A kill switch for the internet?

[Jeff K]

Osama wants a kill switch for the internet?

"A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties."

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf

[FLAVALK]

If anyone is surprised, please raise your hand. 

[Bagger John - #3785]

But Wait! Wasn't the Internet supposed to be designed to "route around" such nonsense?

There's a reason why the U.S. has continually fought to retain ownership of the root DNS servers. And here it is.

Start thinking wireless mesh..."Alternet"...build your own community WANs and bridge them with others'.

And don't point them back at the root servers.

[valkmc]

I don't see much difference in that and when the last president signed the patrotic act allowing law enforcement (federal level) to read anyone's e-mail they chose as long as they declared them a person of interest involving terrorism. No warrant so no justification needed. Anyone think this wasn't abused?

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States.

[Jeff K]

I don't see much difference in that and when the last president signed the patrotic act allowing law enforcement (federal level) to read anyone's e-mail they chose as long as they declared them a person of interest involving terrorism. No warrant so no justification needed. Anyone think this wasn't abused?

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States.

So, that makes this all OK with you?  

"GW did this... so its now it is perfectly acceptable to you if Osama kicks it up a few notches?

[Mickey Runie]

Whether or not Pres. Obama could legally do that would depend upon how former Vice Pres. Al Gore's patent for the internet reads.  Wouldn't it?  

Pardon me, I'll go hide again.

[MP]

valkmc:
 You think what Bush did was wrong?  OK,  Obama has announced a couple months ago that he is going to KEEP ALL of Bush's searches, PLUS he wanted power to do MORE?

Where is your outcry?

Where is the liberal media's outcry DAILY about these abuses, but are now silent?  Even with MORE invasive tactics?

WHY THE SILENCE when Obama does it?

MP

[Bagger John - #3785]

Where is the liberal media's outcry DAILY about these abuses, but are now silent?  Even with MORE invasive tactics?

WHY THE SILENCE when Obama does it?

The answer is right before you.

[..]

Osama wants a kill switch for the internet?

"A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties."

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf

Hey jeff, Where did you find the yellow quote? I can't see anything in the link you psoted about PresBo shutting down Al Gore's baby.

Please remember I'm not a Democrat just a seeker.

[Varmintmist]

I don't see much difference in that and when the last president signed the patrotic act allowing law enforcement (federal level) to read anyone's e-mail they chose as long as they declared them a person of interest involving terrorism. No warrant so no justification needed. Anyone think this wasn't abused?

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States.

Sorry but that is a lie. The Patriot act allowed the feds to monitor communications that were originated outside of the US by furrin persons of interest. If the recipiant in the US became a person of interest, they could monitor him, AFTER GETTING A WARRANT from a judge just like they had to before.

The hoopla came from not getting a warrant to monitor the call because the call terminated in the US, from a person that was known to have terrorist connections. That was the gray area, and was called legal by the courts because the originator of the call was a suspect just like if you are onder a legal wire tap and you call your mom, she gets recorded. There was never warrentless wire taps of anyone they chose who is subject to our laws or was not a suspected of, or known to have ties to terrorists.

The act is still in place today, his Highness decreed that a president needed that information within 2 weeks of coronation so the media decided that the plan was OK.

.......................................................
This is a different ball of wax. The internet is the only place where you can hear differing opinions these days. The "media" has been lapdogs of the left for years. I figured that on the first "Assault weapons/cop killer bullets" bans. I actually understood the truth about what they were talking about and watched them make stuff up and LIE to the public. The entire cop killer bullet thing was a made up fairy tale from the word go but it did not stop the media from disinforming people. I started looking closer and figured out a lot of things didnt add up.

The ONLY reason to pull the plug on a free exchange if ideas would be ..... what do you think?

[valkmc]

I don't see much difference in that and when the last president signed the patrotic act allowing law enforcement (federal level) to read anyone's e-mail they chose as long as they declared them a person of interest involving terrorism. No warrant so no justification needed. Anyone think this wasn't abused?

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States.

Sorry but that is a lie. The Patriot act allowed the feds to monitor communications that were originated outside of the US by furrin persons of interest. If the recipiant in the US became a person of interest, they could monitor him, AFTER GETTING A WARRANT from a judge just like they had to before.

The hoopla came from not getting a warrant to monitor the call because the call terminated in the US, from a person that was known to have terrorist connections. That was the gray area, and was called legal by the courts because the originator of the call was a suspect just like if you are onder a legal wire tap and you call your mom, she gets recorded. There was never warrentless wire taps of anyone they chose who is subject to our laws or was not a suspected of, or known to have ties to terrorists.

The act is still in place today, his Highness decreed that a president needed that information within 2 weeks of coronation so the media decided that the plan was OK.

