Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Obama's Internet Killswitch

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    553

    Default Obama's Internet Killswitch

    -
    Last edited by bandshell; 09-11-2017 at 07:45 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,814

    Default

    whoa, there. even if this is true, it isn't an "obama" thing, though, is it? looks like lieberman (who fewer and fewer people take seriously) proposed it, giving the president certain powers. highly unlikely to be taken seriously, can't imagine this ever even coming close to passing. and as i said, i don't recall obama ever talking about it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Toughmanistan
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Fundamentally though, why would you actually want to shut down the internet in a national emergency?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Awesome View Post
    Fundamentally though, why would you actually want to shut down the internet in a national emergency?
    Because it's a distraction?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Awesome View Post
    Fundamentally though, why would you actually want to shut down the internet in a national emergency?
    Because it stops people from exchanging information and increases confusion amongst the populus, allowing for the easy rounding up of people in sports stadiums to be mass-murdered?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Awesome View Post
    Fundamentally though, why would you actually want to shut down the internet in a national emergency?
    Not any old national emergency, a national cyber emergency. Whatever that is.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grizzleb View Post
    Because it stops people from exchanging information and increases confusion amongst the populus, allowing for the easy rounding up of people in sports stadiums to be mass-murdered?
    I'm not a big sports fan myself but surely that would be going a bit far?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by massrock View Post
    I'm not a big sports fan myself but surely that would be going a bit far?
    God-damned liberal!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Toughmanistan
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Obviously it depends somewhat on what the plan actually is, as to how complete the blackout is.

    However, in a major terrorist attack or an attack by another nation on the continental United States, shutting down the majority of the internet would be precisely the worst thing to in terms of economic impact.
    This seems self defeatist when the justification I found after a brief google was "The Senate has tried to downplay these concerns by saying that “only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill's mandatory security requirements.”

    So... because you're scared of cyberwarfare you're going to turn the internet off?
    Surely it'd be better to use these over-arching powers and fuck with the aggressors communications networks (which is easy against a sovereign state, you could fuck up there TLD resolution, and perhaps use QoS or firewalls to blast any traffic headed for or out of said country traversing your network - all without so much as a cruise missile), but somewhat harder against terrists.
    It should be worth mentioning that most recently China looked at getting it's own Domain Name system, effectively creating a new internet - it's an idea that's been floated in the past but never (commercially) successfully implemented.

    The other option would be to physically turn off or unplug the data centres at the ends of the various cables joining the United States to Europe and Asia/Pacific, along with any public/commercial satellite relays, and turning off any root domain controllers which reside in the US (I think all the high ones do). I can't see what you'd achieve though, despite the US Government having alternate means of communication.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    18,421

    Default

    Let's not forget that American presidents since the '50s have, strictly speaking, had the ability to destroy the whole world (as have the premiers of the USSR/Russia and China, of course) if they really wanted to.

    I'm sure in practice it's a bit more complicated than this one guy carrying around a briefcase with a big red button in it, but all the same, it's worth putting things like this in perspective of likeliness.
    Last edited by Mr. Tea; 29-06-2010 at 01:31 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    toronto
    Posts
    2,662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    Let's not forget that American presidents since the '50s have, strictly speaking, had the ability to destroy the whole world (as have the premiers of the USSR/Russia and China, of course) if they really wanted to.

    I'm sure in practice it's a bit more complicated than this one guy carrying around a briefcase with a big red button in it, but all the same, it's worth putting things like this in perspective of likeliness.
    I see what you're saying here, but the fact world leaders haven't destroyed the whole world yet isn't much of a good argument as to why anyone should protest them having the ability to. It seems a bit silly to only legimitize the likelihood of something like that happening after it has already happened.

    With powers like these it's best to assume that they are going to use them tomorrow and then do everything you can to make sure they don't get them.

  12. #12

    Default

    Joe Lieberman is not a neoconservative.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    18,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sick Boy View Post
    I see what you're saying here, but the fact world leaders haven't destroyed the whole world yet isn't much of a good argument as to why anyone should protest them having the ability to. It seems a bit silly to only legimitize the likelihood of something like that happening after it has already happened.

    With powers like these it's best to assume that they are going to use them tomorrow and then do everything you can to make sure they don't get them.
    Yeah, that's fair - what I was getting at is that just because these powers exist in theory, their use is sufficiently unlikely that most sane people don't have their own nuclear shelter - but then, it was pretty fucking touch-and-go for a few weeks in 1962, wasn't it?
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by craner View Post
    Joe Lieberman is not a neoconservative.
    formerly a democrat, now technically an independent, but he sure embraced many a neo-con-like view during the last election. maybe i'm jaded to US political gamesmanship or just naive, but it seems like fearmongering from the "the-internet-is-a-series-of-tubes" crowd.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    18,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bandshell View Post
    It's all about money.
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •