Proposed bill for internet kill-switch....

[ape descendant]

I don't think I really like the idea of the U.S. gov't having the authority to shut off people's internets......

They're gonna go for it though... I haven't been able to find any updates on it though.
****
"The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined. "
****

Full article HERE.

[vindicatedxjin]

...I don't know what to think about this. I heard about it a long time ago but didn't think it was even going to fall through. Guess I was wrong.

[ape descendant]

I think its a matter of national security that our gov't NOT be granted this power.

[Tam Li Hua]

^ I have to agree. I can't think of any emergency that would warrent shutting down the internet for our protection.

Protection against what, I'd like to know.

[vindicatedxjin]

Guys come on...you all know about the "suicide bomber" virus...where the whole nation will have computers blow up right in they're faces!

[Beneath the Shadows]

^I thought that was called Y2K.

In any case, if people have any common sense, they will protest the passage of this bill by any (peaceful) means necessary, and if it goes through people should call for the recall of every Senator/Representative who voted it through.

Of course, they should've done the same thing for the Obamacare bill, too... and failed to do so.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

This was already talked about in the Infowars/prison planet thread.

It is Post #327...

No Instant Message!...No Peace!...Say No to stazi Internet Police!
http://www.infowars.com/the-internet-must-remain-free/

The Internet Must Remain Free

Chuck Baldwin
June 30, 2010

The Internet is abuzz with news that a US Senate committee has approved a bill that apparently gives the President authority to shut down the Internet. According to TechWorld.com, “A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.”

The report continues by saying, “The bill, introduced earlier this month [by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thomas Carper, D-Delaware], would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electric grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web1

A PrisonPlanet.com report says this about the bill: “President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday [June 24] and now moves to the floor.

“The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

“Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.”

The report continued by saying, “Fears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic [communist] China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion.

“‘Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,’ Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley.

“While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet.”

See the report at:

http://tinyurl.com/obama-can-kill-web2

Of course, pro-family groups have long lobbied Washington lawmakers to pass regulations restricting objectionable material on the Internet. But Senator Lieberman’s bill does more than restrict content on the Internet; it gives the federal government the power to completely shut it down.

My friends, if you have any love for liberty left in your heart, one thing is critical: the Internet must remain free–absolutely, totally unrestricted and free.

I realize that many upstanding, well-intentioned people believe that the federal government should restrict the content of the Internet. But Lieberman’s bill should provide ample warning for anyone who believes that the federal government can be trusted with ANY authority it is granted beyond that which is rightly ascribed to it via the US Constitution. Plus, given the propensities of the federal government these days, how long before the definition of “objectionable content” includes your freedom of speech and mine? In plain language, the federal government has no business restricting anything that the Constitution does not permit it to. If we cede the authority to restrict and regulate the content of the Internet to the federal government, we are also ceding to it the power to completely shut down the Internet. And this is exactly what Lieberman’s bill does.

The fact is, the Internet is the last bastion of free and unfiltered news and information. And, yes, I understand that there is much misinformation on the Internet. But that is the price of freedom. The individual must be given the liberty to discern right from wrong for himself. As a Christian, I believe this is why God provided the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. And I for one do not need the federal government to try and replace either. And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for! Good grief! It is bad enough that the federal government has turned into Big Brother; are we going to allow it to become Big Momma and Big Daddy as well?

Ladies and gentlemen, it is essential that the free flow of information be allowed to continue over the Internet. The major news media is a finely filtered, tightly controlled medium that works harder at blocking news and information than it does at delivering it. Virtually every major television and radio network, along with the nation’s major newspapers, is an equal opportunity news-suppressor.

Just ask yourself, what would you have known regarding the MIAC report in Missouri had it not been for the Internet? What would you have known about the fiasco in Hardin, Montana, had it not been for the Internet? What would you know about the NAFTA superhighway without the Internet? If not for the Internet, would you ever have learned about the CFR’s plans for a North American Community? Where would the Tea Parties be today without the Internet? Where would Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008 have been without the Internet? Virtually everything you’ve learned regarding the State sovereignty momentum that continues to build across this country you’ve learned from the Internet. Except for a few courageous independent radio talk show hosts, and newspaper and magazine publishers, the vast majority of extremely relevant and critical information relative to freedom is gleaned from the Internet–not to mention the speed with which news and information is able to travel, thanks to the Internet.

It is no hyperbole to suggest that the Internet is the modern patriots’ version of the colonists’ Committees of Correspondence that sounded the clarion call for liberty and independence at the time of America’s founding. And now, power-mad elitists in Washington, D.C., are attempting to provide the federal government with the power and authority to shut it down at will.

What is even more disturbing is the way that private companies and special interest groups are willing to prostitute themselves before the federal government in order to get their own “piece of the pie.” Think of it: just about every freedom-grabbing, Big-Government action taken by these modern Machiavellians in Washington, D.C., is facilitated by willing CEOs from Big Business. They gladly assist Big Brother when he wants to spy on us, read our emails, listen to our phone calls, etc. They happily help Big Brother when he wants to eavesdrop inside our homes, examine our financial records, or snoop on our private lives. When Big Brother says, “Jump!” they ask, “How high?” Then–like these hypocrites in Washington, D.C.–they have the audacity to wave the flag on Independence Day and shout, “America: the land of the free!” As if they are blameless in freedom’s demise.

Mark it down: if the federal government ever shuts down the Internet, it will be business as usual for Washington, D.C., and its fellow travelers in Big Business; but We the People will be out of business, and so will freedom. Regardless of what side of any issue you and I may come from, it is critical that the Internet remains absolutely and totally free.
__________________
"The Answer To 1984 IS 1776"
I may be crazy to a few...but at least I'm Committed.


