Obama internet "kill switch" proposed

Obama Internet Kill Switch Proposed

www.smh.com.au

US President Barack Obama would be granted powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet under a new bill that describes the global internet as a US "national asset".

Local lobby groups and academics have rounded on the plan, saying that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

[edit on 18-6-2010 by asala]

Can you believe this?

They really do want to put us all out of action.....no free speach at all.

This is absolutely disgusting.

Unfortunately, it appears to be a worldwide plan.

I mean.....Australia, Europe, etc.....

Can anything be done about this?

Here is the article in full:

Obama internet 'kill switch' proposed

ASHER MOSES
June 18, 2010 - 2:43PM

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb208f0cb3e2.jpg[/atsimg]
The internet is a dangerous place ... US Senator Joe Lieberman. Photo: AP

US President Barack Obama would be granted powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet under a new bill that describes the global internet as a US "national asset".

Local lobby groups and academics have rounded on the plan, saying that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace.

The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by independent senator Joe Lieberman, who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.

Titled "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act", the bill stipulates any internet firms and providers must "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by a new section of the US Department of Homeland Security, dubbed the "National Centre for Cybersecurity and Communications".

Lobby group TechAmerica told ZDNet it worried that the bill would give the US "absolute power" over the internet and create "unintended consequences".

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".

"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.

"By doing this they would do the terrorists the biggest favour ever because they would terrorise the rest of the world".

Landfeldt said the US would be the only country in the world with the ability to shut down the internet. He said such a move would be extremely difficult for the US to justify to other nations.

"Unfortunately, too much of the core of the internet resides in the US - let's put it this way, they cannot shut down machines in Australia, but they can completely isolate us and shut down certain core functions like the DNS ... they can render the internet fairly useless for the rest of the world," he said.

Senator Susan Collins, co-sponsor of the bill, has said: "We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11."

Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people".

He said that, for all its allure, the internet could also be a "dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets".

US economic security, national security and public safety were now all at risk from new kinds of enemies, including "cyber warriors, cyber spies, cyber terrorists and cyber criminals".

Geordie Guy, spokesman for the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said governments around the world seemed terrified of some unidentified risk that they believe the internet poses.

"The proposal is from Joe Lieberman, a repeat offender on rights versus regulation, in a bill called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010," he said.

"One wonders which nation Senator Lieberman considers the internet an asset of, and how proposing its destruction by presidential or homeland security order protects it.

"The internet is not a national asset of the United States, nor is it a media regulation problem of Australia. It is an international network used by millions upon millions of citizens and it needs to remain free and available."

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy did not respond to calls requesting comment.

Google, one of the world's biggest internet companies, declined to comment as it was not yet official US government policy

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

1. Create mass panic situation
2. Situation will in some way involve digital/national security
3. Use said situation in order to justify shutting down the net
4. Misinform the public through mainstream media while the 'situation' is being 'resolved'
5. Re-open the internet under strict new guidelines, regulations, etc. (E.g. online ID's)
6. Gazzam! You control the web! Just like that.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


They're trying to do it everywhere.
We are being sold out all over.

Hmm.. On the plus side wouldnt have to keep hearing the usual american propaganda.. The minus would be slow communicating with friends in the uk, australia and russia.. Doubt the u.s could shut down the web here in asia.. though the u.s probably would be stupid enough to try it.. Think the hackers in china alone would have a field day.. add in the kids in russia who hack systems for fun would be interesting to see.. just a pity the regular people of the u.s suffer due to the psycopathic war criminals they call leaders..

This is bad in every way. Sure they can put a spin on it to attach it to a bill to pass it through, and they just might. I agree with shutting the net down would do more harm then good.
Yet again this is also one of those times that for every one who lives in a free society, contact your representatives and tell them what you think.

Originally posted by serbsta
1. Create mass panic situation
2. Situation will in some way involve digital/national security
3. Use said situation in order to justify shutting down the net
4. Misinform the public through mainstream media while the 'situation' is being 'resolved'
5. Re-open the internet under strict new guidelines, regulations, etc. (E.g. online ID's)
6. Gazzam! You control the web! Just like that.

Serbsta.....

Yup.....that's the plan.

You know.....where do they get 'em.....these politicians, that is?

Is there a school for traitors?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by RedGolem
This is bad in every way. Sure they can put a spin on it to attach it to a bill to pass it through, and they just might. I agree with shutting the net down would do more harm then good.
Yet again this is also one of those times that for every one who lives in a free society, contact your representatives and tell them what you think.

RedGolem.....

Will they listen?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Maybe not
it is easy to say they wont listen. And there are plenty of examples to show for it. I however like to think that the group of politicians who try to control say one hundred or one thousand people might be successful. But then the same trying to control one million, or ten million, will find it more difficult to do so. That is why I say to contact your representatives and tell them what you want.

you watch, after this wikileaks thing explodes they will pass this thing so fast it'll make your head spin. this is very dangerous and joe liebermann can go to hell this is as anti american as it gets, lets deport this jackass to pakistan

Originally posted by RedGolem
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Maybe not
it is easy to say they wont listen. And there are plenty of examples to show for it. I however like to think that the group of politicians who try to control say one hundred or one thousand people might be successful. But then the same trying to control one million, or ten million, will find it more difficult to do so. That is why I say to contact your representatives and tell them what you want.

RedGolem.....

You are right!

We must.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by RedGolem
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Maybe not
it is easy to say they wont listen. And there are plenty of examples to show for it. I however like to think that the group of politicians who try to control say one hundred or one thousand people might be successful. But then the same trying to control one million, or ten million, will find it more difficult to do so. That is why I say to contact your representatives and tell them what you want.

RedGolem.....

You are right!

We must.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Wake up my friend, I care for your safety. Please understand what is really going on before it is too late. This is my last post on ATS as I am going off the grid. Take care, Peace out

reply to post by rajaten


Rajaten.....

Wake up my friend, I care for your safety. Please understand what is really going on before it is too late. This is my last post on ATS as I am going off the grid. Take care, Peace out

I enjoyed discussing things with you.

Look after yourself, Rajaten.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I wonder what the effects would be on commerce. since everything is (sadly) being done "in the cloud" now, how bad does this kill businesses?

a stores database no longer may be stored in a city/town, but thousands of miles away. Think walmart with their product tracking abilitys/rumors of all UPC codes being "phoned home" to corporate in arkansas as we speak.

American airlines might have a server farm hosted by a european web hosting company in the UK that stores all your information, boarding ticket to be printed out via one of their "dummy/cloud terminals" at the airport....

Bank of america/chase/etc could have their ATM network (supposedly heavy firewalled/privacy locked) tied to a central server farm say in backwoods virgina...

I imagine if obama tossed his internet pipe switch to "off" it would grind *ALL* traffic to a stand still. even the private trunked lines. As I post this, I bet it might be winging along the same pipes in a telco closet that carry banking information for a chase bank customer.... What's he/she/the corporation do when they need to pay their bills, check a balance, or withdraw cash to get food/make a car payment/pay off a creditor on a bunch of new computers they ordered with the switch shut off?

The internet while a very valuable resource has become the exact opposite of what it was supposed to. It was originally designed to be fully redundant in case of a attack/failure/etc.

Place I used to work for used a network design from 1995 that consisted entirely of only ONE cisco switch/router. This failed, and shut the entire state system off from the rest of the
world/neighboring states! (no backup whatsoever!)

suppose UUnet in texas (believe that's a massive network infrastructure in the us with bandwith that would make a lay person blush at what is carried in a 5 second period) got flooded/power killed (backup generators failed)/nuked/attacked/ or just plain stupidity shut it down? It's a major enough backbone, I bet it would severly cripple the internet in more ways then one!

even if it only carries 10% of the USA's internet traffic (doubtful, it's very big) that would grind alot to a halt. Remember the nightmare it was with 56K when you couldn't dial into the network and got "circuits are busy?" imagine that on a larger scale...

Putting all the network eggs into one basket is a nightmare. With obama wanting a switch to be thrown that shuts it all down asap, was probably done with intent... Imagine having to throw 500,000 various switches to block "dissent"? Not fun at all

[edit on 18-6-2010 by rajaten]

Obama is evil and must be destroyed before he destroys us all

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


You ask, is there a school for traitors. Well I dont know about where they train, but the traitors in every nation, are usualy those leading it. I know thats always how its been here in the UK, and I would assume its the same where you are.
Guy Fawkes... HE was not a traitor. He wanted a corrupt parliment destroyed in fire, and I can empathise. Its a sentiment which echos even now many hundreds of years after his gunpowder plot ended with his death.

I am so shocked to see so many anti-obama members here on ATS. This bill might look awful at first but that's because you are plagued with right winged propaganda. This bill can help ALL OF US in a time of Emergency. Then again half of the members on here don't think 9/11 was done by terrorist.

Wake up to the truth! 9/11 and so many other conspiracies have been debunked.

If either they or you think the Internet can be "shut off" you guys dont know much about the Internet or what it is.

Perhaps I-net is already an American asset.
I live on the other side of the world, but every time Lieberman and the likes ban something from the net, I cant view it any longer just the same.