Internet "Kill Switch": necessary? (Iran, Iraq, wages, health care)

[TKramar]

Oh come on...the Internet is already a "Enter at your own risk" territory. If the government wants to deny access to servers than contain sensitive information, it should do that.

[Bulldogdad]

Here is a really good neutral break down of Liberman's "Protecting Cyberspace Bill". All the comments about "Nazifying America" and "Stupid
Electorate" are emotional knee jerk reactions. Have most even read the bill? You decide

Lieberman's cyber-security bill: The good, the bad, the ugly | ZDNet

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by TKramar

If the government wants to deny access to servers than contain sensitive information, it should do that.

Who gets to define "sensitive"? Hitler burned only "sensitive" books.

Let's see if, collectively, all together, we can think up just one piece of internet "information" that the government doesn't already, under existing law, have the power to block, but should have.

Lieberman's bill is a "foot in the door" law, that allows the government wide powers, with almost no oversight, to amend the parameters and the particulars to include just about anything they want.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Who gets to define "sensitive"? Hitler burned only "sensitive" books.

Let's see if, collectively, all together, we can think up just one piece of internet "information" that the government doesn't already, under existing law, have the power to block, but should have.

Lieberman's bill is a "foot in the door" law, that allows the government wide powers, with almost no oversight, to amend the parameters and the particulars to include just about anything they want.

Credit card information isn't sensitive--unless it's for a government account. But yours and mine (hypothetically speaking, I don't have a credit card)? Isn't. To us, it may be, but not to the government. Intelligence data is sensitive. They may choose to transmit the information over the Internet, through encrypted email, but that shouldn't be available to the general public. Still, the entire Internet came out of a project by DARPA, an agency of the Defense Department.

[marmac]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Another way to keep non-filtered information from you. Is it really that surprising?

I have to agree with Jtur's post: it's not called socialism, it's called tyranny. And we are proof that it can happen within a 'free' republic just the same as it can happen under socialism, communism, or whatever else.


When they pass this bill, it will be time to give my computer the finger--no information at all is better than misinformation.

-----no information at all is better than misinformation-----

give the computer the finger now.

Much of the Moderator cut: language posted on the internet as " fact" is posted by people who wouldn't know what a "fact" is

[las vegas drunk]

This bill is flat out bad. There is nothing good about it. Obviously, this is so the government can take over us and we will not be able communicate. Folks, we are in deep trouble.

[jtur88]

However, it is true, that if the government shut down the internet or rigidly controlled it, alternate servers could be set up immediately in free and internet-friendly territory that could continue to disseminate any information the US government disapproved of. This would be expensive at first, and very few users would be dedicated enough to use it, but it would be there, and any organization that had a compelling interest (terrorists? patriots?) would still have access to a much less expansive internet system. Do you think the people in France and India will just shrug and switch off their PC if the US shuts the internet?

Which would mean the Liebermans of the world would need to keep casting wider and finer nets to accomplish their nefarious deeds. But they would, because they have the guns and the tax revenues to do what suits there personal interests.

There will be more unabombers.

[Schrodinger's Kittens]

Originally Posted by jtur88

When's he going to ban telephones, to protect us from terrorists

Patience, Grasshopper:
The Associated Press: Lawmakers seek prepaid cell crackdown, cite terror

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by marmac

-----no information at all is better than misinformation-----

give the computer the finger now.

Much of the Moderator cut: language posted on the internet as " fact" is posted by people who wouldn't know what a "fact" is

I do more often than I care to admit--just not on a permanent basis.

Whether fact or garbage, it's not the government's job to police it. Just as with books, internet content can be fact or fiction. Benign or inflammatory. So? It's up to each of us to decide what kind of internet content or books we read and what we believe or don't, not the government's. Some read science texts. Some read Stephen King. Some read comic books. Some read Nietzsche. Some read the Federalist Papers. Some read the Communist Manifesto. Some read kook food storage books. It's called freedom.

[eskercurve]

In short, no, I do not support this. Having the ability to shut down the internet and cellphone service in the wake of a terrorist attack or a cyber attack would be pointless and reactionary. Unlike a war front, a cyber attack is highly nonlinear and merely cutting it off only prolongs the ability to track the hackers and mount a counter attack. Hackers can plant long-term viruses in computer systems that activate after a set amount of time.

What needs to happen is the formation of an anti-terrorist organization that specializes in cyberwarfare. Corporations like Boeing have already begun hiring hackers to test their own systems, and this corporation has even helped fund hacking competitions. The best hackers get an awesome job, great benefits, a steady salary, and almost unfettered access to their systems to probe them and upgrade them. Something like that should be done at the government. You'd be surprised at what government offices have almost zero protection.