Is an Internet Kill Switch Feasible In the US? 339
wiredmikey writes "The 'Kill Switch' bill will introduce legislation that would give the US government power to limit Internet traffic in the event of cyber-security emergency. To recap recent events in Egypt, public political protests reached critical mass on January 25th and on January 27th, Internet connectivity and access across the region began plummeting ultimately leading to a five-day blackout. The question remains: could the same approach be taken in the US?"
Just take credit. (Score:5, Funny)
What is the internet verses a network? (Score:3)
Where do you draw the line between the a large network and the Internet as a whole?
Re:What is the internet verses a network? (Score:5, Informative)
Where do you draw the line between the a large network and the Internet as a whole?
You draw the line exactly where it actually exists: where the people running that large network make peering arrangements to allow traffic to come and go through other networks and carriers. There is no internet. There are a bunch of networks that have very complex agreements allowing traffic to pass between and through them.
And of course, it's worth repeating for the thousandth time on this "kill switch" topic: what the administration wants isn't some button to push, but the legal authority to tell various players (service providers, carriers, software/service operators, etc) that they must immediately honor requests to change what they're doing in an emergency. Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day, someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains in half a dozen large cities around the country. The "kill switch" mechanism doesn't shut down the internet. It allows the counter terror people to ask the administration to use that legal power to get on the phone with Twitter and tell them what needs to happen to prevent such use.
Re:What is the internet verses a network? (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, it's worth repeating for the thousandth time on this "kill switch" topic: what the administration wants isn't some button to push, but the legal authority to tell various players (service providers, carriers, software/service operators, etc) that they must immediately honor requests to change what they're doing in an emergency.
So... Exactly like what was done in Egypt then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much... Except in the case of the US it will be only be used in a real emergency, right? Right?
Of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Such as if a member of the Wrong [take your pick] party is elected to public office.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that presidents have blatantly disregarded the law before. I'm not going to name names, because my memory is more selective than it should be, but when a high level official tells his underlings "do this" the typical response is several months of compliance, followed by something that may stop it, such as bad PR or lawsuits. The justice system is slow, and the media's attitude is "pictures or it didn't happen".
Re:What is the internet verses a network? (Score:4, Informative)
And what would this accomplish? (Score:2)
Give me a realistic scenario where killing the US portion internet is a justified and/or useful action. Yeah, I don't think so. Has the government asked for a way
Re:What is the internet verses a network? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they might do it via cell phone, so you should shut down all cell phones too. Or they might do it by short wave radio, so lock that up. Or they might do it by mail, so get rid of the mail. Or they might even do it by voice, so let's get rid of all that sound-carrying air. Where, exactly, do you plan to stop? You can strip a nation of every single right it has, in the name of terrorism, and you still won't prevent it. However at some point YOU start being the bad guy. It's a big bad world out there. Take your lumps, get used to it, and get the hell out of my face.
Re:What is the internet verses a network? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the terrorists have won
Which terrorist?
McVeigh? He didn't win - he thought he could spark a revolt.
Bin Laden? He hasn't won - he wanted us out of the Middle East, only to INCREASE our involvement.
So which terrorist won?
(Sorry for the combative tone... It's just that I see this phrase a lot on here and for some reason it set me off...)
Re: (Score:3)
So which terrorist won?
The one that said "they hate us for our freedoms"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to remember that quote
So which terrorist won?
The one that said "they hate us for our freedoms"
Re: (Score:2)
We've already ruined air travel
And by "we," you mean you and the other people who continue to try to blow up airplanes full of people? Yes, that has definitely ruined the earlier, classical experience of havig a hijacker just take you to Cuba for the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Take your lumps, get used to it, and get the hell out of my face.
You realize that, in a democracy, a politician with your opinion could not be elected?
Since your position is untenable in a democracy, why stick to it?
I'm not really sure that a "kill switch" is a good idea - I mean, if Obama called Twitter and asked them to pull the plug for the day, they probably would. Hell, if he asked the military to pull the plug, they probably would. So what additional authority is even needed?
But anyway, preaching against security in the face of terrorism isn't going to win the day.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that, in a democracy, a politician with your opinion could not be elected?
Since your position is untenable in a democracy, why stick to it?
