Reply With Quote
On top of this, the US, afaik, controls ICANN which sits uneasy with the rest of the world. If anyone has the power to shut down the internet, it's the US.
Also, this is no surprise to me. Obama has shown that all his talk about greater transparency and restoring civil liberties was bs. Which sucks, because that was the main reason I voted for him.
I guess I'll have to vote for Ron Paul next election.
On top of this, the US, afaik, controls ICANN which sits uneasy with the rest of the world. If anyone has the power to shut down the internet, it's the US.
For the most part, that's true. The Internet, big *I* is just a conglomeration of networks and apps like email and the WWW. There would be networks that survived. Plenty of big internal nets of the gov and banks etc don't use DNS. Strictly IP. They buy a block of IP's and never register a domain to those IP's and run a VPN using only IP addresses. The TLD's of the various country domains .. dot uk...dot az...dot 'what the ever'... would survive in pieces but the big INTERNET as we know it, would not. They could not talk to each other. The US controls that. , most of the Internet resides on the .com domain. By far. Trust me, I tried to move some stuff to a .us domain and it just didn't go. even spurstalk, technically, should not be a .com domain. It's in violation of interNIC rules as most .com's are. .com = commerce...doing business. Spurstalk does business ? Not at this time they don't. .org or .us is their legit legal domain.
Yeah, actually I was just making a joke but I guess you didn't find it funny. How bout a youtube video!....
Will people head West in search of internet if this happens?
I'd like to hear one plausible scenario in which killing the Internet would ever be necessary.
If the government if afraid of an attack, they can take their own crap off the networks. What is a cyber-terrorist going to do, send spam e-mail or spread a virus to windows machines?
I seriously can't envision any purpose for this proposal.
Most Americans probably don't understand what you said, even though some of them just read it.
Whenever martial law is declared, we're ed.
Hopefully it's just another club we swing over other countries.
You don't understand computers tbh. And I don't feel like explaining.
the only purpose I can envision is the government being afraid of free speech, Americans communicating it's wrong doings to each other.
If the government only takes their own computers off the network, then the worm is still out there. I'm guessing the proposal is to isolate areas of the internet in case of a worst-case scenario.
And honestly Sabar, you should look up what bot-nets are. A large enough bot-net could cripple networks. And that's just simple DDoS; not even looking at malicious rootkits/trojans/etc etc.
I'd expect that of you WC. The only purpose you can imagine the government would want power over the internet is to destroy freedom of speech, yet the only reason the government wants the power to indefinitely detain suspects is to protect our freedom. You certainly have funny ways of looking at things.
For the record, I don't agree with this bill/proposal. I'm just speaking from a network technician standpoint, and one who works with government networks to boot.
Let me say that I don't like this idea at all. Lots of power to be given. However, to answer your question what if there was a concerted effort to take over the US electrical grid (not government owned), to take over all of our nuclear power plants (not government owned), or take over aspects of the financial sector (not government owned, though terrorists taking it over may be an improvement, lol). I am guessing scenarios such as this are the "reason" for this kill switch. I do agree with you that the President should have (already had) a kill switch for all governmental internet connections.
AFAIK, there is no "kill switch" for government networks for various reasons. It's just not feasible to shut an entire military network down; certain circuits must remain open due to operations/missions. Now, there might be a "kill switch" for NIPRNet (Non-secret), but I doubt there is one for SIPR. The President would probably just send the word out to the various NOSCs to deny all/most traffic at the base firewalls/DMZ.
I should have specified this administration. Look at how many ways they attempt to take over parts of this nation. They clearly don't think us "little people" have the same rights they do.
I cannot believe you are comparing detainees, who can be separated, with the internet.
Honestly? You trust the government when they say Mr. X is a bad guy, and we have to keep him in detention indefinitely, but we don't have enough evidence to put him on trial.
But you don't trust the government when they say they need power/control over the internet.
It's not that hard to see the distinction. Any "kill switch" would not be on/off; it would involve shutting down certain geographical areas/nodes.
Obama has no love for civil liberties, and neither did the last administration. That's what this is about.
It's not that there isn't evidence, it's that the evidence is classified, or it's someone removed off the battlefield of an ongoing war.
Do you believe in a "catch and release" policy for soldiers, as if they were fish?
I don't trust the government beyond it's cons utional mandates. Even then, those in control who are corrupt will abuse their power. I immediately am skeptical when for no proper reason, someone wants to control something.
For what purpose? It's not needed.
There is no comparison between the two. The last administration took steps that were reasonable in a terrorist war scenario. This current administration is putting it's hands everywhere it can find any flimsy reason to take control.
[QUOTE=LnGrrrR]
But they're not classified as soldiers, are they?
Enemy combatants are the same for purposes of having them remain in captivity.
In previous wars, prisoners were not released unless there was a prisoner exchange, or when the war ended, with few exceptions. No matter how you slice it, these people are in captivity related to "the war on terror." When that war ends, then they can be released, and I''m sure some will get a trial then.
Life simply stinks sometimes.
They're not considered prisoners of war... so your comparison is moot.
Yeah, 'end justify the means' and what not... we heard you loud and clear the first time...
If we get a cyber attack so bad that our country has to shut down the internet, they don't need some executive order. Just ing do it. You start writing bull laws or bills or legislation some weed will figure out loopholes and shut the damn thing down whenever they want.
This whole 'cyberattack' thing is vastly overblown... but scare you is what they want, and I expect people to bite...
What about Jose Padilla? Or are airports considered battlegrounds?
What about Obama's quote that military commissions, which could be held in secret, still wouldn't provide evidence for some detainees, which must be kept anyways because of their potential danger?
As ElNono pointed out, they're not soldiers. Tell me, do you believe in a "catch and possibly keep indefinitely without trial and/or proof of their actual actions" policy? Because that's what we have now.
Too bad there weren't more people like you when our government proposed invading Iraq and Afghanistan in order to control those countries.
Are you privy to classified information on our cybersecurity? You don't know for sure that it's not needed anymore than I do.
Yes, the last administration was a modi of restraint.
Yup. But us network technicians have to make money somehow!I've found all career field "experts" tend to predict the worst... after all, if they predicted relatively light consequences for skimping on security, what's the point of hiring a security specialist?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
