US Pres Will Have the Right To Shut Down Internet

[MaggieMae]

Oh bullshit. This would never ha---++++++***CARRIER LOST***+++++----

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Great!

Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed

Great!

Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed

This was discussed at length in another recent thread. If there were a cyber threat big enough to shut down The Pentagon, our electrical grid, blow up chemical plants, etc., I think it makes sense to ask the public, just like in the movies, to GET OFF THE LINE!!

And in case you think such threats don't already exist, read this, which will scare the crap out of you.

The "Conficker" virus is already hidden on thousands of computers. It's lying in wait for just the right moment to launch, with a single command that will shut down communications operations by the thousands.

The Enemy Within - Magazine - The Atlantic

I thought the "Confucker" virus was developed by the vast leftwing conspiracy to infect neocon computers....

 

[sparky]

the pentagon gets hacked every what? .00002 microseconds?

methinks they gots the good guru's on the job there

~S~

 

[Avatar4321]

Obongo can come in personally try to take it from me. He will get the ass kicking of his mother fucking life too. Fucking commie bastard.

You do realize that no one would actually have to come to your home to do it, don't you?

 

[Avatar4321]

BTW Congress shall pass no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.

Learn it, live it, love it.

 

[MaggieMae]

BTW Congress shall pass no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.

Learn it, live it, love it.

There already exist several limitations to determining "Freedom of Speech." Obsenities, defamation, "fighting words" leading to acts of violence, hate speech, inciting illegal action, speech in schools. Add to those caveats the broader USSC determined exceptions regarding public forums and of course the most recent free speech dictum awarded to corporations.

Any new restriction regarding cyber security would probably touch on the precedent for public forums. This study is long, but presents a good scenario regarding the dilemma of free speech and the Internet.

Public Forum Doctrine and the Internet

The First Amendment prohibits only the Government from interfering with ones freedom of speech. If the Government should attempt to regulate the Internet (as it happened with the Communications Decency Act) the regulation will be subjected to the First Amendment and its protection for the freedom of speech. Conversely, the First Amendment does not extend its protection in the case of a regulation estabilished by private entities [10]. It is therefore necessary to clarify to what extent the Internet may be considered public and if private entities must be included in the Internet as a public forum and assimilated to the State for constitutional purposes or if a distinction is more appropriate.

This work will demonstrate that the distinction is probably the best solution, as the Internet is not homogenous and instead includes many different situations. Furthermore, this solution will give more protection to other individual rights. We are referring to the right of privacy, especially in the electronic mail, that will receive less protection if the Internet, including private facilities, would be considered a public forum as a whole [11].

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Well why shouldn't he,Obama is to big to fail.

 

[CurveLight]

so...libs will still vote for obama....

This is for national defense reasons and is being proposed by Lieberman and Collins.

I don't like it either but your Obama kneejerk is noted.

ND my ass. This is fucking bullshit government rape.

 

[MaggieMae]

so...libs will still vote for obama....

This is for national defense reasons and is being proposed by Lieberman and Collins.

I don't like it either but your Obama kneejerk is noted.

ND my ass. This is fucking bullshit government rape.

Hmm, spot that mantra somewhere else? That's the second thread you've said the same thing. Try being original.

 

[editec]

One cannot help but note how quickly something that truly does deserve our attention becomes nothing but right wing cranks' vacuous bickering about Obama, and viciously attacking anyone who seriously tries to discuss this issue.

The question before us is: What powers ought we give our government as it regards the internet?

Clearly the net is now so important to this society that we need to protect it from cyber attacks and criminals.

The question isn't should we do this, rather it is HOW BEST DO WE DO THAT?


This is a serious social issue, but sadly the anti-Obaman partisans here use it as a platform to cast aspirsions of the current POTUS.

The answer to that question lies in the definition of the internet, IMO.

WHAT exactly IS the internet?

Excellent point, sunshine

It is a communication system comprised of linked computers that are owned and operated by individuals, private corporations, universities and governments.

While its origins are with ARPNET, a military communications system, it has grown into something far greater than that.

It is ubiquitous and increasingly THE COMMUNICATION system of our society.

Hence protecting (and sadly that demands some management of it) it seems warranted

Is it a news source, which the government is forbidden from altering? Is it free speech, which the government is likewise forbidden from interfering with? Is it merely an advertising medium? Is it an educational resource? What is the scope of the internet? Just WHAT is the internet? In the definition of the internet, I believe, will come the answer to the question of whether it is Constitutional to give the president free reign to shut her down.

Ya know...this is why I keep saying our Constitution needs servious regrooving.

We're NOT going to find the answer to this question in the Constitution.

This event we call the NET is so far beyond anything the Floundering Fathers could have imaged (not just technically, but its weird ownship) that we cannot squeeze some legal rule out of it that satisfies the need we have to protect this ASSET that is rapidly becoming ABSOLUTELY VITAL to our nation both for PUBLIC and PRIVATE interests.

A few years back when I was in law school there was a case involving the internet. Wish I could recall which one. One point in the case was that the SCOTUS had not yet been able to decide exactly WHAT the internet is.

Yeah, I can sympathize with that problem.

I am fairly sure they still haven't. At the point which the president is given dominion over the internet, I am sure someone will challenge it and a salient definition from the SCOTUS will be forthcoming.

I don't know how on earth the POTUS can have "dominion" over a system which NOBODY owns.

The NET is an event more than a thing.

Who has dominion over it now?

Seems to me the whole damned thing is run by consensus of the owners of the servers which make up this EVENT.