So you are saying that a democracy is a fancy cloak-and-dagger form of a totalitarian regime where we slowly strip your rights away and build up a police state?
Re:What is the internet verses a network? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not, because I am an honest man. So called democracies only elect crooks.
Non sequitur. What does my opinion have to do with the form of government? Does government dictate opinions now? I am not allowed to think the way I do? No, I will stick to my position because it's my position. We don't have to agree. I don't even have to be right. But government be damned, and the bovine group-think be damned too.
Terrorism is nothing new. Lock the damned cockpit doors of your planes with a serious lock, and you will never get 9/11 again. But no, the terrorism excuse can be used to fish around in your bank account, eavesdrop on your phone/internet sessions, seize or freeze your assets even when you have done nothing wrong. Because just the "suspicion" is enough. Why on earth would a government want to give up these powers? They are more addicting than crack. But tell me something, is the "war on terror" being lost, that these measures have to be considered? What happened to the "taking the fight to the enemy" excuse for invading Afghanistan (and later Iraq and now Pakistan)? After 10 years (almost twice as long as the second world war) you would think that some progress has been made and the "threat" of terrorism has decreased. Why do you feel you need more "security"? Or is it all just a bloody sham?
Re: (Score:3)
I would hope with every fiber of my being that they would tell him to stuff it.
I think you would be disappointed - Twitter is a corporation, and a US corporation at that.
If he told the military to do it I would also hope to God that they would refuse the order.
He's the commander-in-chief. While I'd hope that the generals would ask the right questions, I have every expectation that they would follow his order if there were - to abuse a phrase - "clear and present danger".
They are trying to make the position of President an Imperial office with no limits on its power.
It is that already - he has control over the military and the ability to issue executive orders. It's a minor miracle that no president has ever defied the rulings of the Supreme Court in any significant wa
Re:What is the internet verses a network? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or they might do it via cell phone, so you should shut down all cell phones too.
You mean, like during the Mumbai attacks, when the guys killing civilians were using cell phones to coordinate what they were doing? Once you find out that's what's in play, do you not see value in being able to direct the carrier to shut down the tower they're using?
The government already has, and has long had the power to sieze vehicles in an emergency. To compell HAM operators to work with them or to shut down. To take over food supplies/transport. To stockpile and control the flow of things like bauxite or fuel. In an emergency, they've got juice. This (internetworking stuff) is an area in which those powers are not codified. Wouldn't you rather it was clearly spelled out, and there were rules that an executive had to follow, including chain of events, documentation, etc? Those things are already true about other emergency powers.
Re:What is the internet verses a network? (Score:5, Insightful)
By the time you figure that out, they've already done what they set out to do. The attacks only lasted about an hour before they barricaded themselves. I don't see how not having cell phones would have saved lives and frustrated this carefully planned assault. Their plan was to kill as many people as they could, not hold a teleconference.
See the thing is the bad guy always, always has the advantage. The only time you can really prevent something is through careful surveillance BEFORE it happens. When the ball start rolling, there's not much you can do. Sure, cut off the phones. Paramedics and other first responders also use the phone system. Victims also use the phone system. So are you actually helping or making things worse?
And as for the surveillance issue - perhaps soon it will be possible to eavesdrop and keep records and mine every single data source. Now how do you stop someone from saying "hey, since we have all this data anyway, let's go after other people too"? None of us are perfect. All of us have broken some law or other. We cannot live in a world that never forgives or forgets. And it becomes even worse when some elites have the ability to modify their records and the common man doesn't. And they will - after all that's what power IS.
As for the internet - they killed the internet in Egypt. Did the problem go away? I am against nonsensical laws, and a kill switch makes no sense and it's proven NOT to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Once you find out that's what's in play, do you not see value in being able to direct the carrier to shut down the tower they're using?
So, uh, call the phone company and say 'please can you shut down the tower they're using'.
Only a retard would shut down the entire country's telephone system and even if you're not that stupid you still have to live with the unintended consequences of shutting down phones in that area; imagine, for example, that someone has managed to hide out and is passing information the police about what the bad guys are doing... well, tough luck now you've cut off their cell phone.
As for shutting down the Internet in A
Re: (Score:3)
Once you find out that's what's in play, do you not see value in being able to direct the carrier to shut down the tower they're using?
