U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

Megawizard

New member
Mar 24, 2008
112
0
0
Of COURSE it's Lieberman. He was a PITA even when I was a kid.

"Lieberman's approval rating in a poll taken January 4?5, 2010, was 25% approve versus 67% who disapprove, making him one of the least popular Senators currently in office."

XD I can't possibly imagine how he manages to get ratings that low.
 

AdamRBi

New member
Feb 7, 2010
528
0
0
President: "And this is the Oval Office where I work."

Tourist: "Hey, what's this button here?"

President: "Oh, haha that's the button to turn off the internet."

Tourist: "Did you have to make it so big, red, and pressable?"

President: "Go ahead! Press it, no biggie. We have hidden cameras set up in every office and rec room in the US. Haha, you should see the look on some people's faces when it goes out, hahaha. Come on, I show you a couple of my favorites."



Really though, If we ever go through an apocalypse ala Fall Out 3 or Left 4 Dead the only thing survivors would have to look forward too would be ruined buildings, monsters, contaminated water, and free internet. Guess they figured why not go whole hog and take away the one thing we look forward to.

Though it would encourage actual reproduction of the human race.
 

DannibalG36

New member
Mar 29, 2010
347
0
0
"...our cyber resources." WHAT? What in hell makes the US government think that the internet can be controlled simply to protect their own assets? This is akin to saying that they can control food distribution so that the President's family doesn't get food poisoning.
 

Hussmann54

New member
Dec 14, 2009
1,288
0
0
well Joe, you just go back into your corner and play with your great "ideas", and let the grownups deal with stuff like cyber terrorism.
 

benbenthegamerman

New member
May 10, 2009
1,302
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"



"We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber-resources," said bill co-sponsor Senator Susan Collins [http://collins.senate.gov/public/].

Cyber-Source: ZDNet [http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-switch-proposed-for-us-339303838.htm]


Permalink
Susan Collins? Shouldn't you be writing the third book in the Hunger Games?
 

darian Nenith

New member
Nov 18, 2009
26
0
0
Weird... This makes me remember Atlas Shrugged for some reason. I wonder if in the case of a shutdown, some people would still be allowed to use the internet if they were necessary to the countries welfare?

In any case, I don't like the sound of this.
 

MortisLegio

New member
Nov 5, 2008
1,258
0
0
I get why they want this but its stupid

the government systems will be fine if anything happens and if there could be a problem just cut the lines to those systems

personally the only thing that the gov. should demand is an emergency broadcast "pop up" that tells people what the hell is going on in a time of crisis
 

Deathfish15

New member
Nov 7, 2006
579
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"


A bill sponsored by U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman would give the President a virtual "kill switch" that would allow him to effectively turn off the internet during times of crisis.

The proposed legislation [PDF format] [http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=4ee63497-ca5b-4a4b-9bba-04b7f4cb0123] would compel any internet providers, search engines or software companies, at the discretion of the U.S. government, to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Lieberman, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the measures would allow the government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people." Any company that failed to follow orders would face presumably stiff fines.

"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," Lieberman [http://lieberman.senate.gov/] 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."

To counter those potential cyber-shenanigans, the bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the "security status" of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries. Companies would be required to take part in "information sharing" with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that "relies on" the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would also be "subject to command" by the NCCC under the proposed new law.

"We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber-resources," said bill co-sponsor Senator Susan Collins [http://collins.senate.gov/public/].

Lieberman is apparently attempting to make the bill more cyber-palatable by offering immunity from cyber-lawsuits resulting from anything "related to a cyber-vulnerability" after the President has declared a cyber-emergency. Nonetheless, the cyber-bill is expected to meet with stiff cyber-opposition; the Center for Democracy and Technology pointed out that it "includes authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems," while the lobby group TechAmerica worried that its relatively few cyber-limitations raised cyber-serious cyber-concerns about "the potential for absolute power."

Cyber-Source: ZDNet [http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-switch-proposed-for-us-339303838.htm]


Permalink

This is totally bullcrap. What it is, is trying to completely and utterly control FREE SPEECH by the U.S. Government through an excuse of "protecting national cyber security". What a load of crap.

Just to be clear: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD A HAND IN THE 9/11 ATTACK AGAINST IT'S OWN COUNTRY TO PUSH THE AGENDA OF THE PATRIOT ACT. THE PATRIOT ACT ALLOWS ANY GOVERNMENT LAW OFFICIAL (BE IT FBI, CIA, POLICE, MILITARY, ETC.) TO BYPASS RIGHTS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MIRANDA RIGHTS IN ORDER TO DETAIN ANY INDIVIDUAL JUST BY MENTIONING THE WORD "TERRORISM" IN THE ARREST.


