Emergency Government Control of the Internet? 853
TheZid writes "A newly proposed bill would give Uncle Sam the power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a 'cyber security emergency.' As usual, our government is trying to take away our privacy by citing security. What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform? What counts as an emergency? Can political opponents be deemed a cyber-security emergency?"
Re:Paranoia Reigns Supreme (Score:1, Interesting)
There are actual REASONS for closing roads/airports and other physical entities. In an emergency they become unusable if people freak out and all try to flee like little lemmings.
There's no good reason to shut off the internet unless someone finds a way to instantly pwn every machine without warning. And does anyone expect that to ever happen?
Re:Let's not over-react. (Score:4, Interesting)
You obviously don't know the US government.
While I agree that what you have posted of the bill looks pretty harmless this could be the beginning of a new slippery slope. This could lead to additions to ISP that would allow the government to lock all private user accounts, throttle bandwidth and/or throw domestic web servers off the grid.
We've seen legislation passed with open ended restrictions and it's a scary to think what can happen from administration to administration with no more than a decree from one man. And with both the legislative and executive branch being under the control of one party it makes it all the worse.
While I don't think it will pass I don't want to find out the hard way.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm forming the Steam Political Alliance to keep the government out of my Steam! I NEED my TF2. :shakes angry fist:
Actually, I'm suprised HAMs haven't created a resiliant point to point civilian network yet. When the physical backbone goes down, I guess there's sattelite, but it's hard to beat point to point optical networks for mobility and reliability and hard to jam "frequencies" (unless it rains, or is cloudy, or...).
Re:Backwards (Score:2, Interesting)
Obvious (Score:1, Interesting)
No wonder the far left are the ones who push for gun control, their policies are the ones that will cause armed insurrection.
Re:Backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
Ya know, Representative Ron Paul has a bill in Congress right now, which I do not recall the title, but it's basically the "Audit the Federal Reserve" bill to find-out where the 2+ trillion dollars went.
Even though it has the signatures of 3/4 of the House, Nancy Pelosi and the other Democratic leadership refuses to let it onto the floor for an aye or nay vote.
THAT'S our administration in action. They are protecting their corporate donators (the Fed, the Banks, et cetera) from audit, but finding ways to hassle the citizens. I feel like experiencing Bush Part 2.
Re:Holy awful summary, Batman! (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly though, it's nice to see someone else who feels that way. I don't understand the rational of "Hey, these are critical services... So let's put it in the hands of the profiteering and penny-pinching private sector... 'Cause that's a GREAT idea for stability!"
I'm not a socialist, nor a fan of big government, but, sometimes these sorts of things are by far the better (not saying "ideal") option.
Re:One more nail in the coffin.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup... It won't be "the end" until the government stops abiding by the election results (or starts fixing the elections). After that point, there's really no going back sans violence.
I keep having this crazy idea that I should run for president in '12. It would be the "Kick the Politicians Out of Washington" campaign. I keep wondering if enough people are fed up enough with the establishment that a movement to kick them all out and replace them with "normal" people would actually work.
My agenda:
- Constitutional amendment: single-issue bills only. (reduce pork and make reps accountable for everything they vote on instead of being able to hide behind a "must pass" bill)
- Constitutional amendment: 10 year sunset clause on ALL federal laws. (create an upper bound on the number of laws that the federal gov't can maintain)
- Move elections to an instant-run-off system so voters don't feel they have to try to game the system
- Move election day to July 4th. More people vote because they're off work. Can celebrate *getting* freedom and *keeping* it.
That should get us some REAL change!
Re:Hands off! (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously (or strangely) he yelled back that why would they put redundancy in a civilian network? That's right, apparently there's a kill switch for the "civilian internet" that allows you to take down at least 3 states with just 1 fiber cut. Seeing how they are a monopoly, I consider them the internet for these 3 states.
I'm still a bit pissed off by it, only because I hold the belief that the internet was made to prevent censorship and damage.
Re:Besides rearranging the deck chairs (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect that finding those responsible and airing their crimes may just polarize America enough to take the action necessary to quickly recover from the crisis.
Re:Backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have" Gerald Ford
Fixed that [wikiquote.org] for you.
