Internet Kill switch

[redrichie]

I know this is not the area for this, but there are more people on this area than any other on the board. Do a search for "internet kill switch" This is really @$%&*! UP! How many more liberties of ours can they step on before we wake up one day and this and other great forums that share KNOWLEDGE (which is what they are afraid of) are shut down? Lieberman the sponsor of the bill said he was just looking for an internet like China has! I bet the Chinese people love the totally filtered communist propaganda that they read everyday.. IF they are allowed to read that day.
ADMINS if this needs to be moved so be it. I just thought it should be seen first. Sorry

[everwiser]

He who controls the news controls society. The internet is a direct competitor to the government/media monopolies on the news and how it's presented. Of course they're going to go after it. Add to this the push to start taxing the business conducted over the internet and it's worse than most people realize...

[redrichie]

IT gives the pres control for 120 days. Then a he has to appeal to congress to get it extended. With the way things are going just imagine what could get by us in 120 days without freedom of speech. And that is what this is. Most "sheeple" will prob complain that they cant download music not even realizing they are stealing their liberties one at a time. Cant wait to see what crisis rears its ugly head this time to let this control be enacted.

[ren]

Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed

"One of Australia's top communications experts, University of Sydney associate professor Bjorn Landfeldt, railed against the idea, saying shutting down the internet would "inflict an enormous damage on the entire world".

He said it would be like giving a single country "the right to poison the atmosphere, or poison the ocean". Well that is already happening...

"All our financial systems, all our security systems ... we're so reliant on the internet that if you shut it down there's a question of whether society will continue to operate normally anywhere in the Western world," Landfeldt said in a phone interview. Maybe thats the whole idea? Mass Global upset...

"By doing this they would do the terrorists the biggest favour ever because they would terrorise the rest of the world"." Now who is the terrorist?

[everwiser]

You need to look a bit closer into the bill. The banking/finance, military, and other "crucial" (read that as "not available to the public") servers would be exempt and still in use so as to minimize disruptions to the government and its printing presses and/or financiers on Wall Street or in the Treasury. It would be business as usual for the Aristocracy that rules us but a blackout for we little people...

[Matthew Jones]

Ya you got watch Joe Lieberman. Thats where you need to do the search. His name in the library of Congress search engine. He has proposed more bills to cut civil liberties than any other senator ever in the history of the country. In the name of national security.
He's a flat totalitarian.
The good thing is though most of Senate belittles most of his propositions. with votes like 2 to 49 against. The second one who usually votes for him is Mccain
He has never successfully passed any legislation along these lines, never.
You gotta remember this guy oversees all the spooks in the government under the Foreign Intelligence Comity.
If you read his legislative history since he has been on the comity you'll see this pattern. He does the same thing over and over again expecting different results each time. Whats that called? I forget....
Just laugh, it won't even make it to the floor as piggy back.
Cheers
Matt

[ashtweth]

The people in power certainly have not demonstrated the intellectual or even moral capacity to POLICE the majority and make the decisions count for the better, the same people in power today actually.
Enter the gulf spill. This same system that's not policed is probably the a logical reason why today we have more cancers, disease and pollution then ever in human history. Plus less species and ecology.

They certainly dont have the the right decision making in the majority of issues that have transpired yet they want more power and more control to turn off the internet, this is very sinister if you ask me. I am highly suspicious of this.Seems like as the same in the gulf spill case, the class actions and mandates are the only way to keep the foot in the door. On some thing that may or may not be related we got Terra bytes of hard drives which are cheap ATM and have been hording info, in fact i think ill open up a donate a book or info to the Panacea uni site and BACK THAT ALL UP, i guess if people cant access the internet , maybe having some access to basic necessities on backup up info , is perhaps an objective move mean time.

i know some activist groups here near Ren , truth movement Australia who are planing on a few demonstrations/petitions on the internet filters, in Aust its a slower deception it seems, i guess you guys have the hard kill switch, no doubt that Australia will be next guys, this is very sinister indeed.

Ash

[krzysiek]

And I don't know why there is so little talk about this...

"internet kill switch" to turn off the internet. Sounds nice..

and in the mean time, Australia pushing for a China-like internet filter that will automatically block 'bad' websites. I wonder what a website must contain to be considered 'bad' by the Government and blocked from usage? Perhaps websites which speak of free energy, or alternative healing or self help methods such as this website and many others.

Then we also have the mandatory requirement for ISP's to record all data of who we speak to over VoIP, our browsing history and possibly who we communicate with via emails. These are being 'pushed' in Australia, yet the people are saying NO WE DO NOT WANT IT, but the ministers are saying 'we are going to push anyway'. What happened to democracy? We are saying NO, they are saying too bad, we are going to go for it anyhow.

[Savvypro]

And I don't know why there is so little talk about this...

"internet kill switch" to turn off the internet. Sounds nice..

and in the mean time, Australia pushing for a China-like internet filter that will automatically block 'bad' websites. I wonder what a website must contain to be considered 'bad' by the Government and blocked from usage? Perhaps websites which speak of free energy, or alternative healing or self help methods such as this website and many others.

The ban list has been leaked, some of the banned sites (up to 10,000 in number) include ones which don't follow the government line (as in, give an opposing view), sites about gay rights, as well as the websites of a tour operator and a dentist. It's basically suppressing freedom of speech/ideas/information, disguised as saving the children from porn.