 

[CurveLight]

This is for national defense reasons and is being proposed by Lieberman and Collins.

I don't like it either but your Obama kneejerk is noted.

ND my ass. This is fucking bullshit government rape.

Hmm, spot that mantra somewhere else? That's the second thread you've said the same thing. Try being original.

As soon as I figure out why I am supposed to care about your whining I will respond.

 

[Kalam]

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that it's possible to "shut down the internet"?

Some of us might benefit from reading up on what "the internet" actually is before heading for the hills.

 

[MaggieMae]

One cannot help but note how quickly something that truly does deserve our attention becomes nothing but right wing cranks' vacuous bickering about Obama, and viciously attacking anyone who seriously tries to discuss this issue.

The question before us is: What powers ought we give our government as it regards the internet?

Clearly the net is now so important to this society that we need to protect it from cyber attacks and criminals.

The question isn't should we do this, rather it is HOW BEST DO WE DO THAT?


This is a serious social issue, but sadly the anti-Obaman partisans here use it as a platform to cast aspirsions of the current POTUS.

Excellent point, sunshine

It is a communication system comprised of linked computers that are owned and operated by individuals, private corporations, universities and governments.

While its origins are with ARPNET, a military communications system, it has grown into something far greater than that.

It is ubiquitous and increasingly THE COMMUNICATION system of our society.

Hence protecting (and sadly that demands some management of it) it seems warranted






Ya know...this is why I keep saying our Constitution needs servious regrooving.

We're NOT going to find the answer to this question in the Constitution.

This event we call the NET is so far beyond anything the Floundering Fathers could have imaged (not just technically, but its weird ownship) that we cannot squeeze some legal rule out of it that satisfies the need we have to protect this ASSET that is rapidly becoming ABSOLUTELY VITAL to our nation both for PUBLIC and PRIVATE interests.




Yeah, I can sympathize with that problem.

I am fairly sure they still haven't. At the point which the president is given dominion over the internet, I am sure someone will challenge it and a salient definition from the SCOTUS will be forthcoming.

I don't know how on earth the POTUS can have "dominion" over a system which NOBODY owns.

The NET is an event more than a thing.

Who has dominion over it now?

Seems to me the whole damned thing is run by consensus of the owners of the servers which make up this EVENT.

Going back to the issue which is the subject here (a cyber attack), I'm sure some precedent will be found within national security rules that permit the Internet to be "shut down" temporarily. I don't think anyone envisions that it would be a permanent situation. In the event of a widespread attack on our most vulnerable systems that serve our defenses, security, health and wellbeing, there wouldn't be time for any court to rule on its legality. I may be the minority opinion (at least here), but I would have absolutely no problem with that. My life was more than sufficient without the Internet or a cell phone for many more years before I began using both.

 

[MaggieMae]

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that it's possible to "shut down the internet"?

Some of us might benefit from reading up on what "the internet" actually is before heading for the hills.

Oh I don't know, Internet Explorer seems to be able to magically do it with no problem.

Seriously, why wouldn't it be as simple as cutting satellite communication by and/or to all servers? Isn't that what China does?

 

[MaggieMae]

ND my ass. This is fucking bullshit government rape.

Hmm, spot that mantra somewhere else? That's the second thread you've said the same thing. Try being original.

As soon as I figure out why I am supposed to care about your whining I will respond.

Okay.

 

[Kalam]

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that it's possible to "shut down the internet"?

Some of us might benefit from reading up on what "the internet" actually is before heading for the hills.

Oh I don't know, Internet Explorer seems to be able to magically do it with no problem.

Seriously, why wouldn't it be as simple as cutting satellite communication by and/or to all servers? Isn't that what China does?

Because the overwhelming majority of internet connections don't use satellites, and cutting all satellite communications in a country can't be a simple matter anyway. China is somewhat able to filter the information that their internet users can access because all of their ISPs are state-owned. This doesn't really stop anyone from circumventing their blocks, though. It's impossible for America to "shut down the internet" because doing so would require complete control over countless millions of private and foreign computer networks and the various types of infrastructure that connect them. This is scaremongering. Extremely lame and ignorant scaremongering.

 

[Charles_Main]

Fine line here, We have to have some way to shut it down in the event of a major Cyber attack, and that way can't be slow so it has to be the President I think. I just hope it is never abused, but imagine how bad it could be if we had a concerted Major attack and could not shut the damn thing down.

 

[Kalam]

Fine line here, We have to have some way to shut it down in the event of a major Cyber attack, and that way can't be slow so it has to be the President I think. I just hope it is never abused, but imagine how bad it could be if we had a concerted Major attack and could not shut the damn thing down.

 

[Charles_Main]

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that it's possible to "shut down the internet"?

Some of us might benefit from reading up on what "the internet" actually is before heading for the hills.

Oh I don't know, Internet Explorer seems to be able to magically do it with no problem.

Seriously, why wouldn't it be as simple as cutting satellite communication by and/or to all servers? Isn't that what China does?

Because the overwhelming majority of internet connections don't use satellites

Not so sure about that. Most Internet connections are Cable or DSL. Both Cable companies and the companies that provide DSL commonly send their signals over satellite at some point in the chain. So just because you have Cable does not mean your connection is not going over a Satellite.

 

[Kalam]

Both Cable companies and the companies that provide DSL commonly send their signals over satellite at some point in the chain.

No they don't. DSL uses telephone lines and cable internet uses the same infrastructure as cable tv... terrestrial lines and signals from terrestrial antennae. This is all off the top of my head but I see no reason why either type of connection would need to involve a satellite.