Now, what this NEW bill that this so called "head of Homeland Security" wants to pass is basically a law that allows the federal government to spy legally on it's citizens over the internet and any website and traffic that they visit.


This isn't freedom.
This isn't Socialism.
This isn't Communism.
This IS DICTATORSHIP!~
 

Mista Stevo

New member
Jul 20, 2009
49
0
0
oh no a crisis we must qucikly shut down dangerous sites like youtube, aargos and tesco direct. can't the americans stops complaing and chill out and stop thinking they're the unchallnaged dictators of the world
 

mooncalf

<Insert Avatar Here>
Jul 3, 2008
1,164
0
0
This is how important some people in the US think they are. If it ain't baldfaced arrogance, I don't know what you people would call it. :D No offense to the rational majority over there.

If someone is making it their business to fashion the biggest glowing red button in the internet's history, several thousand hyper-talented persons are going to make it their life's work to try and press it.
 

Georgie_Leech

New member
Nov 10, 2009
796
0
0
You know, I can't help but thing that shutting down the internet in America would be a good way to cause mass panic. And, to put it bluntly, New York has shown what happens in America when there is mass panic...
 

Superfly CJ

New member
Feb 14, 2010
101
0
0
I can't believe how closed-minded the people in this thread are. Sure, it's easy to cry 'freedom of speech! lolol' and blast the decision, but if you were to stop and think about it's intended usage or *gasp* actually read the bill, you'd understand just how important it is.

For starters, it isn't a button-press scenario, it's not like the government could turn around next year, press a button and turn off the internet there and then. The process would involve relay between the US government and any relevant major telecommunications businesses. This would take time, and more importantly thought. Basically, the Government is only going to protect areas that need protecting.

Lets say, for example, that a terrorist group begins utilising multiple computers for a directed attack against, say, public health networks. The government would then tell those selected networks, or any relevant ISPs to immediately shut down services to prevent a breach on that particular sector. Damage control is in place, only what needs to be shut down will be shutdown.

Secondly, this is a serious last-resort scenario. The government is intelligent enough to realise that they wouldn't win any favour if they were to just 'pull the plug' every other year. In order for usage of the 'kill-switch' to be justified, there would have to be a serious threat posed to cyber-security- the 9/11 comparison isn't just scare mongering. If the shit hits the fan hard enough to warrant the usage of this procedure, we're going to be glad we had it.

It's a catch-22 situation, really- the Government have proposed this bill to cries of, 'You're breaching my rights! I hate you so much!'. However, if this doesn't go through, and an attack seriously breaches the higher-priority areas of the internet, they'll only suffer cries of, 'You didn't protect my rights! I hate you so much!'.

Also, shouldn't we consider the fact that the Government already has the power to use nuclear weapons? The power to sieze control of broadcasts? The power to disrupt travel patterns? This is hardly anything new- just look at the example set by the pre-existing measures: when was the last time the Government abused it's power to close down airlines? Never, if I recall correctly.
 

rayen020

New member
May 20, 2009
1,138
0
0
Wow... You know i always thought lieberman being a crazy nutjob was just a joke becasue he's ugly old and weird about party platforms. but it turns out he's just a crazy nutjob. so i support not supporting this bill.
 

Mozared

New member
Mar 26, 2009
1,607
0
0
I'm guessing that, after 21 pages, this has already been mentioned, but...

Lets assume 'terrorists' try to 'attack' 'something' through 'the internet' for a second. Wouldn't shutting down the entire system pretty much complete their goal for them and cause maximum chaos?
 

Freshman

New member
Jan 8, 2010
422
0
0
GrinningManiac said:
and B) We [U.K] technically invented it
No Al Gore technically "invented it," but really it was developed by the united states as a "O noz What if the russians blow up all our communications?!?!?!" they got a bunch of dudes together and they established something called ARPNET or something like that.(mighta been a British bloke though) Thank you modern marvels.
 

MaVeN1337

New member
Feb 19, 2009
438
0
0
The government has gone TOO FAR.

Slowly chipping away at the rights of Americans while strengthening large corporations.

When is enough enough? When we people finally stand up and rebel and riot against this kind of bullshit?

When are people going to wake up?