January 30, 2011
-
Killing the Internet
One topic that was sort of under the radar but was discussed in Washington DC was whether the President should have the ability to kill the Internet. Here is the link: Link
The thinking was that the a cyber attack may come against more than the government. A cyber attack may be aimed at utility companies and communication companies. And these attacks would hurt the U.S.
So the thinking was the President needed the ability to kill the Internet for a time to stop a cyber attack.
In the last few days this issue has come up again with the protest in Egypt. The President of Egypt cut off the Internet in the country in order go push back against the civil unrest in the country.
Should the President be given the ability to kill the Internet?
Comments (95)
If it protects us in some way, yes.
Fuck no, but I’d like to see more peple talking aout the Egypt thing–nobody’s touching the topic =((((
No…that just gives him more unnecessary power/control and I guarantee he’d use it.
I think the commenters on Youtube have already killed the internet.
No. Other leaders have abused that power to silence the voice of the people.
Sure, if it would protect the country.
yeah if it’ll protect the country and save lives
Sarah Palin shouldn’t have the right to block me from her Facebook but she does. All I asked was if it was really credible to have Bristol being a spokesperson for abstinence.
Doesn’t Cointelpro have the power to kill the internet already?
Sometimes I’d like to kill the internet. Or at least punch it in the face.
President should be allowed to punch it in the face
nah…
No way!
They need only shut down the connections to vulnerable sites where such an attack has catastrophic potential. The idea is pointless; because he can just order those sites’ ISP’s to disconnect them and the operators to monitor and control on site. That leaves nearly everyone outside of the communications black hole.
@godfatherofgreenbay - Did you really get blocked from Palin’s FB page? And Bristol is a credible spokesperson for abstinence much like I’m a credible spokesperson for Slim-fast.
yeah, your voice won’t save you anyway. It’ll just cause clusters of victims.
Resistance is futile.
I just proved that. I hate helping the CIA
I think our country would be better if there was more sane control and logical ends, so I’m in favor of giving the President more power and not corporations. He’s carrying too much baggage.
I only need one abusive man in my life.
For control, I think that they should just sell the internet site-wise.
Once they do it,they will use it to silence who they want to keep silent.But thats the change certain people seem to want.
This seems like a big step down from, say, interning Japanese-Americans.
@godfatherofgreenbay - Actually yes,Bristol would be a credible spokesperson for abstinence. She has experience NOT being abstinent and can show the result of what can happen when you aren’t. Why is it that someone who has made a mistake at something somehow make them not credible when they actually learn by experience and can honestly say KNOWING by experience.Thats something I’ve never understood the logic of.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - can’t go into that site but I can with a fake profile…so much for freedom of speech. I heard someone got blocked for asking what her opinion on Egypt is and when there was no answer he suggested that she move closer because right now Russia is in her backyard. Other people have been banned because they didn’t care for Bristol’s dancing…no joke. Anyone, democrat or republican, that has a differing opinion gets blocked which sounds like some people at Xanga.
@Inspectorgrampy5 - I think that it’s b.s. because if you are going to tell others to practice a certain way of life then you should be doing that yourself.
@godfatherofgreenbay - I now know what I’m going to do, heh heh.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - Then you can join the “I Got Kicked Off Sarah Palin’s Facebook Page” page.
He should be able to kill everything except TheTheologiansCafe.
No.
@LSP1 - Well said. xD
Why is there cesnorship on the Internet?
@godfatherofgreenbay - Ok I questioned Sarah. Now it’s only a matter of time before I get kicked off of her page. Now, if only Weird Al could follow me on Twitter my life would be complete. #weirdalshouldfollowrobofthesky #hashtagsshouldworkonxanga.
NO.
Because it saves trees.
but how will the nation get it on without porn?
sounds too scary to me! maybe a bogus reason, or stupid one. The internet is so complex, i think the WHOLE thing is hard to compromise. kind of how washington dc traffic was designed to confuse the enemy in case of attack….. i mean, one way some hours, the other way other hours; no parking on trash days….woa…when is that? There are many sub routes….. i think we could fight BACK this way…NO to shutting down inter net.
For one, I don’t see how killing the internet can save anyone. All it does is silence the flow of information, thus giving the government far more power than it needs or deserves. Show me why it’s necessary and maybe I’d reconsider but all I see are negative consequences ensuing in Egypt.