No, because once you do that you've alerted the bad guys to the fact that you know who and where they are. Better to let them keep talking, but monitor it and use triangulation to pick them out for targeted strikes. That would result in dead terrorists much, much more quickly than impeding their ability to communicate, which would just result in them scattering and disappearing into the woodwork. Exactly what happened in Mumbai (one of the attackers was arrested, nine were killed, and an unknown number, at
Re: (Score:3)
Or they might do it via cell phone, so you should shut down all cell phones too...
Give the man a cigar! You have nailed this scenario right to the ground with a pile driver. Disposable cell phones are how bombings are coordinated and triggered right now. Not "twitters" via the Internet.
If this is really the problem they want to solve then blanking out all cell phone access is where they should be starting. Since it isn't, one can reasonably suspect that they really don't care about this scenario at all, it is simply a stalking horse, and want the powers for other reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>someone will be using Twitter or Gmail
To protest against President Agent Smith in the year 2018, and president smith doesn't want that, so he turns them off.
Or to switch-off foxnews.com and msnbc.com (per the stated goals of a certain congressman). You made a noble attempt to make the "kill switch" sound good, but it really isn't. It's too much power in the hands of too few.
While congress may have a legit argument to censor the public airwaves (i.e. block nudity reaching children), they have z
Re: (Score:2)
Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day (Score:2)
a news report will be released with substantial evidence that President X did Y (something bad), and the election is tomorrow. The administration has already has "agreement" (support, blackmail, threat of lawsuits/audits unless they get everything exactly right in their report, etc) from the major news outlets to delay the story 24 hours. But news is going to get out.
"Reliable" intel may be "found" that an organization will use the internet to arrange to drop of backpack bombs at polling locations around
Re: (Score:2)
Can't say no definitively (Score:4, Insightful)
With the NSA (and others?) having the power to issue National Security Letters, we really don't know what the truth is regarding anything in this matter.
Re:Can't say no definitively (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we do.... we know how networks connect. Sure, they can try it... but I suspect that for every hour that the internet is down, hundreds of new connections come online. The damage will be healed, and connectivity will slowly be restored.... it may not be fast, it may not be great, and it make take time, but it will be enough to let the world know what they are doing to us.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "make that work".
I am not talking about restoring full access to every home. Look at egypt... the few people who were able to setup links became information hubs. Able to get information out on twitter or facebook, or get it to someone outside who can.
Sure, restoration of full, high bandwidth service... probably not happening. However, as long as some service remains, it is something to use, and build on...and the more they use the kill switch, the better those ad hoc systems will get.
Can say YES definitively (Score:3)
In the US it is no different *today*, when shit hits the fan the government will claim it's a matter of national security and companies will be required to participate in shutting down the infrastructure. If they refuse key equipment will probably just
The kill switch would be the biggest threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving the same people who would put a man to death for letting someone speak out about what the US is actually up to, the power to shut down communications, is only good for those people, not the rest of the population.
Free flow of information is a requirement for having a democracy.
Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat (Score:4)
Exactly. I don't know how these congresscritters can talk about this with a straight face after what happened in Egypt.
Anyway, to answer the original question, isn't a "kill switch" only feasible in a country that requires all traffic to go through some government-sponsored filtering system? We certainly don't want THAT in this country. There too much traffic for that, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, to answer the original question, isn't a "kill switch" only feasible in a country that requires all traffic to go through some government-sponsored filtering system?
No.
What we think happened is that Egypt called up the 5 or 6 ISPs in the country and said "SHUT. EVERYTHING. DOWN"
All this talk of a Kill Switch is just legalese for giving the government lawful authority to order shut downs.
President Obama could do the same thing tomorrow, he just wouldn't have any legal cover for it.
I personally find it troubling that so many powers we once gave the government only in a state of war/emergency are becoming part and parcel of normal government operations.
Re: (Score:2)
There are choke points, nonetheless. The government might not be capable of an absolute shutdown like we saw in Burma or Egypt, but they might be able to cripple the Internet to the point where, for the large bulk of people, it simply won't work.
