How do you feel about the US President having the power to shut down parts of the internet?

Knew this was going to happen, that guy can't leave anything alone

feel good about it.

Who, Joe Lieberman? lol

You're so partisan that you just make absolutely no sense. If the emergency grid is attacked through the internet, it's within reason to shut it off you would think. You act like because it's a power that the president would have, that it's all about Obama.

Does this have anything to do with WikiLeaks?

The Kill Switch Myth?
...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ill-switch.php

no ones owns the internet

Yeah China has this ability, working great for them

And just because you disagree with what I'm saying about Obama, doesn't make me partisan, I agree with a lot of what he says he's doing, it's what he's actually doing that I hate

he passed the America recovery act to stimulate unemployment
it cost $715k per worker

He got healthcare passed
government agencies are already saying how much it will cost is way over what we were told, buddy of mine, his healthcare just went up $80 a month, that's not suppose to happen right?

He got the bank regulations he wanted
Why didn't he get Fannie and freddie on it?

He promised more troops in Afghanistan
OK, I have nothing but hate over this, anyway you look at it

he got paygo passed
day after passing a 1.7 trillion dollar spending bill, then he bitched at the GOP because they wanted the unemployment extension to comply to that

here's what Obama said in a speech
The GOP asked that the money came from the unspent stimulus and was bashed for even considering that

So forgive me if I doubt this will be used for the reason intended

It does because this is a bill, introduced by Joe Lieberman, an actual conservative bill that strengthens national security and defense... you know.. that thing the Republicans are always doing, yet all you can think to do is attack Obama because he's the current president, even though he has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

If this bill was introduced during the Bush years you'd have probably thought it was a good idea, and well, it probably is a good idea.

The president works for google now?

That explains why foxnews.com is 404 ;)

Of course he has something to do with the Bill...as he does with every single Bill...that comes out of Congress. He can say yea or nay...as he has the power of veto.

Bush Or Obama, whats the difference? Do you really trust their intentions?

Besides, If I didn't attack Obama's agenda, this place would be boring for politics

Wittiest answer so far

So true, haha.

During Bush, many bills would have been required to kill the " Internets " ....

I don't trust it and I don't like it one bit.

An internet shut down for any period of time affects my bottom line as well as my business, therefore I do not like this at all, for ANY reason.

I do not trust the motives stated behind this and sincerely believe an ulterior motive exists.

What's to stop ANY president, present or future, of using this to shut down dissident speech or the exposure of news and information the .gov wishes to remain secret?

Ever heard of the Supreme Court?

MYTH:
S. 3480 authorizes a “kill switch” that would allow the President to shut down the Internet.

REALITY:
Rather than granting a “kill switch,” S. 3480 would make it far less likely for a President to use the broad authority he already has in current law to take over communications networks.

Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” and “authorize the use of control of any such facility or station” by the Federal government. Exercise of the authority requires no advance notification to Congress and can be authorized if the President proclaims that “a state or threat of war” exists. The authority can be exercised for up to six months after the “state or threat of war” has expired.

The Department of Homeland Security, in testimony before the Committee on June 15, 2010, indicated that Section 706 is one of the authorities the President would rely on if the nation were under a cyber attack.

S. 3480 would bring Presidential authority to respond to a major cyber attack into the 21st century by providing a precise, targeted, and focused way for the President to defend our most sensitive infrastructure.

• The authority in S. 3480 would be limited to 30-day increments and may be extended beyond 120 total days only with Congressional approval.
• The President must use the “least disruptive means feasible” to respond to the threat.
• The authority does not authorize the government to “take over” critical infrastructure.
• It does not authorize any new surveillance authorities.
• The President would be required to provide advance notice to Congress of the intent to declare a national cyber emergency or as soon as possible after a declaration, with reasons why advance notice was not possible.
• Owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure would be allowed to propose alternative security measures to respond to the national cyber emergency. Once approved by the Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), these security measures could be implemented instead of those previously required to respond to the cyber threat.
• Owner/operators that implement these emergency measures receive limited, civil liability protections for their actions.