No. I believe in free speech. Maybe Egypt should teach people something but I doubt it will
So we are going to let someone kill freedom of speech every time they get this feeling there is going to be a syber attack? This is the same guy who wants to stop political talk shows.
That’s why I wish he had a toothbrush mustache
The “Hitler Youth” kind
A two-toned Joseph Stalin jacket,
And an autograph picture of Benito Mussolini..
I would say yes, if and only if, there were strict regulations saying the president could only do so under circumstances where the american people were at risk. But then again I would hate if my internet were killed without prior notice. Im kinda in the middle on this one.
Eh, I think it would cause more problems if he ever killed it than what it would be protecting.
Well unfortunately the Internet can actually be used just as effectively as a tool of control for govornments as it can for freedom, so it dosen’t really matters.
If they have the ability to turn it off it’ll stop them from gathering information too, and if they don’t then they risk quick communication between dissedents and cyber attack.
If it were my country i’d keep it on and just focus on data gathering.
I don’t know.
But that picture is creepy! *shudders*
@godfatherofgreenbay - True,and how do you know she isn’t now? hummmmmm
Killing the Internet…
Now wouldn’t that just put a wedgie in your undies.
No. Perhaps internet commerce, but the internet is too much an established medium of free speech to allow ANY single individual the power to control it.
@BFB1131 - Yeah, but 100 years ago, you could have used the same argument about the presses — and many people DID use that argument. It’s just about what’s most accessible at that time.
Honestly, I don’t think it would do much good. Even if the Internet is dead (which, btw, would be really hard to accomplish), there’s still television and cell phones and text messaging and, oh yeah, regular old face-to-face communication in person, so dissident opinions and such would still flourish, as they did in the time before the internet. Duh.
As to a risk of cyber attack on the government or some important company? Well, how would you predict such a thing? And is such a localized threat really worth blocking the communication of the rest of the world? Like, if someone threatened to hack into GE, what good would it do to shut down Xanga or facebook? If someone’s trying to hack the White House or something, why does that mean you have to shut down my email? And how would you even kill the Internet? I’m confused.
good job timestamping, dan -_____-
Too much power. Way too much power for one man.
@Rob_of_the_Sky - thanks for the breakfast idea…I of course chose a knock off brand so you’d still make nothing ….”you know right store, right price 10 cents more expensive than but not flipping walmart as it’s kroger brand…Kingsoopers in this area.
shutting down the internet is like daddy or momma *eventually more women will win in politics_ the right to spank us all and make us work at the job rather than piss off the whole day here.
@Iobot - ftw
No he shouldn’t. Would people be okay if he would kill cable tv? Would people be okay if he would be able to kill freedom of the press? The consitution does not give him the authority to to have such power. The tenth ammendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The power to kill the interenet is not given to the federal government, so therefor it does not have, and cannot assume the power to kill the internet. Even if the internet is cited as a form of communication, and thus falling under the freedome of speech and of the press protected in the first ammendment, the government still does not have that authority. We did not give any such authority to the federal government. If the progressives want to give the government yet more power over our lives they will have to change the consitution through the ammendment process (not that they will, they ignore the law because it stunts the growth of government).
now that being said, I do not think that the President should be trusted with that power. Yes terrorist could attack us through the internet, thats possible, but they could attack us through our food supply, they could go for the electrical grid. We cannot make ourselves perfectly safe. Ben Franklin once said “those who are willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither, and will lose both”. The internet connects us in ways that none of our ancestors could have ever begun to have dreamt of. Knowledge is power, and the interenet allows us access to all the knowledge of the world in an instant. Are we really willing to let one man have the power to sever our instant link to our fellow man? President Obama has blamed the over flow of information avalible in the modern world for people not liking his policies. Imagen how much he would like it if no one had heard about the pork in the stimulus bill, the absurdities in the health care law, the theft in the GM buy out, the waste he and his family have taken part in in the form of tax payer funded vacations. The President would have the power to punish us for not agreeing with him. That sounds like tyranny. The government has too much power already, and does not need anymore.
@ShamrockLover - forcing you live in a concret bunker would keep you safe. Should we give the government have the right to do that?
Erm… I really don’t care about the US going without the internet. Our president/PM shouldn’t have that ability, though.
I am shocked at the number of people who are willing to throw away freedom and beg the government to save them. The tyranny of the nanny state seems be awfully popular any more.
that picture really disturbs me…
And frankly – Im not really sure how its possible to REALLY prevent access to the internet. Its not a physical thing.