Re:Backwards (Score:1, Interesting)
Some forget that in "the bush years", there was still a democratically controlled congress. Bush may have been full of stupid ideas, but it is the members of congress that ensured they became a reality.
Re:The eternal September 11 (Score:2, Interesting)
"just like the folks who've been brandishing guns outside the events."
Another poster commented that they were not "brandishing", they were "carrying" - as in, holstered and exposed to plain view. I'm simply going to point out that what they were doing was also perfectly legal in the locations where this occurred.
I would also point out that, for every person openly carrying a gun, there were probably 3 carrying concealed. We'll never know the real number, because they were carrying in secret, legally or illegally. So who is ACTUALLY more dangerous - the man you know has a gun, or the man you think doesn't?
Oh wait - it's not about reality, but perception. I guess you can say that a lot about those "town hall meetings".
Re:Backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
Were you delivering the same lecture to the (still!) foaming-at-the-mouth left wing talking heads, activists, and tantrum-having street screamers who couldn't go a week for eight years without calling the last president "BusHitler?" Were you?
Re:Backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One more nail in the coffin.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, somebody's gotta run in 2012, and most of the likely candidates are not too appealing. Not sure about that name though: "President eth1" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Some thoughts on your agenda:
- Constitutional amendment: single-issue bills only.
I support the spirit of this proposal, but I worry that such an amendment would necessarily be so vague as to be easily abused. Who defines what an "issue" is? It's easy to imagine Congress defining "issue" very broadly and continuing to pass their over-9000-page porxtravaganzas, and one can also imagine a court defining issue very "narrowly" and striking down otherwise reasonable laws.
- Constitutional amendment: 10 year sunset clause on ALL federal laws.
The automatic-sunset idea is intriguing, but it's also prone to abuse. We would probably just acquire a new tradition, wherein a whole slew of laws are rubber-stamped for renewal on the first day of each Congress, with the only results being that some junior members get gavel practice and the poor President gets writer's cramp.
(create an upper bound on the number of laws that the federal gov't can maintain)
How do you choose what the upper bound should be? And what happens when the Elbonians invade and Congress can't declare war because they're already at quota? I tend to favor the approach of just sticking to the enumerated powers, although admittedly that hasn't worked out as well as one might have hoped.
- Move elections to an instant-run-off system so voters don't feel they have to try to game the system
I believe the advocates of instant runoff voting have the best of intentions but are betting on the wrong horse. IRV is the only widely proposed voting system that is arguably worse than our current system, and certainly it won't eliminate gaming the system. In my book, range voting is the best system, and approval voting is nearly as good, with the added bonus that it's very easy to understand and wouldn't require changing ballot designs (which could be relevant to persuading people to accept a change). For those who may be interested, Wikipedia has a pretty good set of articles [wikipedia.org], and check out these pretty pictures [zesty.ca] of the bizarre things that can happen under IRV.
- Move election day to July 4th. More people vote because they're off work. Can celebrate *getting* freedom and *keeping* it.
Of course they're also on vacation, at barbecues, eating dozens of hot dogs, shooting off fireworks, etc. Many will be too busy loving America by means of combustible projectiles to love America by means of throwing the bums out.
Re:Hands off! (Score:3, Interesting)
This move is horribly transparent.
The evident reason is so that, in the event of social dissent or uprising, they can cut off the communication of those dissenting. See: Iran just a month ago.
"Oh, it's been legal for years. Why would anyone care when they started to do it now if they didn't care when the law was passed?"
Surely, though, the Democrats will not abuse this. Surely. We have nothing to worry about.
Re:Hands off! (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's the protocol set (TCP/IP) that's designed to route around damage, not the internet. If every route between two nodes has to go over a particular physical link, it doesn't matter how robust your re-routing algorithm is. Don't need a "kill-switch" at all. A stray back-hoe is usually sufficient.
Of course that doesn't make the CSR's response any less strange. Plenty of civilian networks have redundancy. There are plenty of different routes you can take from Dallas to Fort Worth. But the grain of truth is that civilian networks are rarely 100% redundant. Chop off all the bridges and tunnels leaving Manhattan and you can still get to Long Island from the mainland. But that doesn't do anything for the people actually IN Manhattan.
I suspect that the "kill switch" in this case is that your ISP isn't paying their due to their backbone provider, so they get cut off from time to time until they pay up.