MYTH:
S. 3480 would give the President the authority to take over the entire Internet.

REALITY:
S. 3480 would direct the President to set risk-based security performance requirements and, in a national cyber emergency, order emergency measures for our nation’s most critical infrastructure - those systems and assets that are most critical to our telecommunications networks, electric grid, financial system, and other components of critical infrastructure.

The bill authorizes only the identification of particular systems or assets – not whole companies, and certainly not the entire Internet. Only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill’s mandatory security requirements.

To qualify as a national or regional catastrophe, the disruption of the system or asset would have to cause:
• mass casualties with an extraordinary number of fatalities;
• severe economic consequences;
• mass evacuations of prolonged duration; or
• severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions.

The bill expressly prohibits the Secretary from identifying systems or assets as covered critical infrastructure “based solely on activities protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.” This prohibition would also prevent the identification of specific websites for censorship.

The owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure identified by the Secretary could appeal the inclusion of the particular system or asset on the list through administrative procedures.

The list of covered critical infrastructure would be developed collaboratively, working with the private sector.

Dyna mo, where did you copy and paste that from? Post link if possible.

I'm not questioning it's validity, I just want it for the sake of future discussions with others on this topic.

https://www.google.com/

Ha ha, made me look. :D


Btw there's been some interesting articles and rhetoric posted on this issue. Here's one from your favorite, Minte...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...own-terrorism/

I particularly found this quote of interest:
Do quotes like that leave you unconcerned, a little concerned, or chill you to the bone?

I did find that posted on another message board, and found this reply in direct reference to it posted by another poster there...

"If you'll notice, "Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to ?cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication?" refers to communications; if, under the rubric of "communications", S 3480 "gives" any authority to the president, for which there is no Constitutional authority incidentally, then, indeed, "the FCC ......" must begin "the formal process of reclassifying the Internet as a telecommunications service instead of an information service ? it?s current classification?, and is doing so..... for multiple purposes.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68003

No government, Federal/state/local should have the power to implement what S 3480 proposes and it would serve to endorse that view regardless of which president did what when. What we need be concerned about right now is this president, and from the myriad of unConstitutional and illegal actions he has so far taken, should be concerned."


He raises an interesting point. (highlighted)

It's funny how EVERYTHING Obama says, does or has control over is somehow a conspiracy theory to everyone right of center but the same people cannot fathom for a nanosecond that 9/11 was anything but that which was told to them.

No. They were talking about doing this months ago when Joe realized that the Chinese had that kind of power over the Internet there. He figures if it is good enough for them . . . .

He's lucky. My group policy went up close to $200/mo and WorkComp insurance went up too. Never used any of it. I would hate to know what would happen if a claim had been filed.

One thing 9/11 did do though was get people questioning the government more than ever before, especially when bold moves are being made or in this case contraversial bills being passed.

Thus this discussion.

Maybe. And look at what the effect is.

With an uncontrolled Internet we have children able to access things they should be kept away from. People stealing anything they can. And the potential profit and future of the Internet stifled.

Governments around the world pass laws that control what we do. You really think the ability to control the Internet leads to that less freedom.

Freedom to do what? Is the question.

Most here live in a Democracy, a Government that did anything too outrageous will have to go to the electorate and explain it in the future.

"Adapt or die." - Obama

What he paid was a small compared to some companies, he's with Coca-Cola and they have more buying power than most

so what's being said is that they would be putting the internet under a classification that the FCC would be in charge of?

Yeah,more government oversight, we need that

The US retains full capability and authority to "shut down the Internet" as all the 13 main name servers are on US soil. Nameservers in other countries could be called to route traffic but they all depend on the US name servers. It would be havoc for months, and whatever threat was present to cause the shutdown would have passed.

"Shutting down the Internet" would cost US companies BILLIONS per day. No president is going to do it unless for extreme national security - our ass is about to get fried by some nukes, for example.

Otherwise, the debate is pointless. Any president, democrat, republican, or otherwise, will take whatever steps required in the name of national security. Get used to the idea.

