It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government Plans Take Control and Put 'On/Off Switch' on Internet

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Government to put 'On/Off' switch on Internet

This is pretty scary for anyone who hasn't heard of it. The government plans to propose a bill that is to take complete control over the Internet and turn it off for "emergency" situations.



A recently proposed but little-noticed Senate bill would allow the federal government to shut down the Internet in times of declared emergency, and enables unprecedented federal oversight of private network administration. The bill's draft states that "the president may order a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic" and would give the government ongoing access to "all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." Authored by Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 seeks to create a Cybersecurity Czar to centralize power now held by the Pentagon, National Security Agency, Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security.


This is obviously to stop the flow of free information. Look who is proposing the bill, a Rockefeller. How does anyone not see right through all of this? Shut down the entire internet because someone is hacking something? This sounds like old men who have no idea what the internet is, they just know they have to control it. When a "disaster strikes" (aka the government pulls some wacky, evil stunt ala 911) they will shut off the Internet and prevent anyone from talking to each other, and spreading real the real truth, instead of the obviously government run news stations.

The 5 or so families in charge of the world are just getting ridiculous. It's almost laughable. How do they expect to keep pulling this #, and not have the entire world wake up to it and rebel?




posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I think I read something about this on the internet a few days ago, I'm just glad that I woke up a few months ago and started thinking for myself and started questioning what our governments real intentions are. If it hadn't been for the internet I'd still be one of the sheeple, a mindless zombie. I can't believe I had gone on so long not realizing what is really going on in the world. The internet has been a valuable source of information to me and countless others as well. This is some truly bad news.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
In a way I don't think it's bad news. I think it's such a ridiculously over the top bill, that it's going to wake up more people to what the government is really up to. It also cements what us free thinkers already figured out.

I don't think it will get passed, because we as a collective will not let it happen.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
since the servers are all part of the military backbone yea they can shut it off at the flip of a switch.


so what who cares all that means is people have to forgo downloading porn for a few hours. anymore time than that and the levels of testosterone would reach epic proportions resulting in massive riots.

oh thats true i bet a million dollars on it.

little did that scientist know when he invented the internet it would be used to watch burping brazillian girls or whatever depraved thing your imagination can think of.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Yeah, I keep forgetting that the government and other top dudes have to be careful what they do cause they could screw themselves. If they started shutting off the internet everybody would be like, they must be trying to hide something, so yeah I guess this might not be bad news.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sh1fty
 

Apart from information control I honestly can't think of any emergency scenario that would require shutting down the entire internet. Unless of course it was to prevent it turning into skynet..



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
since the servers are all part of the military backbone yea they can shut it off at the flip of a switch.

Aren't military and civilian servers were run on seperate networks? I was always under the impression that there were at least two internets.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Ok Just how the ## are they going to do that? send a guy to every server? Any IT guys here? I would like to have some in site.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
no its the same internet there is only one internet.

the other servers are merely hubs like nodes on a network.

that is why china uses computer forensics to trace what networks or specifically what computers to hit to do catastrophic damage

for example water works, communications, relay towers, transformer stations.


its real simple to trace what computers do what and they are doing it now because there is one internet its nothing new they been doing this since it was invented their ahead of the curve, its not a bad thing keeps everyone on their toes ya know?


There is only one backbone that all servers relay back to and their all .mil not for security its more of an antiquated system but it works and if it aint broke the gov isnt going to fix it their too slow. eventually they will think of something and when they do ask a local nerd in a starbucks and they can tell you all about it.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Shut down the Internet and banking shuts down.The main bank I deal with is a couple thousand miles from my home,it would sure get my attention.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I've actually heard from a friend who's always researching this stuff (so I don't know how reliable his source is either) that the internet is going to be shut down but internet 2 will take it's place.

The upside? Internet 2 is supposed to be infinitely faster than current internet.
The downside? It's going to be crazy expensive. Apparently there are only going to be 8-9 huge parent companies who will offer a place on the web to others, only the prices will be so high that only big companies and advertising agencies will be able to afford their own web pages. They apparently will offer small template pages for users in the lines of myspace and that kind of thing, but it will be very controlled.

What does this mean? Freedom of speech and information is gone out the window, everyone will be back in the dark.

I really don't know if any of this is true, but I heard it and it's a plausible enough scenario to think about. What if right?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
no its the same internet there is only one internet.

the other servers are merely hubs like nodes on a network.

Actually I remember that bowie fan (Gary something) got done for hacking and stealing secrets so that must be the case. I'm surprised they haven't created a secondary "inner" network thats not so accessable from the civil internet. If there's a world war child hackers would be very busy and secrets would be easy to obtain.

excuse my ignorance on this issue. I have a vague idea what I mean but I can't articulate it in tech terms.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by door_to_anima
 


no no no this is true but wrong

first of all the new internet your talking about would run on the same servers its being used now

second of all they dont turn off the internet to do that they can run both you dont need a special browser or anything or supercomputer. heck even a mac could use internet 2 as you call it.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I didn't think it would require any special hardware. I just heard that the infrastructure that the internet is using now is not compatible with internet 2, as internet 2 had to be designed from scratch in terms of software so everything would have to be re-coded or ported.

Now that said, I'm not saying ANY of what I said is fact! I'm just repeating what I heard.

I think it is plausible to think that they will destroy our current internet and use internet 2 as an excuse, but I think the reason will be to control information and nothing more.

I believe if they were to do this we would ALL still be able to surf the internet, I think the issue is that we may not be able to have our own personal big websites and will have to use heavily controlled and moderated services such as myspace and it's ilk which would control content and information.