It all sounds like a smokescreen for the government to have even more control. The internet makes it hard for them to lie to us if we can go and find out the truth. I am sure this is a big thorn in their side.
@obamawatch - If i had a concrete bunker and the government told me our entire country was under attack and to take cover, i would. And if i were forced to do so, then i’d do it. But i’m a rules follower
I feel like they would only require something if it were absolutely necessary and i would not question if it were an abuse of power. Better safe than sorry.
@mtngirlsouth - freedom is the enemy of tyranny. Big government progressives stand for tyranny… i mean they want the government to help all of us weakminded commoners live our lives because we are not smart enough to.
@ShamrockLover - Those who are willing to trade their freedom for safty deserve neither, and will lose both. Government control is the lack of personal liberty. That is tyranny.
I was not talking about if you had one, I am talking about the government saying you can’t have a house, you have to live in the bunker and can only come out if they say you can. Exisiting like an animal in a cage.
If you are a rules fallower you cannot think that the government should be able to have the ability to steal our rights to the freedom of speech. We didn’t give them that right, it would be breaking the rules.
We cannot protect ourselves from everything. Trying to do so will leave us slaves to the government. Ancient Rome was a Republic, untill out of fear the romans gave up their liberty to protect themselves from an outside danger. They gave it to a man known as Ceaser, who never gave up that power and transformed the country from a Republic ruled by law, into a Empirer ruled by man subject to the fancy of tyrants. Caligula comes to mind. Now the banning of the interent will not cause our entire civilization, all of our liberties we enjoy to disappear over night. It is a step towards tyranny, a path once started down is near impossible to return. If we allow them to set this precedent that we are in danger, they can take a right, and just assume a power we have not given them, next they will say well obesity is a problem and we are in a crisis so we now have control over what you eat.
A government big enough to protect you from everything, is big enough to take everything away.
my knee-jerk reaction is “no”.
@obamawatch - Yes, i do agree with you on some of your points especially when you say if they control everything, they can take away everything. But i hardly think that taking away the internet for a short period of time is equivalent to living in a bunker all the time and only being told when you can come out. That’s a little extreme. But you do make some good points, so thank you
@obamawatch - I am shocked at the number of people who are willing to throw away freedom and beg the government to save them.
Free speech isn’t as nice when you’re dead.
@obamawatch - Those who are willing to trade their freedom for safty deserve neither, and will lose both. Government control is the lack of personal liberty.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, in the interest of the Union, temporarily suspended Habeous Corpus.
Take a guess. How did things turn out?
@obamawatch - freedom is the enemy of tyranny. Big government progressives stand for tyranny…
Seriously. What are you, the Tea Party slogan machine?
If he is given the ability to kill the internet, and does so, he is suppressing our ideas. Isn’t he against this?
@Baseballchik138 - he claims he is, but you know he is a politician and they are all known for being honest people.
@ShamrockLover - It is a slippery slope like boiling a frog. They turn the heat up slowly and eventually they will boil us. as i said “Now the banning of the interent will not cause our entire civilization, all of our liberties we enjoy to disappear over night. It is a step towards tyranny”
@Celestial_Teapot - President Lincoln broke the law, but no one questioned it because of how the war ended, and because he was a strong enough man to give up the power he took. Ceaser took control of Rome, Caligula comes to mind.
Is it really life when you don’t get to live it? Giving the government control of your life for security transforms you into a puppet.
This is a common play used by radicals. They enter a society in a crisis, war, famine, economic depression, they promise security and prosperity if the people will but only give them power. This tatic was used by the nazi’s, the communists in Russia, and Fidel Castro in Cuba. Now I am not saying that people proposing this are nazi’s but what I am saying is giving government power does not insure saftey, prosperity, or happiness and more times then naught it causes suffering and pain. Look to history before you hand away for rights for saftey.
No I am not a tea party slogan machine. It just happens that the members of the tea party have the same ideas that I have. I am guessing you having nothing to dispute my statment, sense you resorted to attacking my charcter and the way I word my argument as opposed to debating the material which i presented.
I guess you don’t have a problem with the patriot act. President Bush should have had the right to wire tap who ever he wanted with out a warrant.