Orrr.. people could question it, talk about it, while others try to verify if what they're doing is even legal.

I see no harm in people weighing in on how they feel about it.

Government does not like what it can not control.

I'm a lot more worried about all the ignorance, paranoia and mis-information in this thread than I am about the government having the ability to shut down the internet.

Imagine if we had no way to stop all aircraft during 9/11? That's the type of event that would have to happen for them to ever use this power. They're not going to shut down the web every second Tuesday of every other month.

Believe it or not I'm actually trying to promote awareness in this thread, and for exactly that reason... that there are a lot of people out there who either haven't a clue about this bill or else they think Obama has gone and gotten himself a kill switch that allows him to "shut off the internets".


Exactly. But a lot of people don't realize all that, and many just don't like anyone having that kind of power in the first place. I've seen many posts around many other boards (mostly non-adult) that indicates to me that people don't quite understand why something like this would be necessary.

I'm of the mind that healthy discussion about anything important is always a good thing.

No problem with the concept of debate, but how is the Internet any different than US airspace or the interstate system or the phone lines. The US government controls those, too, in times of national crisis. Was the Bush administration wrong in stopping all air flights immediately after 9/11? Of course not, and no one faults him for it. Better safe than sorry.

If the US shut down the Internet for some reason it would affect other countries, because --well -- the US built and owns most of the Internet infrastructure. The more other countries build up their own the less they'll be affected by any action taken by the US.

But let's be serious here: if anything happens where the Internet in the US has to be taken down the last thing you'll be worrying about is your Web sites. You'll be looking where to buy gas masks and geiger counters.

This thread isn't really about debate, it's spreading political FUD against whoever is currently in office. Silly stuff, because it has nothing to do with the current standing president.

The United States is not, nor has it ever been a democracy. The USA is and always has been a (Federal) Representative Constituional Republic and it was not until the administration of FDR that the myth began to be perpetrated.

Democracy is merely tyranny of the majority and has never worked anywhere in the world.

The United States is the world's oldest federal constitutional republic.

First, it is federal because a union composed of fifty partially self-governing states and federal one federal district united by a central ("federal") government. The self-governing status of the component states are constitutionally well-established and may not be altered by a independent decision of the central government.

Second, the country is a constitutional republic because it is is a state where the head of state (President) and other officials (Legislative Branch: Senate and House of Representatives) are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law (The Constitution of The United States) that limits the government's power over citizens.

Furthermore, in a constitutional republic, the executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power (Checks and Balances). The fact that there is a constitutional law limiting the government's power; makes the country constitutional.

The fact that the head of state (the President) and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the United States republican in nature.

Recent administrations, including the current one have been actively egaged in the erosion of civil rights and will not stop until every move of the citizens is subject to the control of Big Brother.

Sally.

The president has always had this ability. You should read up on what the president of our nation can do. It's scary really.

True and it is more than scary!

Sally.

Be a parent and monitor your kids when they are online and buy software to block porn if you are worried about it.

People steal in real life too. You make it sound like you can get away with anything online.

More regulation is what will stifle the future of the Internet. The lack of government bureaucracy is what has helped the Internet explode in popularity.

Yes.

The Chinese government controls the Internet there and they filter out anything they do not want people to read about (e.g. Tienanmen Square).

To do whatever the fuck you want to do as long as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

Germany lived in democracy when Hitler was elected into power.

I bet many that oppose it will be 1st ones crying about why the president didn't do anything when the power grid or banking system gets hacked and goes down...

And this passing prevents that from happening how exactly?

You really need to do some reading on the subject. I think the answers will surprise you.


Incorrect.

And that political "FUD" as you call it is all over the web on news source sites. Debate about it is precisely what this thread is about.

I don't really like it. I just read a novel about a plague breaking out in a small village in China so they cut the internet off so the rest of China wouldn't find out about it and then figure out that they killed them all to prevent it from spreading.

But... shit like that would never happen in the US. Would it?

What was that book's title?