U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

[McNinja]

This is retarded, to say the least. There is no way to completely "shut down" the internet, unless every company on the planet with websites and such complied. That will never happen, and I hope this bill get shut down in the most extavagant way possible.

 

[Vohn_exel]

The internet is waaaay too integrated with our society now, in my opinion. Turning it off for even a day would be like...um...a bad thing. I'm too tired for similes right now. I mean seriously, if the internet were to go down for a day, THAT would be the "cyber 9-11" that they're so afraid of.

 

[Timotei]

This is possibly the stupidest fucking bill ever conceived in the whole history of congress.

I honestly had points to share to argue against this, but I am too clouded by rage and shock over the fact such an asinine law was proposed.

 

[Brnin8]

I'm assuming a cyber 9/11 would be an email sent to everyone in the US that is just a Goatse or other shocker image.

This whole seems completely ridiculous, the internet is a global thing one not one country owns it, so no country should be able to turn it off.

 

[CriticalGriffin]

The idea propably sounds good on paper, but how will they accomplish this without deleting information thus angering 98% of the human population is beyond me. Not to mention getting the agreement of every nation in the world that uses the internet.

Then again, we can probably get rid of 4chan. And anyone who can get rid of 4chan deserves a high five and a drink.

 

[infinity_turtles]

"government and industrial secrets"? Really?! Haven't these guys heard of this wonderful thing called a closed network? No? Then why the hell are they proposing laws that have anything to do with the internet!?

 

[Helmutye]

The thing I find funny is that the people behind this are mostly old geezers who probably don't understand the internet very well. Has anyone considered that the mayhem that would ensue from shutting down large sections of the internet would probably be worse than any act of cyber-sabotage that anyone could conceive of? Seriously, if I were a cyber-terrorist (doesn't that term 'cyber' sound really quaint in this day and age?) and wanted to cause a problem, I would be TRYING to shut down large sections of the internet. But with stuff like this our own government will be doing the work for them. Can you imagine how many false alarms we're going to have? And while whatever government agency is in charge of this spends millions of dollars setting up the system hacker gangs will be able to cause chaos across the world by just writing code that simulates terrorist activity and triggers a reflexive shutdown.

Like with 9-11, the real damage wasn't done by the terrorists. It was done by the US trying to react to the terrorists. You know how conservatives are always bragging about how Reagen won the Cold War by forcing the Soviets into an arms race that their economy couldn't support? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE TERRORISTS ARE DOING NOW!

Have you ever heard of the classic redneck senior prank? You get three pigs, grease them up, and paint the numbers 1, 2, and 4 on them, and then set them loose in the school. Even after the teachers find all the pigs, they will spend a lot of extra time looking for the "third" pig that doesn't really exist. The terrorists have pulled that on the US, but in order to make sure that "third" pig doesn't stay loose we have, in the world of this analogy, burned the entire school down.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Politicians clearly don't understand the internet. 4chan would purposely make a fake online terroist plot just to make the government shut down the entire internet. It would basically be the largest DDOS attack of all-time.

 

[BrionJames]

I agree with Woodsey, the government can eat shit on this as far as I'm concerned. Those stupid dickhead Feds haven't supported any sort of internet awareness until now, the US is I think 15th in the world as far as internet speeds. If thats indicative of anything no wonder they're shitting they're pants regarding "cyber-warriors,cyber-criminals, and cyber-dildos". How many times can we use cyber in a single fucking post. GEEZ!!!

 

[tsb247]

Oh, Lieberman! What zany right-wing paranoid fear-mongering will you bring us next? And, more importantly, what civil liberties crushing solution will you propose?

Gut miranda rights? Check. Deny accused criminals other basic rights? Check. Pave the way for a government seizure of the internet? Check.

You may want to check that. Senator Liberman is in fact a Democrat.

100% factually wrong. See my longer response above for the real story.

Edit: Also, why couldn't a Democrat be conservative (although Lieberman is not a Democrat)? Or vice versa? Have we really become that small-minded?

His own website states that he is registered as an Independent Democrat. All this means is that he is no longer directly tied to the larger party as a whole. He still caucussed with the Democrats after 'leaving', and he probably will again. He is not a true independent in the full sense of the word.

He still associates with the Democrats. In fact he refers to himself as an, "Independent Democrat, capital, 'I,' capital, 'D.'"

EDIT: http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/about-joe/biography

Exactly - it makes a world of difference. If he were still a Democrat, he wouldn't be senator - Ned Lamont would be. He is a self-serving opportunist with a tendency towards reactionary conservative positions, especially in regards to national security and the censorship of media.

Well, at least we can agree on that point.

<---- is a conservative... Well... A moderate.

 

[Funkysandwich]

It would be brilliant if it was just a red button or toggle switch somewhere on the President's desk. The potential for accidental use would be incredible.

"I thought that was the intercom?"

Second, I'd think that something as destructive as this would have to be only useable by the President, and if he was corrupt, there would be a lot more wrong with the country anyway.