I’m sure all the people sayin ‘HELLZ NO!! Government should never have the ability to deprive access of private ANYTHING, EVER’ would change their minds the day a terrorist hacks his way into communications systems, electrical grids, the computer systems that control transportation, the computer systems that control satellites, and the computer systems that control security-AND DESTROYS THEM ALL, thus sending our computer-dependent civilization into a world of unbridled chaos…..yeah, then people might change their minds a bit and decide that maybe, possibly, anything and everything should be done so that can never happen. But until then….
No the President should not have that power.
I believe that by declaring a state of emergency he already has to right to do pretty much anything he wants to do. I would only qualify that by saying that his power is of course limited by the fact that there are some things he’d have a hard time talking the military into going along with. Thankfully at this point our soldiers are not brainless bots.
@Iobot - Well-said
No.
@theacematt2 - I really don’t know much of what is happening over there. Life has been quite busy for me. Lol
@saintvi - agreed
I don’t think killing the internet is such a drastic breach of freedom of expression. Does no one remember phones or tv or like…REAL LIFE EXPRESSION? I’m all for our freedoms and privileges granted in this country, but sometimes I feel it gets out of hand when everyone, instead of using their freedoms, spend most of the time complaining about all they are “entitled” to as citizens.
Maybe I just don’t care about the internet as much as the next person, but I don’t think it’s the end of the world if it were censored in some way. Television is censored and you don’t see people up in arms about that nearly as much.
It would be good to know the government would be willing to take steps to protect itself rather than let everything be publicly accessed at all times by anyone.
i think the people of egypt have the right to know what is going on in the world and even in their country, and if internet was their way, then the president had no right to take it away. his reason was so the protesters could not gain anymore information to held their cause. i don’t think his action was justified at all.
NO. Absolutely not. If the current resident of the White House had that authority, he would make up an emergency to shut down the Internet. Particularly if he thought he would lose his re-election bid.
No!
there’s a saying, ‘the one who wishes to control information, wishes to have control over you”….
one person having power to shut down the internet? hell no. hahaha…
that would make the already powerful executive branch of gov’t…. a dictatorship.
No. Absolutely not. Abuse of this power is highly likely.
Considering the web is like the electrical world, its as if people are agreeing with the president controlling the world.
having that in mind; should he control the internet?
FUCK NO. What is wrong with you people willing to give up your rights all the time
“Kill” the internet. I wish him luck with that; the sinister, bogus “messiah”.
I don’t give a fuck. In the event where this would need to occur, i highly doubt my ass will be on a computer anyway.
No fucking way. Nobody needs that kind of power,
@saintvi - I agree.
Just one more way for the government to control what everyone learns. They don’t want people to know what’s going on. :/
it’s naive to think that the government wants a kill switch in order to “protect americans” from outside sources. and this news is hardly under the radar.
Noooooooo!! He has too much power as it is.
the only reason he should be allowed to is if it puts lives in danger, otherwise, him killing it goes against Free Speech
You know, that’s a tough one. If it’s a dire emergency, as in the government has sensed a cyber attack doing its thing, then yes. Otherwise, if it’s just a precaution, then no. There has to be a damn good reason.
It’s unConstitutional. We have a Constitutionally protected freedom of expression. Even if he COULD kill the internet, he can’t stop the presses. So what’s the point?
Are you crazy? Killing the internet in this technological world?! Yeah right.
Surprisingly, engines and mechanical fake watches have a lot in common, as they have similar concepts at the basis: transmission, friction, torque and power. As if it were not enough, the company replaced the traditional wheels power transmission system by a drive-belt transmission one, consisting of 13 belts with a gauge measure of 0.5 x 0.45mm.
@Earth_Lover_Extraordinaire - It’s unConstitutional. We have a Constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
No Constitutional right is absolute. They are weighed in the real world against legitimate government interests.
Despite the freedom of speech, underage porn is illegal. Despite the freedom of the press, it would be fair for the government to plug leaks of things like the nuclear codes.
sounds like if we all misbehave we’d be grounded
The internet business is one of the few that the government hasn’t gotten its fingers into– and is one of few that has continued to boom and grow. The internet isn’t just a passtime. It is a HUGE business frame. To give someone the power to destroy it all scares the crap out of me. So many jobs would crumble.
He absolutely should NOT be able to do that. It silences our freedom of the press/speech to a degree- a fairly large degree.
No way in hell should any one man, or any government be given the power to kill the internet – PERIOD!
well sure -it’s not like we were endowed by our constitution the right to bear bandwidth…