9x29mmR : The Choice Of Millions for the last 100-107 years.

[ape descendant]

Yeah... between the banning of flavored cigarettes, a highly flawed health care reform bill and this, I find myself sitting here shaking my head and chanting "What the fuck?" softly.

[Ben Lahnger]

There's No (New) Internet Kill Switch

Posted by Thomas Claburn, Jun 25, 2010 02:47 PM at InformationWeek's Security Weblog

SOURCE

The Lieberman-Collins cybersecurity bill passed out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Thursday to await consideration by the full Senate. But not everyone is satisfied with what it says.

The bill has drawn criticism in some quarters because it supposedly includes provisions for an Internet kill switch -- when the going gets rough, the President supposedly could power down the Net.

Well, it seems there is no Internet kill switch in the bill. Apparently, we have one already.

In an e-mail directed to his media contacts on Friday, Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, wrote:

There is no kill switch in the Lieberman-Collins Bill (formally known as Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, S. 3480). But there is one already on the books in the Communications Act of 1934.

The Lieberman-Collins bill just authorizes standard filtering like that done by ISPs every day, but in a nationally-coordinated fashion. The only kill switch appears to be in Sec. 706(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, that already gives the President the power in a time of national security emergency to shut down or disrupt internet traffic. The Lieberman Collins Bill is much more measured and effective.

The relevant sections of both bills are provided below. Read them yourself. The press has been totally fooled by IT and telephone company lobbyists, and by an incorrect article from a CNET reporter (I wonder who gave him the incorrect data). That false press report got repeated over and over.

If you are a journalist, next time you hear one of the lobbyists talk about "unintended consequences" and "kill switches" remember how the car companies tried to block mandatory seat belts by saying "your wives and children will die in car fires because the seat belts will keep them from getting out of their cars in time." And you might consider recalling the immortal words of Garrison Keillor, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

That's not to say there's no reason to be concerned about the bill. In a letter backed by some 23 other civil liberties groups, the Center for Democracy & Technology on Wednesday, laid out a list of concerns about the specifics of the proposed law.

Among other things, the letter says, "the bill should also be amended to require an independent assessment of the effect on free speech, privacy and other civil liberties of the measures undertaken to respond to each emergency the President declares. It is imperative that cybersecurity legislation not erode our rights."

Frankly, it's hard to know how to talk about possible emergencies and what might be appropriate. Sure, it's nice to think that Twitter will be available in a crisis. But what kind of crisis are we talking about? If it's like The Road, where the main concern is not being eaten by soul-dead cannibals, who'd notice an Internet shutdown?

Ben - Food for thought, folks.

[ape descendant]

Thanks for the update Ben, the article I read must have been kinda old.. I really need to check my dates. :S

[Ben Lahnger]

Not old. Based on false info. That CNET article got around, but the source info was bogus to begin with.

[ape descendant]

*facepalms herself* I should have snopes'd it...

[Heretic]

If that legislation had contained a "water killswitch" provision that would allow the government to cut water to homes and business in the event our water supply was compromised by a biological terrorist attack, this would be a non-issue; no one here would have argued the government shouldn't have that kind of authority. But because it isn't a "road block killswitch" granting the power to shut down interstate highways, or an FDA "meat processing killswitch" designed to stop beef processing in the event of an outbreak of disease, people want to take issue with the idea.

I think one fact that escapes many people is that the internet isn't just YouTube, ESPN and Bittorrent. A severe compromise of the network could mean a potential attack on our financial system, medical records, utilities, or a variety of other interconnected computer systems we take for granted. Who needs to sneak into the US with a load of explosives in order to blow up a power plant when you could cripple dozens of them from another country in the comfort of your own terrorist (or anarchist, or thieves', or disgruntled teen-ager's) hideout? There is a reason the Pentagon approved the creation of the Air Force Cyber Command a few years ago. This kind of thing is no joke; if a highly destructive force (virus, hacker, etc.) was able to compromise sensitive systems, a partial shutdown of the system might be the only option. And this isn't just a bunch of hypothetical fearmongering; this sort of thing has been going on for years.

Besides, all of this is irrelevant anyway. It is ignorant to believe Congress would have to pass a bill and grant someone some new level of authority in order for such a shutdown to occur. As we have seen on numerous occasions, the military and the office of the president can already do this sort of thing. For example, does anyone remember when all domestic and international flights were grounded in the wake of the 9-11 terrorists attacks? There was no Congressional approval involved in that decision. The president simply authorized it based upon the threat level. This mythical "internet killswitch" would be redundant considering what the office of the president already has the power and the authority to do.


- Heretic

[Despanan]

...so basically, it's Leiberman yelling "Look at me! I'm still a relevant politician!"

Kinda like when he teamed up with Jack Thompson to shake a finger at Rockstar games for letting you kill Hookers in GTA.

[Ben Lahnger]

Yep, exactly! That was funny, too!

The point is, if at any point during World War II the President had determined that it was of paramount importance to the war effort or a matter of national security, he could have ordered all the radio stations shut down. There are any number of reasons why that kind of thing is unlikely, but it is a bit more likely because of the genuine security threat the internet could be.

With all of our interdependence and relatively insufficient security, if the President needs to temporarily disable all international connectivity to prevent Wall Street from being hacked ... I'm for it. After the panic attack I saw people going through on a recent day because the market dropped close to 400 points in about 10 minutes, I don't want someone else yanking our chain.