.......................................................
This is a different ball of wax. The internet is the only place where you can hear differing opinions these days. The "media" has been lapdogs of the left for years. I figured that on the first "Assault weapons/cop killer bullets" bans. I actually understood the truth about what they were talking about and watched them make stuff up and LIE to the public. The entire cop killer bullet thing was a made up fairy tale from the word go but it did not stop the media from disinforming people. I started looking closer and figured out a lot of things didnt add up.

The ONLY reason to pull the plug on a free exchange if ideas would be ..... what do you think?

I am sorry you feel that way but you should take a closer look at the act itself. Medical records of people were included, now you tell me why the gov. needed those. Also e-mails that originated with in the us were also read and used that is why the out cry from the public started.

Jeff I do think Bush was wrong for many things, but I am amazed you think I support Obama. I do not like any gov official looking into my business, however I cannot see where Obama is any worse or better than Bush. Gov is a necessary evil, the alternative is no control and we return to the wild west. Anyone who thinks Bush had our interest anymore at heart than any other gov official is wrong. I say this after living under him and his brother at the same time. From the time Bush(both of them) came to power and left my 401k went south, I gave up personal freedoms and my healthcare tripled with the benefits going down, Sorry I expect more from my public servant than that. If Obama is just as bad I will have the same feelings about him in four years. I am just giving him a chance now.

[bsnicely]

But Wait! Wasn't the Internet supposed to be designed to "route around" such nonsense?

There's a reason why the U.S. has continually fought to retain ownership of the root DNS servers. And here it is.

Start thinking wireless mesh..."Alternet"...build your own community WANs and bridge them with others'.

And don't point them back at the root servers.

Well, the auto industry and the banking industry were private enterprises once upon a time too, but look what he has done to them!!       

[RoadKill]

"however I cannot see where Obama is any worse or better than Bush. Gov is a necessary evil "
I was beaten and raped once....what's one more time gonna hurt?  let's do nothing! 

[Scanner]

"Well, the auto industry and the banking industry were private enterprises once upon a time too, but look what he has done to them!"

Sorry to ruin your party but both of those were done by Bush.  Look it up.

As far as proposed Senate or House bills, they are mostly to fire up their constituents with no chance of ever becoming law.  That's how we get things like "National Butterfly Day" and the like.   Just politicians posing in the mirror.

[bsnicely]

Bush, Obama,  I don't see much difference. Obama is a Marxist, Bush was what a Marxist would call a " Useful Idiot ". I am aware he helped usher in this ruination of our country...............

[RoadKill]

"Sorry to ruin your party but both of those were done by Bush.  Look it up."

I was beaten and raped once....whats one more gonna hurt ? Let's support it!  ??????????????

[bsnicely]

Not ruining any party, if you read above I said I was aware that bush got the ball rolling. I don't see Obama " correcting any of Bush's actions regarding either industry. Wasn't Obama the one who fired the Pres of Gen. Motors?  I am not taking up for Bush, he is / was as bad as any but that don't diminish Obama's ineptitude..........

[B]

POLITICS SUCKS ... greatest country on earth still has room for improvement ... at least it's the weekend ... RIDE ... maybe we can all find an ounce of sanity out there in the wind, somewhere.   

[RoadKill]

  shut up and RIDE is my vote!  The open road is cheap therapy for ALL that ails us! ! 

[Varmintmist]

Here is the act, show me where anyone could access med records without getting a judge involved.
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

I dont "feel" that it is BS, I think it is BS.

[valkmc]

It may be BS to you but not people like Brandon Mayfield. It was used through loopholes in the law to invade his privacy. It resulted in  his arrest followed by a formal apology from The US Government, a $2 million dollar settlement and basically the end of the law as several provision were unconsittutional. I don't need the link to the Act. I have read it more than several times, I am a Criminal Justice Instructor.

If a call originated from outside the US to my home it could be listened to by DHS, FBI w/o my knolwedge or a warrant, there are many documented cases of it and to me someone somewhere saying a person who called me is a terrorist and listening to my calls is not OK. I hope it was not a wrong number because I then ended up on someones (gov)list.

I never said medical records could be read w/o a warrant, I simply asked why the gov. needs to read them, it is another invasion of my privacy, you can get a circuit court judge to open up medical records because of what??? no one seemed to be able to answer that question during several challanges to the law in court.

[Jeff K]

Osama wants a kill switch for the internet?

"A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties."

http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf

Hey jeff, Where did you find the yellow quote? I can't see anything in the link you psoted about PresBo shutting down Al Gore's baby.

Please remember I'm not a Democrat just a seeker.

I got the original quote from the fox news site, but since the libs don't trust that source I went net searching.