That being said, there are ways around it, older technologies like HAM radio, satellite, PPP, UUCP and the like, not to mention newer technologies like mesh networking, that could, while not restoring the Internet as we know it, be good enough to get data in and ou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me? But who? What? I have heard prosecution but no official call for the death penalty. But then I have heard people say that Bush should have been shot but they where not serious so it was okay correct?
Re: (Score:2)
So two people that are not in congress, not elected officials, and currently not in government employ stated an opinion?
Shocking! I tell you what will be next it is the end of all freedom when two people with no official standing can publicly say such an opinion!
So as I said, I have heard not official call for the death penalty have you?
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree.... I think it will be the biggest threat for authoritarianism.
There are enough people in the US that know how to setup networks. If they turn on the kill switch, how many people in this country are going to be.... within hours (it not minutes) be working on ways to get new links up and to circumvent it in any way possible? The more they use it, the longer it stays on, the more resistance we build to it.
Let them use their antibiotic, they will merely pave the way for resistance. Also, how many jo
Re: (Score:2)
Giving the same people who would put a man to death for letting someone speak out about what the US is actually up to, the power to shut down communications, is only good for those people, not the rest of the population.
There's no "giving" here. The Obama administration claims that they already have that authority under section 706 of the Communications Act. Here is the relevant part, with emphasis added:
after seeing what happened in Egypt (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember anyone recently claiming that the US was a democracy... House members voting against what their constituents want, presidents signing clearly unconstitutional bills into law and the supreme court refusing to hear important cases? Just cause the president belongs to the democratic party, doesn't mean our formerly great country is still a democracy...
Re: (Score:3)
Well.... do we really need to review the differences between democracy and republic again? I thought everyone knew that this was a republic, which tends to be a form of aristocracy. It has its pros and cons over a direct democracy, and tends to be a bit better at some areas of protecting fundamental rights... at least the ones explicitly stated in the constitution end up having SOME protection (if not as much as we would like).
In a simple democracy, you could expect radical changes in policy after every new
Re: (Score:2)
It's a representative democracy, and intentionally so. The Founding Fathers were learned men who knew that direct democracies could all too easily fall into mobocracy. As much as they wanted to assure the majority will, they were also interested in preventing a tyranny of the majority (which is why, for instance, they created the Electoral College to select Presidents rather than a simple popular vote, to make sure that even in the process of choosing the Executive the will of the majority was tempered).
Re: (Score:2)
My girlfriend accuses me of doing that once a day (Score:4, Funny)
She: "Did you do something to the Internet? It's not working."
Me: "Yes, that's one of my superpowers from the radioactive spider bite and gamma ray treatment. I can turn off the Internet at will."
Now I can say:
"Oh, that's just the Obama daughters, playing with the Internet Kill Switch in the White House."
Inconceivable! (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the First Amendment to the Constitution prevented the government from limiting speech in any way, shape or form. I guess not.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech does not apply to sedition or revolution against the United States or "Imminent lawless action".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That's very funny because I believe the constitution was written up to allow for sedition and revolution against the established governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think that? Every discusion of the First Amendment starts off with the limits of protected speech starting with the classic shouting fire in a crowded theater.
You can not threaten people. For example someone can not send you threatening email or call you constantly. That is called harassment.
There are limits to how close Right to Life groups can protest to Abortion Provider location.
Someone can not say that they know for a fact that you rape little children unless they actually do know that fo
Connection from afar (Score:5, Funny)
I would love to have a trial run of this scenario.
The goal would be to get an Internet connection from outside the US to a city well inside the US using nothing over which the US government has control. E.g., from Clifton Hill, ON (Niagara Falls) to Pittsburgh, PA. Or somewhere in Vancouver, BC to Portland, OR.
This would likely necessitate the use of strategically positioned WiFi access points and lots of cantennas or similar directional devices. Exceeding the wattage cap could be considered in-bounds if its detection is difficult or detection of the detection is easy. Multiple routes would be nice, but even a single connection is better than nothing at all.
This could help the public (eh, mostly geeks) develop a plan to Internet the US if the gov't gets ISPs by the balls or cuts cables. Plausible deniability would be built in later somehow.
Re: (Score:3)
This would likely necessitate the use of strategically positioned WiFi access points and lots of cantennas or similar directional devices. Exceeding the wattage cap could be considered in-bounds if its detection is difficult or detection of the detection is easy. Multiple routes would be nice, but even a single connection is better than nothing at all.
