# President to be able to shut down the internet (1 Viewer)



## Taxiday (Jun 30, 2010)

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers ...

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor.

The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.

Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed in the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-ca...cy-powers.html


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 30, 2010)

Including porn sites?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 30, 2010)

Maybe looking into a report that doesn't come from an Alex Jones web site would be a good idea.  I've read a bit about this around the web, but I haven't seen the text of the Bill.


----------



## Sigg (Jun 30, 2010)

Did you actually read the bill before jumping on the Chicken Little bandwagon?


----------



## Sigg (Jun 30, 2010)

For those interested in educating themselves :

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3480/text

EDIT : also related to this is the s.773 bill, which got similar reactions a year ago.  It was sort of the predecessor to s.3480.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 30, 2010)

Steerpike said:


> Maybe looking into a report that doesn't come from an Alex Jones web site would be a good idea. I've read a bit about this around the web, but I haven't seen the text of the Bill.


 
Dude, how can you argue against a website called "Prison Planet"? It's like, totally spin-free and objective. Can't you tell?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 30, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> Dude, how can you argue against a website called "Prison Planet"? It's like, totally spin-free and objective. Can't you tell?


 
I would answer you, but the feds have me prisoner in a FEMA trailer and they're monitoring every word I write.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 30, 2010)

So.... did YOU go read that whole piece of shit?

Sounds to me like they're creating authority to shut down the internet in situations they consider emergencies.  If I'm wrong about that, perhaps you could cite language from the bill that wll hip me up?


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 30, 2010)

The Internet? That’s as in the entire World Wide Web thingie? It’ll never happen. It can't happen. The entire business of running a country today revolves around the Net. Close down the Net, you close down the entire country. It’ll never happen. It can't happen. Go and find something else to waste your time debating.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jun 30, 2010)

And it’s prolly physically impossible into the bargain. It’s an April Fools' Joke running late.


----------



## Baron (Jun 30, 2010)

If America were to "shut up shop" in the same way that China has done, just blocking, it's citizens' access to anything outside of China and stopping anything from coming in, then internal trade could still continue.

What might be reasons for doing this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10339543.stm


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 30, 2010)

Avoiding soccer hysteria come to mind.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> So.... did YOU go read that whole piece of shit?
> 
> Sounds to me like they're creating authority to shut down the internet in situations they consider emergencies. If I'm wrong about that, perhaps you could cite language from the bill that wll hip me up?


 
Yes, I read most of it. There is a lot of filler that has to go into all of the bills, but there are a couple sections with the relevant content.

First off, 99.9% of this bill has nothing to do with "shutting down the internetz oh noes!". Most of it is establishing some sort structure around what is in fact a fundamental component to the wellbeing and continued functioning of this country. Another very large part of this bill is establishing some guiding principles and structure around IT resourcing in this country.

Here's the point : cyberspace is still basically the wild west, it is more or less lawless. This means we have very little control over it. I don't think people understand how dangerous this is. It's like leaving your door unlocked with a giant sign saying "Come kill my family and steal my shit!" I don't think people understand 2 things, a.) the potential damage that could be done without the attacker having to leave the comfort of his chair, I'm talking mass murder, utter economic ruin, those sorts of horrible things and b.) we (america) are NOT even close to being adequate at preventing these attacks or mitigating _any_ of that risk, there are other countries (china comes to mind) that can run circles around our best infosec people in the US.

Now to address the part that everyone is crying about, there is no "killswitch to the internet" clause as is being described by some of the more... vocal opponents to this bill. Obama can't "shut down the internet". What he _can_ do is to shut down access to key pieces of infrastructure (pretty much anything, private or public, that has to do with defense, finance, or the government) on _a risk basis, in case of an emergency_. What that means is, they deem a particular piece of infrastructure to be at high risk (FBI computer systems for example) and if there is an emergency, say china secretly declares a cyberwar, by executive order the president can shut off access to those systems. So yes, your porn will still be available in case of emergency.

The people who are terrified of this "shut down the internet?!!!" stuff, clearly don't understand how the internet actually works.

I don't think the bill (s.3480) is perfect, but it is a vast improvement over s.773, and we _need_ to put this structure in place to address the fact that we have our ass hanging in the wind right now.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

Excuse me if I find that a bit myopic.   
This is how these things work.
Things are DANGEROUS.   They need to be controlled for the security of the fatherland.   So we'll have this czar and set up this department that exercises this control.
And it will NEVER expand or beome more political or be used by the government against the people, because governments and bureaucracies don't work that way.

Sorry, but I have a little trouble with that, having seen a few these things before.

Also, I just don't see the looming danger this will protect us from.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 1, 2010)

> Also, I just don't see the looming danger this will protect us from.


 
that's sort of my point, people _don't_ see the danger. I work in this field and I _do_ see the danger. Which is why I said I don't think people understand those 2 points I mentioned before, if they did, they would understand the need for this sort of bill.

EDIT : just one more bit of food for thought... The president already has the authority to declare Martial Law in a state of emergency, is this not the same concept, just brought up to date with today's circumstances?

How often has the president declared martial law?

Again though, this "killswitch" stuff is only a very minor part of the bill.


----------



## Baron (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> Excuse me if I find that a bit myopic.
> This is how these things work.
> Things are DANGEROUS.   They need to be controlled for the security of the fatherland.   So we'll have this czar and set up this department that exercises this control.
> And it will NEVER expand or beome more political or be used by the government against the people, because governments and bureaucracies don't work that way.
> ...


 
I think you're so busy waving the hippy freedom banner that you're missing a lot.  cyber war is reality.  Attacks like that which brought Estonia to a standstill are easily set up.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia

There could be malware on the computers of anyone on this site, you included, that would pull you into a targeted attack aimed at crashing a system.  You wouldn't even be aware that it's happening or that your computer is being used.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

So what are these horrors that might befall us if the internet is not regulated?


----------



## Sigg (Jul 1, 2010)

Baron said:


> I think you're so busy waving the hippy freedom banner that you're missing a lot. cyber war is reality. Attacks like that which brought Estonia to a standstill are easily set up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia
> 
> There could be malware on the computers of anyone on this site, you included, that would pull you into a targeted attack aimed at crashing a system. You wouldn't even be aware that it's happening or that your computer is being used.



And that's where I think they got something pretty right in this bill.  A big part of it is to promote proper training and education in IT/computers for the people in the US.  Even basic education on how to protect yourself from infection would be a vast improvement.  It drives me nuts when a friend or coworker asks me to help them with their computer and it's like "well i just opened the big red flashing email that said 'you won $1 million dollars' and now my computer won't open any programs?..."  

People should require a license to go on the internet, like a driver's license.  To force some standard of awareness and knowledge about how _not_ to put your entire network at risk.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> So what are these horrors that might befall us if the internet is not regulated?


 
The biggest issue is that one person's ignorance has the potential to damage many people around them. It only takes one idiot to bring a virus onto the internal company network to infect all of the other, smarter, people. The company can potentially lose _a lot_ of money. This is just a simple, common occurrence. If you want extreme, the financial markets are all electronic, so potentially economic ruin of the US could result from a well-planned attack.

Even more extreme? What about critical defense systems? Missile silos? Top Secret intelligence? Sensitive personnel information?

Less extreme but very common? botnets to commit DDoS attacks, identity theft, stealing banking information, mass spam.

Here's an example of why we need to pull our heads out of the sand : I've met countless people (including my BOSS! he's a friggin IT consultant!) who don't understand the basics of wireless security. He regularly goes on his e-banking on unprotected wireless networks, like a Starbucks wireless hotspot. It's the equivalent of walking down the street, screaming your banking information at the top of your lungs.


EDIT : Ok, I understand I've been using a lot of technical examples, so here's a comparison that I think everyone should understand perfectly.  This bill is primarily to institute structure and awareness of cyber security.  Back before there was a real awareness of STDs, people just kept on fuckin like bunny rabbits without condoms until those diseases became a big issue.  Why is it a big issue?  Because those poor choices, generally fueled by ignorance, don't just affect that one person.  The analogy isn't perfect, but I'm hoping it made a point.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

None of that seems to hook up.

You really think missile silos are hooked up to the internet? 

You want the government telling your bank how to protect your money?

Did they appoint a czar to go around making sure people were wearing condoms?  Education is not the same as regulation.  Which means control.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)




----------



## Sigg (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> None of that seems to hook up.
> 
> You really think missile silos are hooked up to the internet?
> 
> ...



You are really missing the point.  No missile silo's are not hooked up to "the internet" more specifically, not the World Wide Web.  They are however hooked in _a_ internet, which can be infilitrated by an external source.

It's not about the government "telling your bank how to protect your money", it's about if shit really hits the fan, there is a way to cut off access to stop the bleeding.  There are already tons of laws that regulate banks to make sure they meet certain standards, this is no different.

my analogy to STDs was only to illustrate the fact that one person's failings is not contained to that person, as it is with most things, we don't live in a world of zero-sum scenarios.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


>



I've got my tinfoil hat on.

So, what we've learned from this thread is: people who watch lots of porn on the internet have given their computers various STD's and we need Government regulation of the internet to limit these various STD's from spreading. There's nothing malicious about it, folks, just stop watching porn on the net and no harm will befall you... provided the aliens don't attack.


----------



## Baron (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> None of that seems to hook up.
> 
> You really think missile silos are hooked up to the internet?
> 
> ...


 
Had you taken a few minutes to read the article I linked to about what happened to Estonia then you might have a clearer idea of what the dangers and possibilities are.  Your question shows that you didn't bother reading it before replying.  Hunting just for the ride, not the kill?


----------



## cacafire (Jul 1, 2010)

Yeah.... pretty much everything thats important is hooked up to either the internet or an internet these days. All of our information. That's whats valuable. You know how all our stuff gets manufactured? It's manufactured by machines. Well, those machines are run on programs. Those programs require information. Our manufacturing system isn't like the 1800's anymore. If we don't have the data to feed into our computers, to tell our machines how to make whatever it is we want to make, boom: Our entire manufacturing system is out.

Another thing: You know our distribution systems? Of course not. Well almost all warehouses sort and distrubute their materials electronically these days. They rely on electronic databases _which are connected to the web_. Someone hacks in and wipes everything out-- suddenly our entire distrubution networks will be gone. We won't have the manpower to stock our wall-marts or even our grocery stores. There's simply not enough men to sort them by hand.

Another thing: You know our utilities? Guess what keeps them running? That's right, microproccessor networks that are connected to: you guessed it: _the web_. Knock those out, and you have rolling blackouts. Whats worse though, is without power, all the various nuclear reactors would eat through their coolant zones and we'd have at least a dozen chernobyls.

You know what else runs on computer systems? Aircraft navigation systems. Amtrek train systems. Financial systems. Phone networks. _*All of these are connected to the internet.*_

And then of course theres the navigation systems of missile silos, which, yes, they _are_ connected to an intranet which can be gained access remotely from the web.

So, yeah, I'd say this bill is needed, and needed *now*.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 1, 2010)

> You really think missile silos are hooked up to the internet?


I always thought the original reason for the web was so that the silos could not be isolated if part of the communication system was knocked out. There has been an ongoing case here recently for the extradition of a boy who managed to hack into the pentagon, so there are certainly parts of your national security network which are available if you know how.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

> Your question shows that you didn't bother reading it before replying.



Actually, I wasn't replying to you and don't remember seeing any link to an article.  But don't let that stop your victory dance.

Missle silos (at least in the US) are not hooked up to the internet.  Hacking the pentagon is another mattter.  It's an office building, okay?


----------



## Sigg (Jul 1, 2010)

> So, yeah, I'd say this bill is needed, and needed *now*.


 
I just want to reiterate one thing, I never said we need _this_ bill, we need one like it.  s.3480 is essentially the 2nd iteration, where s.773 was the first.  I'd have no issue with them going through another iteration to get some of the sticky parts sorted out.  Either way, we need the structure and governance.



> I always thought the original reason for the web was so that the silos could not be isolated if part of the communication system was knocked out. There has been an ongoing case here recently for the extradition of a boy who managed to hack into the pentagon, so there are certainly parts of your national security network which are available if you know how.


 
the original "internet" was a military project at DARPA, the ARPAnet.  "The Internet" is specifically WWW.  The term inter-network (internet) is more broad and call apply to any network that connects 2 or more intranets.  Military/defense systems are generally not connected to the WWW, but will have their own more secure networks to hook them to the respective command locations.


I think cacafire may have oversimplified the situation a bit but got the basic, high level gist.  There are enough failsafes in place that we wouldn't have nuclear holocaust at the hands of melting power plants if the utility companies are collectively hacked.

There are really only a few really scary and realistic scenarios that I can see :

- cyber warfare, where the intention is to destroy the enemy.  This is where fatalities are the the true measure of loss, and right now there are countries out there that have the capability to carry out such an attack if they wanted to.
- cyber theft on a large scale, already there are millions of scammers/hackers who steal identities and such but the large scale threat is when an organized attack takes place that targets a system like the NYSE.

Interesting times are ahead of us.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 1, 2010)

> Hacking the pentagon is another mattter. It's an office building, okay?


 
An office building with access to our nations secrets and defense systems... I'd say it's a pretty big deal.


----------



## Baron (Jul 1, 2010)

lin said:


> Actually  But don't let that stop your victory dance.



[video=youtube;wjZKb0nDVys]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjZKb0nDVys[/video]


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

> An office building with access to our nations secrets and defense  systems... I'd say it's a pretty big deal.


No, actually that's not the situation at all.  Have you ever BEEN in the Pentagon?   Known people who work there?  Ever BEEN in NORAD or known people who work there?

It's like saying somebody has a phone number in the white house so they can threaten the President.




> it's about if shit really hits the fan, there is a way to cut off access  to stop the bleeding.



Great Idea!  When emrgencies hit, cut off people's communication.  FABULOUS way to keep those missle silos safe.

By the way.  I know by now that whatever it is you do it has nothing to do with NORAD or missiles.  Believe me when I tell you that there is no "internet" connect missles batteries.  Really.  Honest injun.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 1, 2010)

> Financial systems.


No.  Really aren't.  You start screwing around with complex bank problems and you start running into all this stuff like.  "I can't access those records from here, that's in another building which has no connection with this one, not even phone lines."

I realize in the movies some geek plugs in and opens prison doors and launches sub nukes, but that's in movies.

And I absolutely guaran damn tee you that missles aren't connect up to an "intranet" that can be accessed from the internet.  Promise.

The real threat is hacking satellites.  Anybody remember Captain Midnight?   But nobody's pullled off anything like that since.  And guess what, has absolutely nothing to do with the internet.

I keep waiting for somebody to ask themselves why the hell somebody would hook NORAD up to the internet.

Or, if missiles are on this ultra-secure "intranet" that can be hacked by people (or so some believe) why it would be neccasary to do anything with the main net in order to deal with it.

But notice it's these SciFi Channel alarmists who are talking about OTHER PEOPLE being parnoid and flying off the handle.


----------



## The Backward OX (Jul 1, 2010)

Wow. I think I'll just go back to my vegetable patch.


----------



## JosephB (Jul 1, 2010)

Smart man. When they shut down the internet and the world is thrown into chaos, you’ll be glad you have that vegetable patch.


----------



## Baron (Jul 2, 2010)

JosephB said:


> Smart man. When they shut down the internet and the world is thrown into chaos, you’ll be glad you have that vegetable patch.



If America shuts down the internet and cuts itself off from the rest of the world that'll be an end to 90% of the chaos.


----------



## Sigg (Jul 2, 2010)

lin, I've already explained what I mean multiple times, there isn't much else I can do if you either aren't willing to read it or can't understand it.

I won't bother addressing either of your last 2 nonsense posts because they make it pretty clear that you are clueless.


----------



## Baron (Jul 2, 2010)




----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 2, 2010)

> lin, I've already explained what I mean multiple times



Actually you haven't.  And calling somebody clueless isn't much of a defense against being unable to answer up but unable to stop lashing out.

As a matter of fact, I have presented an argument against financial institution vulnerability to internet.  I have investigated this to an extent and it's for real.  Firewalls that aren't about software, but actual physical disconnect,

I said I could tell that you don't know much about missile defense or military set-ups.  You, in fact did NOT answer the question as to if you had been in the Pentagon of NORAD or knew people who actually worked there.

Let me tell you something.  I grew up in the military, much of it on missile sites.  I lived at Fort Bliss twice while my father studied, then taught, at the guided missile school.  When he commanded Nike battalions, I was often in the radar vans chatting with the guys.
I lived in Colorado Springs twice, while my father was with NORAD.  I have been to the Cheyenne Mountain site.
I lived in DC while my father and uncle worked in the pentagon.  The last American woman I dated was a colonel in the pentagon... worked with internet internal nets.

This was before internet, but I still know quite a few people from those day and discuss new weirdness about missiles and radar with them.  

So I mentioned the financial and military things you think are so vulnerable and mention my experience that in fact they aren't.  Neither you nor that other poster responded to that.  Neither of you cited anything other than vague chicken little scenarios and babbling about "intranet" as if the similarity in words means a similarity in pernicious access.

So, I am really, really sure that whatever it is you do that gives you your unspecified authority, it does not include familiarity with military or missiles.  What it does entail will, I'd guess, remain mysterious.

But if you think you are kidding anybody (other than possibly yourself) with that "I've explained it all and won't answer any mor because it insults my intelligence"  crap, I think you might be lack a few clues.


----------



## Patrick (Jul 2, 2010)

You will all be sorry when the AI programmes the robots to march out of Area 51 dual-wielding assault rifles.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jul 2, 2010)

Not me.  That's what I pray for every night.


----------



## Taxiday (Jul 3, 2010)

Lin - you'll appreciate this off-topic reply - I served as a personnel clerk with the Nike/Hercules batalltion at Dyess AFB in the very early 60's.


----------



## NathanBrazil (Jul 3, 2010)

Lin- I know less than you and Sigg about the internet or intranets or inter-networks. But if the president had to order the launch of a number of missiles, how would that be executed? I'm having a difficult time visualizing how that would be accomplished without some kind of "internet" connect to the missile batteries.




> > it's about if shit really hits the fan, there is a way to cut off access to stop the bleeding.
> 
> 
> 
> Great Idea! When emrgencies hit, cut off people's communication. FABULOUS way to keep those missle silos safe.


 
I thought Sigg made clear is that the majority of the internet would not be shut down. So communication would not be shut off. Only access to specific high value targets would be shut off.


----------



## Taxiday (Jul 4, 2010)

Lin- I know less than you and Sigg about the internet or intranets or inter-networks. But if the president had to order the launch of a number of missiles, how would that be executed? I'm having a difficult time visualizing how that would be accomplished without some kind of "internet" connect to the missile batteries.

I do not know if there is some other way but when I was in the Army, there were dedicated, shielded landlines between the battery headquarters and the silos or launch vehicles. Those, in turn, were connected by the same type of communication channels all the way up the line to the National Authority. There are uncounted methods of secure communiaction far apart from the internet used by the military.


----------