(13) President Obama said in a speech at Pur11
due University on July 16, 2008, that ‘‘every Amer12
ican depends—directly or indirectly—on our system
13 of information networks. They are increasingly the
14 backbone of our economy and our infrastructure; our
15 national security and our personal well-being. But
16 it’s no secret that terrorists could use our computer
17 networks to deal us a crippling blow. We know that
18 cyber-espionage and common crime is already on the
19 rise. And yet while countries like China have been
20 quick to recognize this change, for the last eight
21 years we have been dragging our feet.’’ Moreover,
22 President Obama stated that ‘‘we need to build the
23 capacity to identify, isolate, and respond to any
24 cyber-attack.’’
S:\WPSHR\LEGCNSL\XYWRITE\SCI09\CYBERSEC.5
April 1, 2009 (2:07 p.m.)



http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/040209-obama-cybersecurity-bill.html
http://edge.networkworld.com/graphics/2009/0402%20Rockefeller%20cybersecurity%20bill.pdf

[Scanner]

That sounds like an entirely good idea to me.  Cyber security is essential to our national security.  The first shot of the next war will most likely be an effort to shut down our internet.

There have already been many examples of foreign hackers probing our Cyber security measures.  They will continue.

[Bagger John - #3785]

That sounds like an entirely good idea to me.  Cyber security is essential to our national security.  The first shot of the next war will most likely be an effort to shut down our internet.

There have already been many examples of foreign hackers probing our Cyber security measures.  They will continue.

So how will "shutting it down" protect the Internet from a cyberattack?

And to which Internet are we referring - the one which you, I and the general public uses...or the construct which is used by our military and various federal, state and county agencies?

[Robert]

I think limiting the internet is a restriction on freedom of speech and any thing done along those lines is akin to a communist rule. With that said my life will go on without the internet its necessary to certain business and such but really most have backup systems. The internet has not been around long and all survived before and will after its gone. If your life depends on the internet then there's something wrong. If you want to see how dependent we have become on modern things take out your wallet and see if you can identify yourself. Who are you, no I mean really are you your wallet your house job could you go somewhere that no one knows who you are and interact with them and feel like you are on a even footing. What do you do if no internet,phone,tv all the distractions that are around today.

[Scanner]

Gee, guess I'm missing something. Please point out where Obama says anything - anything - about "shutting down the internet"? I'n not talking about how someone characterized it, but what he actually said.

[B]

... and here I sit ... reading this thread while watching "Eagle Eye"  ... nightmares for sure tonight!  

[Varmintmist]

It may be BS to you but not people like Brandon Mayfield. It was used through loopholes in the law to invade his privacy. It resulted in  his arrest followed by a formal apology from The US Government, a $2 million dollar settlement and basically the end of the law as several provision were unconsittutional. I don't need the link to the Act. I have read it more than several times, I am a Criminal Justice Instructor.

Goodie. You are telling me that no one pre Patriot was ever arrested or had his rights taken away in error. Seems to me that 2M apology is a heck of a lot better than being let out of jail 14 years after a wrongful conviction. Sucks big time, but the only better system would be to make me king.
BTW, you come up with one name and we havent had another attack on US soil since 9-11. Sucks for him, as he is counting his payout and writing the book. Sucks worse for folks that chose to take a 30 story swan dive. He was part of deciding what parts were unconstitutional and getting them changed, that is part of our system. You dont think laws are perfect out of the legislature do you? They are written by politicos who are not the brightest bulbs in the pack to begin with.

If a call originated from outside the US to my home it could be listened to by DHS, FBI w/o my knolwedge or a warrant, there are many documented cases of it and to me someone somewhere saying a person who called me is a terrorist and listening to my calls is not OK. I hope it was not a wrong number because I then ended up on someones (gov)list.

Well. I am in communications , and can tell you for a fact that when the DEA or SP wire tap a line, everyone it calls is recorded because they are calling that person a dealer OR they suspect the public phone of being used in deals. It is a little harder with cell phones now, it is keystrokes, not hardware. In your view, that isnt OK even though it has been legal since phones were invented. Even wrong numbers are recorded and those that answer the phone go on a "list". Those are lines belonging to citizens that are actually protected under the constitution. If you are tapped, your mom is recorded, that is real life.

I never said medical records could be read w/o a warrant, I simply asked why the gov. needs to read them, it is another invasion of my privacy, you can get a circuit court judge to open up medical records because of what??? no one seemed to be able to answer that question during several challanges to the law in court.

Money laundering. Dental records. Shot record. I have been innoculated for bubonic plauge, that means that I had the ability to travel freely in some places outside CONUS that are not what you would call vacation destinations. That would be my guess. However the FBI or whomever would have to convince a judge that med records were part of the case. IF the judge said OK it is relevant, then they got them. Ask the judge why he granted the warrant.
To get the records you still need a warrant, now you dont think that getting a warant is enough. So what is then? Gettin a warrant from a magistrate is now phony in you opinion, would only one from SCOTUS suffice? Personally, with the latest pick, I would go with our local magistrate to make a more fair and impartial call.

BTW, not a big fan of the patriot act and even less of Dear Leaders attempt at controlling the free access of information. What I do see is results. Nothing has blown up in a while so I think we are a bit better off, parts of the act were challenged and found unconstitutional and removed, happens every day. Wish it would with the transfer of wealth.