The following article includes they following interesting quote: Secret forum reveals Oz firewall backroom dealing • The Register

Meanwhile further digging inside this forum revealed that departmental officials appear to have been discussing the possibility of making it a criminal offence to advise individuals of means that would enable them to circumvent the filter – even where the means themselves were perfectly legal.

On the kill switch itself: if they are going to allow a small number of organisations to continue to operate, then it's going to be very difficult to actually implement it in the first place - let alone continue to keep the "lights off".

Doing it on a small scale is possible, but on hundreds of thousands of networks (more like millions), which are all interlinked and interdependent - it's going to be damn near impossible. Just so you know, I’m speaking from experience as a network guy - with lots of experience running large scale networks.

Its more hype and BS - than facts, with no thought of what it will do economically.

Maybe time to start setting up old school BBS, but with a modern twist.

[krzysiek]

Hey Savvy,

Any idea where the list can be found, or is it 'long gone' and covered back up by now? I heard about the dentist website as well..

if we allow them to do what they are doing then I don't even want to imagine what will happen. Just thinking that a site like this one here, could be shut down, from such a filter, or even tried to be black listed by the filter, is kind of scary. And we can't say it won't happen, because they banned a dentists website, what could be so bad about him (it probably wasn't even a forum, little exposure, etc?)

Hopefully it doesn't go through, but I don't know how to help the sitation...

thanks for the clarification of the US govt. kill switch though. It's good to know that the impact won't be so large, but just to clear it up for me (I have little knowledge in this type of stuff) aren't the 'database' servers predominantly located in the US, and to shut them off would obviously cut off worldwide access to those databases (potentially cutting it off from most of the world as well as the US - a worldwide killswitch?)

[everwiser]

Legislation is less about it "working" and more about incrementalism. Rather than repeal any law that isn't working as advertised (probably more than half the ones they pass) they merely add to it so as to "fix" it.

Most of the members of Congress and I assume many of the other "democratic" governments around the world started off life as lawyers. If it's one thing a lawyer knows how to do it's make the legal code so that only lawyers and judges can interpret it. They don't do this through simplification. Every piece of civil liberty impeding legislation passed is merely their foot in the door to taking it all away. Whether the Americans on this board consider themselves aligned with any particular Party or ideology makes no difference. If the government can stifle any source of news or dictate who, when, how, where someone is allowed to speak then they can control the news and thus control the people. That's what this is about and has been about.

The Supreme Court currently has a majority of judges on the correct side of the 1st Amendment but several recent rulings have been 5 to 4. These latest rulings dealt specifically with the early Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The two biggies, freedom of speech and right to keep and bear arms, were decided 5 to 4. Whatever your views on gun ownership aside, 5 to 4 on freedom of speech?!?!? How close are we to total government control sanctioned by the highest (and supposedly impartial) court in the land?

[krzysiek]

Wow, 5 to 4... got a link?

[everwiser]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us.../22scotus.html

I don't like corporations dictating policy but you have to read beyond the catchy titles and news/government spin at the beginning of the article. They spin it as "unrestrained corporate spending" by corporations but the same law banned citizens and/or citizen groups from from running ads of their own...

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soft money (basically untraceable slush funds for political favor) is still banned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/us.../30donate.html

Citizens United - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A side effect of the original McCain/Feingold law was that 527's rose to fame as they fell outside of the FEC's control.

527 Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Iotayodi]

Imagine the economic repercussions. Aside from that I never trusted anyone who wore a suit. Check out the yellow pages of your phone book. The largest advertisers Ive seen in any phone book is lawyers.
History: Eisenhower stated that we did not want to become a military industrial complex. The CIA talked him into letting Gary Powers fly over russia with a spy plane and he was shot down. And boom it started the high tech industrial corporations. Then Nixon goes to China to open up trade. Its been downhill ever since. The money puppeteers sure know what there doing.

[Zooty]

An alternative view

Source The internet kill switch and other lies the internet told you -- Engadget

"....Last week, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, led by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) became the subject of some debate when news spread that it was calling for a so-called "internet kill switch" which would give the President the power to shut down the whole darn thing in a state of emergency. Apparently, however, nobody bothered to do any research into the topic until very recently -- and of course, the truth is far more complicated than a horrifying phrase like "internet kill switch." Because as it turns out, according to the 1934 Communications Act (which is still in effect today), the President already has the power to shut down any and all telecommunications systems in situations he or she deems it necessary for national security, and Lieberman's call was for a reassessment of the Act.

So what are Lieberman's evil plans for the 'net? His proposal, S. 3480, is a far more subtle document than the original act, which essentially says "hey, do whatever you have to do, man," and calls for the designation of cyberspace as a 'national asset.' It asks for the private owners of critical infrastructure to develop risk assessment plans, and plans to mitigate that risk, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security. There are also several recommended procedures called for in the event of an emergency, but none of them have anything to do with a mechanism to shut anything down, and the director would be expressly prohibited from requiring owners to use any specific mechanism. So... the exact opposite of a kill switch. Also, it's worthwhile to note that the entire proposition calls for these changes to be developed by the private sector itself, rather than imposed on it. Kind of makes the story a little less interesting, that's for sure. Hit up the source -- Joe Lieberman And The Myth of The Internet Kill Switch | TPMDC -- for a far more detailed, insightful account of what's actually going down....."