tropez, Bermuda, Moscow Posts: 5,289	Government does not like what it can not control.

08-03-2010, 05:28 AM	#36
Highest Def In the Cave of Gold Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: ONLINE Posts: 660	I'm a lot more worried about all the ignorance, paranoia and mis-information in this thread than I am about the government having the ability to shut down the internet. Imagine if we had no way to stop all aircraft during 9/11? That's the type of event that would have to happen for them to ever use this power. They're not going to shut down the web every second Tuesday of every other month. __________________

08-03-2010, 01:31 PM	#41
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 72,907	The president has always had this ability. You should read up on what the president of our nation can do. It's scary really. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

08-03-2010, 02:00 PM	#44
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,226	I bet many that oppose it will be 1st ones crying about why the president didn't do anything when the power grid or banking system gets hacked and goes down... __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

08-03-2010, 07:19 PM	#47
La_Sexorcist Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 337	I don't really like it. I just read a novel about a plague breaking out in a small village in China so they cut the internet off so the rest of China wouldn't find out about it and then figure out that they killed them all to prevent it from spreading.