Huh. I didn't know they had gotten so up front about that fact. Y'think you'd want your population to be ignorant of the fact that you're covertly pulling each and every one of their strings (more ignorant than they already are, I mean). I can't help but wonder if this is just some more short-sighted anti-new-media scaremongering on the part of Lieberman, or something more sinister...it could be either, I think.MikailCaboose said:
U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
How did you "technically" invent the internet? As far as I am aware the earliest introduction was by the United States military. Uncle Sam invented the internet. It just became a far more... disturbing place than he ever intended.GrinningManiac said:
On the OP:
How much does someone want to bet the Joseph Lieberman has no idea how hacking, the internet and cyber security works?
That's the point I was making, the person I was talking to said America conquered it, adding it to their "empire."Danny Ocean said:
The US invented the idea of the internet, I think. And laid the first wires of a network at DARPA. A British Guy invented the IP system, AFAIK. Tim Berners-Lee. He invented the world wide web, but not the internet.Canid117 said:
This makes me wonder what other applications are running on the internet, and what the prefixes for those are.Wikipedia said:
I know of www4.
What others are there?
Yeah, I'm backing you up. I know most quotes on here are made in disagreement, so don't worry about it. =Pchozo_hybrid said:
oktalist said:
Well there is always that possibility with anything. All we can do is deal with the situation as it exists now, and in the current climate it's a reasonable preparation.
For all referances to other regimes, and all the corruption in our own goverment on a number of levels, understand that when it's come to the big issues our goverment has actually proven itself worthy of trust.
I say this because, during World War II we instituted massive emergency powers, supressed the press, quashed opposition, and did all kinds of things. However unlike other goverments in a similar situation our goverment actually relinquished all of these powers after the fact.
Right or wrong (morality isn't the point here) when the goverment rounded up all the Japanese-Americans, it also opened the doors and let them all go when the conflict ended.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should trust Uncle Sam implicitly in all things. I don't like a lot of things going on elsewhere on the censorship front (unrelated to emergency power situations) for example. I am however a lot less concerned about what the goverment gives itself the power to do in a time of crisis due to the fact that so far things have worked out as best they can.
I'll also go so far as to say that I believe we have adequete safeguards for this kind of thing. People tend to think "The Right To Keep and Bear Arms" was intended for hunting or whatever. It's not, the idea was that as long as we're armed, we're not totally powerless against the goverment.
A lot of left wingers like to say "well, what good is a handgun if the goverment sends tanks and planes". Well, look at how devestated countries that have military strongmen trying to dig out civilians with small arms are. If they did send the military against a popular revolt, the nation they would wind up taking over wouldn't be the one they wanted to rule.
What's more, one of the reasons why I oppose the idea of the goverment being more "selective" with military recruiting, and deciding who gets what training (as opposed to going totally by aptitude tests) is that I feel another safeguard is having a military made up of volunteers or draftees. People who are drafted generally don't want to fight, and volunteers in general are guys just like you and me.
Let's say there was a coup, and the liberals decided to try and take over the goverment and Obama ordered the military to open fire on conservative protestors or whatever. Chances are it would not happen. Heck, there was a big deal when Bill Clinton had surveys distributed to the military asking pretty much that very same question (would they open fire on US civilians if he told them to).
Basically, the way things are now, if the goverment decided to impose permanant martial law, cut the internet, and declare the current president "God Emperor" it's doubtful the troops would surpress their own neighbors. Examples people bring up like "Kent State" tend to be based on very slanted views of events. Not to mention the simple fact that while "mismatched" when soldiers with machine guns go up against rock throwing civilians, a rock to the head can kill, and nobody in their right mind is going to let themself be stoned to death. In many of those examples there were apparently also molotov cocktails, and pipebombs involved.
This is incidently why I am against some of the suggestions that we put better "psychological screening" into the military, to prevent "unstable and criminal" people from getting into the special forces or leadership positions. Once you start doing that kind of thing it becomes increasingly easier to ensure that the people in power have hand picked people exactly where they need them if they decided to pull something.
All this rambling is basically getting down to the fact that I just don't think this represents that much of a danger as things are right now. Simply put for the goverment to declare emergency powers there is going to have to be a clear threat being presented, and an active "hot" war. Something like the conflict with China coming to a head and us mobilizing troops. Sort of like how World War II had "The Japs just attacked pearl harbour" which was on the heels of german U-boat attacks on some of our boats they claimed were carrying supplies to nazi enemies in europe.
Without that kind of a threat, the goverment couldn't get the backing to do it, and it can't deal with a popular revolt.
The goverment already technically has the abillity to bathe it's own cities in poison gas as well. The "Internet Kill Switch" is simply another tool. Like any, it COULD be misused, but for any nightmare scenarios to take place a LOT of things would have to happen first.
Right now, under the current climate, I think the benefits greatly outweigh any potential cons that might occur down the road if a ton of other stuff happens... and honestly if we're stupid enough to give up our right to keep and bear arms, and let the goverment do more handpicking of soldiers and such than it already does... well, we're digging our own graves to begin with. The Internet Kill Switch isn't going to matter much.
Besides, isn't freedom of speech a right in your country, not a freedom or liberty?Canid117 said:
It's more akin to saying the guy who invented the first computer code above binary invented the computer. Sure, he didn't invent the hardware, but he made it usable.Canid117 said:
Another analogy might be saying the person who invented the combustion engine invented petrol. He didn't, it would still have been around, but no where near as useful.
Give credit where it is due. I know it's hard for Americans, very broadly speaking; but without that little British Berners-lee, this webpage and the words you are typing would not exist. The internet is just the communication hardware, the World Wide Web is every single web page, every browser, and every page-hosting server.
Yes, the international network of communication cables may well still exist, but not to as great an extent, as it is likely that usage would have remained limited to government and research institutions, and so capacity would have had little need to increase.
Looks like America is going from being the land of the free to the land of sit the fuck down we're doing whatever the fuck we want and there is nothing you can do to stop the government
I can only see two reason's that this would EVER be useful
1. Skynet becomes self-aware
2. The machines become self aware
Basically if machines try and destroy the world.
1. Skynet becomes self-aware
2. The machines become self aware
Basically if machines try and destroy the world.
No, we invented it. Just ask Al Gore. (Hehehe)GrinningManiac said:
It doesn't shock me one bit that Senator Lieberman would think something like this up. I hope this gets used against him in his next attempt to get re-elected. Damn left-wing nutjob anyway.
Yep. Whenever someone says something along the line of "We're totally doing this to protect the people, now hand over your rights and freedoms and put on the collar" it's fishy.Nannernade said:
Although given what they managed to do with post-911 paranoia... It seems rather easy to goad people into giving up their freedoms for security.
And the person who trades his freedom for security deserves neither.
Well if the government starts showing support to this bill, then they are by all means acting like dickheads. I just think people should reserve judgement on the government because they haven't yet shown who they support and their response will probably be to shoot down what he proposed. I was also referring to the person in my hypothetical example.zehydra said: