US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Petition on Internet Kill Switch

A four year long court battle by the Electronic Privacy Information Center to force the Department of Homeland Security to release details of it's long rumored internet kill switch ended Monday when the US Supreme Court declined to hear their petition.

Source
Derrick Broze
January 13, 2016

(ANTIMEDIA) United States — On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) that sought to force the Department of Homeland Security to release details of a secret “killswitch” protocol to shut down cellphone and internet service during emergencies.

EPIC has been fighting since 2011 to release the details of the program, which is known as Standard Operating Procedure 303. EPIC writes, “On March 9, 2006, the National Communications System (‘NCS’) approved SOP 303, however it was never released to the public. This secret document codifies a ‘shutdown and restoration process for use by commercial and private wireless networks during national crisis.’”

The article later goes on to explain that, at least in the opinion of the Federal Appeals Court, the Government doesn't have to disclose this to the public as it could present a danger to the public, i.e. the usual 'National Security' ruse.

After the DHS fought the FOIA releases, a district court in Washington, D.C. ruled in EPIC’s favor, but that ruling was later overturned by the court of appeals. The appeals court told EPIC the government was free to withhold details of the plan under the Freedom of Information Act because the information might “endanger” the public. In 2015, the digital rights group asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling by the federal appeals court.

Which seems congruent to the article's meme, "the us government has an internet killswitch and its none of your business". How exactly does knowing or confirming that they can cut off your cellphone and internet present a threat to our national security?

It would seem to me that during any "emergency", the internet and cell phones would be beneficial.

Wouldn't it?

But the "police state" agenda takes preferences I guess.

a reply to: twitchy
I've been wondering something. How hard would it be to organize citizens and create a net of our own. In all seriousness. I know some peeps on here have to have the know how. Others would have the gear. It seems like if we really tried, we could force them into doing things our way once we demonstrate we are serious. Its quickly becoming time to tell our government what to do again instead of letting them tell us. I feel this would be a step in the right direction. Well, IMHO anyway...

originally posted by: xuenchen
It would seem to me that during any "emergency", the internet and cell phones would be beneficial.

Wouldn't it?

But the "police state" agenda takes preferences I guess.

I couldn't agree more. Not to mention the loss of such services would almost certainly cause a great deal more panic.
It certainly would make it easier to prevent alternative media or regular joes from disseminating information in a crisis which might not be congruent with more official narratives.

Edit:
The original incident which lead to this court battle is very telling...

The fight for transparency regarding SOP 303 began shortly after a Bay Area Rapid Transit (“BART”) officer in San Francisco shot and killed a homeless man named Charles Hill on July 3, 2011. The shooting sparked massive protests against BART throughout July and August 2011. During one of these protests, BART officials cut off cell phone service inside four transit stations for three hours. This kept anyone on the station platform from sending or receiving phone calls, messages, or other data.

originally posted by: xuenchen
It would seem to me that during any "emergency", the internet and cell phones would be beneficial.

Wouldn't it?

But the "police state" agenda takes preferences I guess.

That would all depend upon the 'emergency'.
If there were a whole lot of citizens pissed off at the government....that would constitute an emergency for the government. I suppose they would want to kill the ability for those citizens to communicate.

a reply to: butcherguy

Absolutely! I imagine if such a system had been in place during Hurricane Katrina, for example, we would likely have never heard about the shoot out between New Orleans Police and Federal Agents on the levies.

Internet Set to Cut Cord with US Government This Year
Related information I thought was interesting.

a reply to: DarkGameGod

I think it's more a figurative switch

It's probably some emergency protocol which allows the state to order ISP's and mobile providers to shut down their services to its users

The same way martial law can be initiated

There's no way you can effectively just flip a switch or transmit a command to shut everything down that transmits data so logically it's just a protocol allowing government to take control of service providers

originally posted by: DarkGameGod
a reply to: twitchy
I've been wondering something. How hard would it be to organize citizens and create a net of our own. In all seriousness. I know some peeps on here have to have the know how. Others would have the gear. It seems like if we really tried, we could force them into doing things our way once we demonstrate we are serious. Its quickly becoming time to tell our government what to do again instead of letting them tell us. I feel this would be a step in the right direction. Well, IMHO anyway...

During the "nyet neutrality" (a term coined by our own Xuenchen) fiasco, I was reminded of the decentralized distributed wireless network that John Titor described.

Kill switch is a buzzword- it would be exceedingly easy to disrupt communication in this country.
Especially when most people rely on services like friendface and twitter to contact anyone.


SMS communications for easily 95% of the population in this country travel through only a handful of cell carriers, all of which are tied tightly to less than a dozen backbone carriers. The NSA already has full control over those backbones, it wouldn't take more than a few keystrokes to shut down interstate communication nation wide.

Of course, all they'd really need to do is cut the power at the same time- maybe feed a little disinformation to the few remaining channels of communication and it'd be weeks before anyone really knew what was going on. Far too late, since any major city would have burned to the ground after running out of food...

Why would they risk letting us know what they're capable of?

a reply to: twitchy

Considering the government gave up control of the internet to the UN it makes one wonder if it was done intentionally. Should war break out the ability to kill the internet in countries engaged in the conflict would be useful.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Do you mean a 'civil' war WITHIN the United States??

I highly doubt from foreign. . . *sniff sniff* I smell something foul coming this way.

a reply to: twitchy

This does make sense. Some attacks would require this ability.

I dont see more of a problem with this capability than with the government having an off switch to utilities like electricity, which would have the same outcome eventually.....and they do. Its called a phone and a utility employee saying "yes sir" and shutting down what they are told.

If cell phones can set off a bomb, you cant call your sister to tell her to stay off the subway. If there is a coordinated attack using the internet to control drones or set off bombs, then you cant tweet about what rumors you hear.

They arent the best examples but you get the point. Not everything is bad.

A kill switch like that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Most people don't realize that the same basic thing exists for GPS satellites as well.

Without going into specific details, GPS satellite transmissions can be encrypted in an emergency which leaves everyone who is unable to unencrypt it without GPS capabilities.

The Supreme Court hears cases regarding Constitutional issues.

The kill switch might disrupt the internet, but it does nothing to inhibit an individuals right to free speech.

a reply to: tadaman

If cell phones can set off a bomb

What about Civil Unrest within united states?

- We've all seen how strong-handed the govt can come down on protestors. . . Not everything is bad?

Do you TRUST your govt to have YOUR/OUR best interests in mind?

a reply to: DBCowboy

individuals right to free speech.

I know you mean well, but, I think its more along the lines of:

" Responsible speech"

Thats the new "phrase".

a reply to: lordcomac

SMS communications for easily 95% of the population in this country travel through only a handful of cell carriers, all of which are tied tightly to less than a dozen backbone carriers. The NSA already has full control over those backbones, it wouldn't take more than a few keystrokes to shut down interstate communication nation wide.

What really concerns me about this high level of centralization is that terrorists could exploit those central points of weakness to cause wide spread damage. Especially with something like a kill switch, imagine if the wrong person got control over that switch. It doesn't even have to be a terrorists, it could be some tech guy who pushes the wrong button or some hacker who digs his way into secure government networks. It's just such a huge risk having such centralized power, which is exactly why they don't want to give any hint at how it works, it really would be a national security risk.

Why would they risk letting us know what they're capable of?

I'm guessing information about the kill switch project was leaked by Snowden or some other leak. I remember reading a thread on the kill switch topic a few years ago but I can't be bothered searching for it.

a reply to: SurrenderingIsBack

No external threat. Reread my post.

a reply to: Xcathdra

In all honesty there's NO need too.

Just need a reply from you that you acknowledge that theres an Internet "Kill Switch" in place within united states.

* Do you have the ability to do so?