Internet "kill switch"?

Messages
1,338
Reaction score
224
http://www.theage.com.au/technology...ernet-kill-switch-proposed-20100618-yln6.html


[h1]Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed [/h1]
[h5]ASHER MOSES [/h5]June 18, 2010 - 2:43PM

  • Cyber 9/11 'pure fantasy'

Australian online user's lobby group spokesman argues the proposed US internet 'kill switch' is completely unnecessary. US President Barack Obama would be granted powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet under a new bill that describes the global internet as a US "national asset".

Local lobby groups and academics have rounded on the plan, saying that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace.

The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by independent senator Joe Lieberman, who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.

The internet is a dangerous place ... US Senator Joe Lieberman. Photo: AP

Titled "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act", the bill stipulates any internet firms and providers must "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by a new section of the US Department of Homeland Security, dubbed the "National Centre for Cybersecurity and Communications".

Lobby group TechAmerica told ZDNet it worried that the bill would give the US "absolute power" over the internet and create "unintended consequences".

One of Australia's top communications experts, University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, railed against the idea, saying shutting down the internet would "inflict an enormous damage on the entire world".

He said it would be like giving a single country "the right to poison the atmosphere, or poison the ocean".

"All our financial systems, all our security systems ... we're so reliant on the internet that if you shut it down there's a question of whether society will continue to operate normally anywhere in the Western world," Landfeldt said in a phone interview.

"By doing this they would do the terrorists the biggest favour ever because they would terrorise the rest of the world".

Landfeldt said the US would be the only country in the world with the ability to shut down the internet. He said such a move would be extremely difficult for the US to justify to other nations.

"Unfortunately, too much of the core of the internet resides in the US - let's put it this way, they cannot shut down machines in Australia, but they can completely isolate us and shut down certain core functions like the DNS ... they can render the internet fairly useless for the rest of the world," he said.

Senator Susan Collins, co-sponsor of the bill, has said: "We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11."

Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people".

He said that, for all its allure, the internet could 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".

US economic security, national security and public safety were now all at risk from new kinds of enemies, including "cyber warriors, cyber spies, cyber terrorists and cyber criminals".

Geordie Guy, spokesman for the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said governments around the world seemed terrified of some unidentified risk that they believe the internet poses.

"The proposal is from Joe Lieberman, a repeat offender on rights versus regulation, in a bill called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010," he said.

"One wonders which nation Senator Lieberman considers the internet an asset of, and how proposing its destruction by presidential or homeland security order protects it.

"The internet is not a national asset of the United States, nor is it a media regulation problem of Australia. It is an international network used by millions upon millions of citizens and it needs to remain free and available."

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy did not respond to calls requesting comment.

Google, one of the world's biggest internet companies, declined to comment as it was not yet official US government policy.




Sorry if I'm late...
 
indifferent.gif
 
Stop blaming Obama for every little thing gosh smh.

Although i do think this right here is crazy
 
Originally Posted by stateofsingularity

Sic semper tyrannis, mother#$@%^#

Preach.


[h1]
[h1]FCC votes to reconsider regulating Internet providers[/h1]
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 06/18/10 at 1:27 AM | Updated: 06/18/10 at 3:39 PM


Read more: [url=http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/18/fcc-votes-to-reconsider-regulating-internet-providers/#ixzz0rEoVCQvT]http://dailycaller.com/20...providers/#ixzz0rEoVCQvT[/url]


The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to take another step toward reclassifying the way it regulates Internet service providers, releasing a plan for public comment that would give the federal agency vast new powers over companies that distribute Web access.

“The FCC has an obligation to move forward with an open, constructive public comment process to ask hard questions, build a record, find a solution and resolve the uncertainty that has been created,
[/h1]
 
Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by stateofsingularity

Sic semper tyrannis, mother#$@%^#

Preach.


[h1]
[h1]FCC votes to reconsider regulating Internet providers[/h1]
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 06/18/10 at 1:27 AM | Updated: 06/18/10 at 3:39 PM


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/18/f...-regulating-internet-providers/#ixzz0rEoVCQvThttp://dailycaller.com/20...providers/#ixzz0rEoVCQvT


The Federal Communications Commission voted Thursday to take another step toward reclassifying the way it regulates Internet service providers, releasing a plan for public comment that would give the federal agency vast new powers over companies that distribute Web access.

“The FCC has an obligation to move forward with an open, constructive public comment process to ask hard questions, build a record, find a solution and resolve the uncertainty that has been created,
[/h1]
 
With all these ******ed proposals being introduced, its only a matter of time before the goverment places some strong restrictions on internet content. For a democratic nation, we sure are mirroring a lot of moves that communist China makes.
 
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh It's Obama's fault for this and Obama this Obama that

JOE LIEBERMAN PROPOSED it as Dirty explained.. Joe Lieberman is pretty much the Independent Senator who votes Republican 80% of the time because he was butthurt Democrats tried to get him out for not doing his job. Liberals hate him, Conservatives hate him.. The sooner he gets kicked out the better.

As for Net Neutrality, without it, it gives Internet Providers the ability to slow the speed of any website it wants, and make other websites faster if it wants.. THAT'S CENSORSHIP... But any government is bad government right, especially if it wants every site the ability to run at similar speeds and not have internet providers decide what runs for us and how fast.....
 
Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by stateofsingularity
but the FCC wants to ensure Net Neutrality...
The ISP's obviously do not.

That strongly depends on your definition of a "neutral network" and you have to ask yourself, "why fix it if it aint broke?"

The internet has become what it is today without regulation.  ISPs need the freedom to experiment with their business models so future innovations can take place.  Honestly, this whole debate wouldn't even be happening if ISPs came out and said they'll keep the flat-rate all-you-can-eat model.  From a consumer standpoint, I agree.  But from an avid internet user, I want to see the internet continue to grow in applications and speed as quickly as possible.  It seems to be doing just that as things are now.

I did a lot of research on Net Neutrality at my last job.  Both sides have valid points but regulation to "keep things as they are" seems counter-intuitive to what the internet represents.  /rant
 
Originally Posted by RoOk

Stop blaming Obama for every little thing gosh smh.

Although i do think this right here is crazy

People blamed Bush for every little thing
 
That strongly depends on your definition of a "neutral network" and you have to ask yourself, "why fix it if it aint broke?"

The internet has become what it is today without regulation. ISPs need the freedom to experiment with their business models so future innovations can take place. Honestly, this whole debate wouldn't even be happening if ISPs came out and said they'll keep the flat-rate all-you-can-eat model. From a consumer standpoint, I agree. But from an avid internet user, I want to see the internet continue to grow in applications and speed as quickly as possible. It seems to be doing just that as things are now.

I did a lot of research on Net Neutrality at my last job. Both sides have valid points but regulation to "keep things as they are" seems counter-intuitive to what the internet represents. /rant


Im not quite sure what angle you are pushing in this post? How would monopolizing and exploiting ISP services help the internet grow?
 
Back
Top Bottom