Ever head of Watergate? If a US president could do that...

 

[ninjajoeman]

well maybe its an incase of mass troll grouping?

It would be brilliant if it was just a red button or toggle switch somewhere on the President's desk. The potential for accidental use would be incredible.

"I thought that was the intercom?"

Second, I'd think that something as destructive as this would have to be only useable by the President, and if he was corrupt, there would be a lot more wrong with the country anyway.

Ever head of Watergate? If a US president could do that...

he did but he got caught and failed... I miss RRRRRRICHARD *giggles*

 

[RatRace123]

Yeah, that seems wrong. Sacrificing the main outlet that most people express their freedom of speech (however stupid they may get with it) doesn't seem like a particularly good way of defending that freedom.

Interesting ethical quandry, but I don't agree with a government approved internet kill function. Seems a bit too Ayn Rand for my tastes.

 

[Redweevil]

Is it just me who loves the sound of being a cyber-warrior?

Cyber-but cyber-seriously cyber-I cyber-felt cyber-that cyber-they cyber-used cyber-the cyber-word cyber-cyber cyber-was cyber-over cyber-used

 

[Mr.Squishy]

"OMAIGAWD!!! ALL OF OUR CYBERWEBZ IS BEING HACKEDED!!"

"ZOMFG WHICH OF THEM?!"

"ALL OF THEM!"

"LAUNCH A COUNTER-VIRUS!"

"IT'S NO USE, THEY HAVE DEFENSIVE ALGORITHMS!"

"SHUT DOWN ALL TEH INTERWEBZ AND SAVE THE WORLD!"

...yeah
Not too big a fan of that idea

 

[A123A123]

Sign the Petition against the Kill-Switch bill and keep the internet free from autocracy! - http://www.petitiononline.com/stopKS/petition.html

 

[beddo]

Obama is moving Gitmo prisoners to Afghanistan to continue torturing them, still denying their right to challenge their detention. Something his campaigned against to get into power.

Obama is continuing with kidnap and torture (extraordinary rendition) which he campaigned against.

Obama has put out a kill order on a US citizen suspected terrorist no matter where he is found.

Obama's administration want to now steal the mineral wealth of Afghanistan.

These are all clear contraventions of international law.

Obama has extended secret government and wants to increase the size of the state. He's alienating the left while pandering to the right who hate him for who he is.

[link]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah[/link]

Is it really a surprise that they want control over your internet access?

Obama has turned to be as bad as I expected, at least Bush was honest about being an evil bastard.

 

[beddo]

I vote yes.

If you think this is something that will be abused, then I disagree with you.

If it is, people will make the law change.

If it can help the Gov. handle things better in the face of some crazy attack, then it is a good thing.

The internet isn't a god given gift that everyone should be able to use any time. I know younger people don't realize that, but that doesn't make it a mandatory essential thing that you can't live without.

To quote Yahtzee, "Why don't you roll over so they can stamp on the other side of your face".

The US Government has routinely shown its disregard for the rule of law, there a thousands of cases where the government have infringed on people's rights. Also, the law would not be changed if it was abused, again this has been shown throughout legal history.

There is not going to be a 'crazy attack'. The government should have sufficient safeguards in placed such as using closed systems.

Why shouldn't people be able to use the internet at any time!? That's the attitude that the founding fathers had, people should be free to pursue happiness, free from government oppression. The government don't own the internet, they didn't pay for the servers or all of the infrastructure, they don't run the ISPs. If I connect my computer to a friend's that's a basic network, what right does the government have to tell me to stop!?

As for your bizarre attitude towards 'young people', they realise that the internet is not essential for life, but neither is electricity, cars, smoking, alcohol, air conditioning and so on. However, people want to increase their standard of living and these have become the norm, just like the internet.

 

[beddo]

I vote yes.

If you think this is something that will be abused, then I disagree with you.

If it is, people will make the law change.

If it can help the Gov. handle things better in the face of some crazy attack, then it is a good thing.

The internet isn't a god given gift that everyone should be able to use any time. I know younger people don't realize that, but that doesn't make it a mandatory essential thing that you can't live without.

Fail troll.
Also, anyone that supports this is the exact opposite of a freedom loving American. You are scum. It's not a generalization, but a cold hard fact.

Lieberman is just another one of those pansy ass bureaucrats that needs to be voted out of office, or drop dead. The sooner the better.

The attitude of that post is clearly anti-American, I think the author needs to ask why they live in the US.

 

[TheGuy(wantstobe)]

The dawn of a new age... where nuclear weapons are not the thing that governments want and use for political leverage but the ability to switch off a global communication's network that so intrinsically woven into our very way of life that its would cause extreme damage econimically.

Depsite the fact that doing something like this would be almost fucking impossible it does not surprise me that it was thought up. The next stage wil be that they suggest they have a button for each country/region of the world and can selectively turn them off, because why cause mass devastation when you can sell it to the public as something that won't affect you personally and then be hailed as a hero by the unwashed masses for causing said devastation.