Now this is mostly all just thinking out loud. I really don't know whats going on, just going over various things I've heard. Take it all with a grain of salt.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tigpoppa
since the servers are all part of the military backbone yea they can shut it off at the flip of a switch.


so what who cares all that means is people have to forgo downloading porn for a few hours. anymore time than that and the levels of testosterone would reach epic proportions resulting in massive riots.

oh thats true i bet a million dollars on it.

little did that scientist know when he invented the internet it would be used to watch burping brazillian girls or whatever depraved thing your imagination can think of.



You do not sound like you're an ATS poster. Closed mind, instant judgement. No real clue to what the Internet has provided the people. We wouldn't even be arguing this bill if it wasn't for the Internet. We would'nt know half the things we do about our government.

Really though, who even are you? One of the many government/corporate mis-informers out there?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Years ago my sis worked for an internet comapny called Williams I think. She was pretty high up in the company and her office took calls from DHS regurarly. I was shocked when she told me (last March) amoung other things, that with a flip of the switch could shut down all or selective parts of the Country. In fact one night for Some reason they shut down most of NE USA starting in New England on down to NC.
That was years ago so I have no doubt as to what can be done now!



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 22-250
 


Describing the structure of the common internet as end users know it is a daunting task, especially to non-techies.

I'm no authority but I can relay some of my understanding to clarify.

An On/Off switch as we understand it would be impossible with exception of a global electrical blackout.

Since I understand the United States internet structure better, I'll only comment on that.

Internet is best described as a true extremely complex web of interconnected routers and switches. There isn't just one 'backbone'. Many of the top tier servers and routers and switches that make up the backbones that span the country are for obvious reasons made up of fiber optics and operated by companies such as Level3, AT&T, Above Net (not Above as in this ATS, least I don't think there's an affiliation although that could be a conspiracy in plain sight as well
). Verizon might own and operate top tier backbones as well. They are the new kids on the block.

To be able to 'turn off' internet would require some official emergency policy in place at all of these commercial organizations on how to impliment a shut down of all the routers and switches. Yes, in theory they could shut down the routers and switches remotely. As a tech, I was able to telnet into Jupiter routers and could 'turn them off'; with 13 primary routers one could effectively shut down all the traffic in a region of the US on one particular ISP Not the whole internet. Without a corporate policy on emergency plans to 'turn them off' in the event of an attack there is no way techs that run them would do it.

That would create an enormous amount of backlash in the form of customers at home level AND enterprise! It would be as bad as the 'I Love You' virus that we had to deal with way back in 1999'ish(?). That was mostly contained but it took nearly 10 hours to get our enterprise back in line. Hard to fix mail servers when the phones are ringing off the hook.

Anyhow, they would need to impliment plans at many many levels to completely shut it down.

Very likely, that peer to peer, smaller networks would exist in different sizes; some corporations don't need internet to function except communication with satellite offices. That could be accomplished with OMG dialup ... it still exists and some financial and medical organizations really do still use OMG dialup for submitting sensitive information to the main offices. OMG dialup is still used for many reasons.

Well, there's some idea ... Not exhaustive by an means, but if you want more info on ISP's and internet news ... slashdot is very popular. A more mainstream and easier to digest site that I like is DSL Reports

Edit : BOLD didn't turn off & Colors still fail in BBCode =\

[edit on 4·17·09 by DrMattMaddix]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Honestly, can anyone here legitimately come up with one "EMERGENCY" reason why switching off the internet would make anything easier *OTHER THAN FOR THE GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION*?

Seriously, in any large scale event, isn't the ability for citizens to communicate paramount? Shouldn't we be able to know what is actually going on on the other side of the country, in a way that doesn't involve main stream media?

They turn off the internet, and we're instantly hooped into listening to what the mainstream media is telling us. Which, in that situation, I am sure their comments would be the pinnacle of truth... cough...


Give me a freakin break!!!! Quit supporting MSM EVER!

Please read my thread and learnnn something

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
If you're so concerned about it, read the bill people. Don't just jabber about it. Don't just go by what a slanted excerpt claims.
www.opencongress.org...

The full text of the "shutdown" clause is this:

may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network

This is not talking about "shutting down the internet", it is talking about specific systems and networks within the internet. As has been pointed out, "shutting down the internet" is an impossibility. This is talking about isolating a compromised system, one that has had its security breached.


SEC. 14. PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.

(a) DESIGNATION- The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal Government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

(b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce--

(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access


The DOC would be given access to information about security threats and vulnerabilities. It makes sense to have a clearinghouse for this information in order to help prevent and deal with attacks.

Granted, some of the language could be refined, but read Section 2 (Findings) of the bill. You'll get a better idea of what it's really about.

[edit on 4/17/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
If you're so concerned about it, read the bill people. Don't just jabber about it. Don't just go by what a slanted excerpt claims.
www.opencongress.org...

The full text of the "shutdown" clause is this:

may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network

This is not talking about "shutting down the internet", it is talking about specific systems and networks within the internet. As has been pointed out, "shutting down the internet" is an impossibility. This is talking about isolating a compromised system, one that has had its security breached.


SEC. 14. PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.

(a) DESIGNATION- The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal Government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

(b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce--

(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access


The DOC would be given access to information about security threats and vulnerabilities. It makes sense to have a clearinghouse for this information in order to help prevent and deal with attacks.

Granted, some of the language could be refined, but read Section 2 (Findings) of the bill. You'll get a better idea of what it's really about.

[edit on 4/17/2009 by Phage]



I remember when they told me that the patriot act was only to stop terrorists.

But this legislation used in combination with mass blacklists placed on all major ISP's could essentially shut down the net, if they can stop more than even 50% of the citizens ability to access networking sites, it would be enough to get the population to follow them blindly in a situation where they are distorting all facts.

But good research Phage, as usual you come to the thread with facts. *star*




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join