This could help the public (eh, mostly geeks) develop a plan to Internet the US if the gov't gets ISPs by the balls or cuts cables. Plausible deniability would be built in later somehow.
This just in: "Red Dawn" was a movie. In real life, the Dittohead next door notices the funny thing on your roof and calls Homeland Security. Game Over.
Re: (Score:2)
(As a complete coincidence, I watched 'Pirate Radio' last night. Those people put a whole transmitter into a suitcase, rigged an antenna into an umbrella, and were microcasting coverage of the WTO protests li
Emergency Tests (Score:2)
Would be a great way... (Score:3)
To bring jobs back to the US... put in the internet kill switch, use it once, and all those call center jobs will come right back! :)
Neutral Internet should be a right. (Score:2)
The root of the problem (Score:2)
If you could physically block the DNS root servers most home system would stop working in a matter of hours. From there you could work your way to main ISP switches and lock out entire sections of the country. One fiber cut in Columbus knocked out almost every school in Ohio. A few key places could make the internet practically useless.
it's ok we have guns (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
unlike the Egyptian mob, an American mob will be much more powerful cos we got guns... we can just storm the Comcast offices and turn it back on if they shut down teh interwebs
Bad news, buckaroo: most of the people with guns in this country would be all in favor of taking the govt's word on the necessity of shutting down the internet. All it would take are a few scare stories on the local news about swarthy terrorists planning to bomb the local Target.
True story: I live in rural Ohio. When we moved here, there was a tiny food store in the nearby small town. It changed owners every few years because nobody could compete with the big stores ~15 miles away. So a few years ago a Paki
Look at the intentions (Score:3)
As much as I'm opposed to the idea, I think we need to put the thing into context. This is being pushed by politicians not in an attempt to block Free Speech (like Egypt did) but because they fear some massive hacking attack.
Given that politicians are openly saying Hackers might try to hack into Hoover Dam and open the floodgates, killing thousands [wired.com], that's WHY they are claiming they want a kill-switch. Of course, the idea of cutting the internet is actually an unfeasible remedy; we have ISPs already cooperating to help stop DDoS attacks etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In Egypt, martial law was declared in 1967 after the assassination of the President. Now, most people would agree that this is an accepted use of martial law, and a purpose for which it was designed. However, Mubarak essentially extended it indefinitely, using it to silence dissent of his regime and arresting, exiling, or killing political opponents or people he didn't like. Now, this is certainly NOT something that martial law was intended to allow, and it certainly isn't a legitimate use.
Now, what does
Bill of Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy to weasel out of (Score:2)
Question is two: practical and technical (Score:2)
1. Technically - yes (Egypt does not differ much communication-wise from US)
2. Practically - no (too much economic negative side effects)
The article confuses things. (Score:3)
The article confuses things.
Egypt has a US-sponsored dictator for reasons of 'stability'.
People don't count.
This new 'cyber' 'security' issue is a new fake reason to limit peoples' freedoms.
Now also in the USA and worldwide.
Just hit DNS (Score:2)
If it had the side effect of turning off the rest of the world, too - well ....
Nevermind feasable, do we even need one? (Score:2)
Uh, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about (Score:2)
His arguments just don't hold water unless you assume that all networks are connected to every other network. There are choke points and all the government needs to do is control them. I certainly don't think it's beyond the government to be able to do so. It always surprises me that people either dramatically over-estimate or under-estimate the Internet's resilience. It's tough but not indestructible and it does have some serious weak spots.
not super effective (Score:2)
Pretty sure the protests continued even after Egypt hit their internet kill switch.
The main message that use of an internet kill switch sends is that the government is in a state of utter panic and is resorting to desperate measures. That kind of message is very informative, but not in the way they might have wished. If anything, it probably emboldened the protesters in Egypt.
Ok Now something more on-point (Score:2)
So the tinfoil hat / "information wants to be free" crowd aside, Could it really be done?
Are there few enough peering points to actually shut it down from say the rest of the world? Could you effectively isolate the entire US Internet?
The old story about the pissed off guy at MAE-WEST pulling the plug on Northern Europe for bad behavior aside, could it be done in a manner that would be instant without literally going down to the beach, finding the shore end of a cable and taking an Axe to it?
