Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

3. "Massive cyber-attack" ... um yeah ... you know ... well nothing about the internet.

OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?
 
4. Bush took out the internet clause because he knew programmers (like me) would seriously hurt them if they didn't. ;)

Secondly, as far as I know, the internet provisions have not yet been struck down as illegal if there is a threat to national security involved.

Perhaps you could show me where the clause was removed?
 
3. "Massive cyber-attack" ... um yeah ... you know ... well nothing about the internet.

OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?

Rusians, Russians, why does it always have to be the Russians? Can you make that Belizeans commiting this terrible botter crime?:eusa_pray:
 
3. "Massive cyber-attack" ... um yeah ... you know ... well nothing about the internet.

OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?

i've got a for instance for you- what if bush had proposed this bill?
 
3. "Massive cyber-attack" ... um yeah ... you know ... well nothing about the internet.

OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?

i've got a for instance for you- what if bush had proposed this bill?

Then it would be an evil intended bill just like all things related to the evil BushoMcPalinRush monster.
 
Since we're so dependent on satellites at this point, even for basic phone service, the means to shut down the public internet has been around since the late 80's. The internet would suffer from line of site issues without satellites. So this is more of a physics thing than any programming type of thing, except with respect to direct programming of the satellites. The government already controls [through overrides] satellites and can requeue and retask any of them to what it wants them to do. This has always been the case and privately held satellites must cede to the government the ability to do so, or no satellite, and no communications license.

I'm sure some more crafty and able operators would be successful by organizing a system of repeaters but at that point it would become like a ham radio chain and not the internet as we know it. So it wouldn't be an effective work around.

I don't know why you are all so shocked.
 
OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?

i've got a for instance for you- what if bush had proposed this bill?

Then it would be an evil intended bill just like all things related to the evil BushoMcPalinRush monster.

that'd be my guess. the fact that it is an evil intended bill mysteriously evaporates if bush's name isn't attached to it.

go figure.
 
emergency control? For what reasons? what emergency could possibly justify regulation of the internet?
 
3. "Massive cyber-attack" ... um yeah ... you know ... well nothing about the internet.

OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?

"Several Key Systems" might effect "several networks" but nothing like a "massive attack" ... do you think the internet is one giant computer that all the others link up to?
 
Not to mention they'd have to write code that could successfully hit Linux/Unix servers ... yeah, that'll happen ... not. The government systems are only vulnerable because they're using Microsucks, but even then, they can be "disconnected" very quickly and easily without any bills, this bill isn't about protecting a damned thing, now if they took a few bucks (literally) from taxes and upgraded the OSes on their servers to Linux or a few hundred and go for Unix since they clearly need the tech support, that would be for protecting their systems and would be a smart move.
 
3. "Massive cyber-attack" ... um yeah ... you know ... well nothing about the internet.

OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?

"Several Key Systems" might effect "several networks" but nothing like a "massive attack" ... do you think the internet is one giant computer that all the others link up to?

I would consider an interruption of service attack on key systems that the functioning of the government depends upon to be a "massive attack". I certainly wasn't suggesting a giant EMT, or anything of that nature.
 
i've got a for instance for you- what if bush had proposed this bill?

Bush didn't need to propose the bill, he had already assigned himself the power to do this.

The ability has always existed for the government to take over communications, radio, TV and internet is no different. I think what the objections are over is that the government wants to specify private companies as security risks and make them accountable for screening their employees. [or letting the government do it] Which I really don't have a problem with either.

This certainly would be prudent for utilities employees for instance; ie., electric companies, sewer and water installations especially.
 
i've got a for instance for you- what if bush had proposed this bill?

Bush didn't need to propose the bill, he had already assigned himself the power to do this.

are you this stupid in real life?

No disrespect Del, but I notice that you tend to start many conversations with this phrase, seems to be kind of a recurring theme.

Is this type of attempt at rhetorical intimidation usually successful for you in debate?

Did you have a retort for my assertion, or were you just making a passing observation?
 
OK, let's start here.

Let's do a for instance, ok?
Let's say the government of, say, Iran has hired a whole bunch of Russian "botters" to create an interruption of service attack on several key systems.
These botters have slowly been turning millions of personal computers into "Bot" machines for the last few years through various spyware programs to use for just this type of endeavor.
Now, just so I understand, since I know "nothing about the internet", how would this type of situation not present a threat to national security?

"Several Key Systems" might effect "several networks" but nothing like a "massive attack" ... do you think the internet is one giant computer that all the others link up to?

I would consider an interruption of service attack on key systems that the functioning of the government depends upon to be a "massive attack". I certainly wasn't suggesting a giant EMT, or anything of that nature.

:rofl: Okay, a massive EMP would be a real threat, but not one that this bill would even come close to protecting against. Here's a bit of a clue for you, if all the government networks went down, no one else would even feel a blip. It would be like cutting one square out of a quilt, ugly until you fix it, but it's still a quilt. I give you too much credit, really I do.
 
Not to mention they'd have to write code that could successfully hit Linux/Unix servers ... yeah, that'll happen ... not. The government systems are only vulnerable because they're using Microsucks, but even then, they can be "disconnected" very quickly and easily without any bills, this bill isn't about protecting a damned thing, now if they took a few bucks (literally) from taxes and upgraded the OSes on their servers to Linux or a few hundred and go for Unix since they clearly need the tech support, that would be for protecting their systems and would be a smart move.

You know what? I'll completely agree with you. You are right.

Perhaps you should talk with your congressman and suggest that. Probably a much better idea than the alternative emergency measures would be.
 
"Several Key Systems" might effect "several networks" but nothing like a "massive attack" ... do you think the internet is one giant computer that all the others link up to?

I would consider an interruption of service attack on key systems that the functioning of the government depends upon to be a "massive attack". I certainly wasn't suggesting a giant EMT, or anything of that nature.

:rofl: Okay, a massive EMP would be a real threat, but not one that this bill would even come close to protecting against. Here's a bit of a clue for you, if all the government networks went down, no one else would even feel a blip. It would be like cutting one square out of a quilt, ugly until you fix it, but it's still a quilt. I give you too much credit, really I do.

LOL, yes EMP, my bad, typo.

well, of course it wouldn't shut down the internet, or anything of that nature.

I was assuming that a conventional attack or terrorist attack would come in combination with the cyber-attack. I don't think I made that clear. I apologize.
 
Last edited:
Bush didn't need to propose the bill, he had already assigned himself the power to do this.

are you this stupid in real life?

No disrespect Del, but I notice that you tend to start many conversations with this phrase, seems to be kind of a recurring theme.

Is this type of attempt at rhetorical intimidation usually successful for you in debate?

Did you have a retort for my assertion, or were you just making a passing observation?

yes, it's untrue.

if i use the phrase a lot, it's because i run into a lot of seemingly stupid people.

there is no attempt to intimidate because only a stupid person would think that you could intimidate someone on a message board.

hmmmm......
 

Forum List

Back
Top