I have never
Much ado about nothing? (Score:2)
Why do people keep ignoring the fact that the President has had the ability to shut off the Internet for almost 75 years now due to the Communications Act of 1934. This bill is to regulate an existing power, not to create a new one.
This is kind of a relevant detail, but no one seems to care.
Questionable... (Score:2)
yea (Score:2)
Order of Decisions (Score:2)
--Conversation--
TOPIC
(1) Should we? (within ethics, morals, etc.)
(2) Could we? (within policy, law, etc.)
(3) How would we? (within constraints of time, money, and complexity)
--Thought Exercise--
We did. Now predict:
(1) Reaction to existence of tool.
(2) Reaction to use of tool.
(3) Potential effect of tool.
(4) Balance of gains and losses for existence and use of tool.
And the moment someone says something hyperbolic like "immeasurable" or "must", that person is thrown out of the discussion. Most people who say
big red buttonz (Score:2)
James: "Good day Sir President. Good you are in office.. Some very excited gentleman, with the name something like Brian Moynihan or so, of the Bank of America says... he wants one too??? He was overly exciting I couldn't make up what he was talking about... And then there was
Oh, we need it. (Score:2)
I think the need for an Internet kill switch is now clear. [seebs.net]
Re: (Score:2)
I could see it happening if there was an all out attack on military, financial and government networks from overseas addresses.
The government(s) here in the US are too large and distributed in my opinion to ever have to cling to power.
Look at recent history, G.W. Bush the most reviled president since Nixon, who had the cabinet of arch villains in the eyes of many people, he stepped aside when his term was over, as did Cheney. Hell Nixon gave it up without a shot fired.
If individuals like LBJ, Nixon and both
Re: (Score:2)
That is the big difference between "US" and "THEM". We stage mini-revolutions every couple of years and have term limits that limit the top guy to 8 years. And since at any given moment half the population hates the current president it is pretty safe to say that one declaring himself supreme leader for the rest of his life is pretty slim.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding to my own post...
The very fact that we even CAN discuss this and protest against it before it has even become more than a glimmer in some nutty congressman's eye is another reason why we are different. These things are openly discussed in other countries.
The other thing that distinguishes is our diversity. Even with the crazy tea party religious fanatics taking some seats there is only so far they can go before the sane people start pushing back. In some countries - the religious fanatics are the
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree. In reality, however, it's never those kinds of leaders you have to worry about. The reason Brutus and Co. were freaked out about Julius Caesar wasn't because he was such a shitty, evil autocratic leader, but because he was an incredibly competent, popular autocratic leader.
I'd be more worried about some future FDR than I would about a GWB or a Nixon. The latter type of leader always self-destruct one way or the other. The popular, charismatic leaders, those are the dangerous ones.
Still,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you'll ever even see an FDR again. Even as popular as someone like Reagan had enough people who hated him to keep him from changing the term limits. People have too much information about people nowadays to be so easily bamboozled by charismatic leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
The creation of Presidential term limits effectively closed the door, I think, on any kind of American Octavian or Hitler rising (and note, I'm not saying FDR was like those guys, and I don't think those who formulated the 22nd Amendment were saying that either. But everyone had just fought a damned bloody war against absolutist dictators who had used or abused their constitutions to gain perpetual office.
For a President to pull off throwing out the 22nd Amendment is really quite inconceivable. I don't kn
Re: (Score:2)
The problem in the late Republic was that the Senate did not represent a meaningful check on the authority of the Triumvirates or any of the other dictatorial formulation. Certainly during transitions in power the Senate could have a huge influence (and continued to even into the Empire), but all in all the underlying structure of the Republic lent itself to being overwhelmed. They tried to stop the trend towards out-and-out monarchy by killing Julius Caesar, but all that did was spark civil war and insta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses would come to a halt.
Internet goes down... you would have mullions that first call their ISPs 1-800 number, but because the ISP outsourced their customer service, the 1-800 number isn't working because that company has no internet for VoIP, looking up case numbers, access to e-mail, access to critical customer databases, etc.
It would be a endless spiral downwards as more and more people realize it was shutdown by the government.
Re: (Score:2)