It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:40 PM
The Internet Companies are UPSET!!!

Well that's horsepuckey!!

The government is big business, and only big business.

Don't be fooled for a minute by their charades. The big internet companies are just as complicit in this fiasco, and maybe more so , than the government.


Just stop your whining about this, and everything else.


I'm sure I've posted on ATS a dozen times that we hold the power. The power of consumerism and choice.

If they are going to start this crap, cut your service. If enough people got angry enough, and took action, we wouldn't have hardly any problems in this country. But people go along because they feel powerless, and are to lazy to think for themselves.

Screw them. They want to do this. Then americans ought to threaten to pull their service. SEE HOW THEY LIKE THAT!! KINDA HARD TO SURVIVE WITH OUT CASH FLOW!


WAKE UP AMERICANS AND THINK FOR YOURSELF. You DO NOT need to fight this bill. Or read this bill. Or acknowledge this bill. Throw the bill in the garbage. JUST THREATEN TO CUT YOUR SERVICE, AND DO SO, WHEN THIS BECOMES A REAL ISSUE.

To hell with our corporate fascist government!!!

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:55 PM
There seems to be much mis-information here regarding this so here is my experience with this, working 12 years as a network systems engineer and having built several Main Telephone Switching Offices (MTSO).

This is a USA Federal Government Bill that would affect inter-country data communications (internet, satellite, and national radio programs which are IP packets transmitted to RF distribution sites) and also international interconnections.

The Republican sponsor of this Bill is Olympia Snow who is a RINO and usually votes with the other side.

The USA represents 80% of the worldwide traffic so any cut in interconnectivity affects the world. Local internet networks sharing a common hub would work but not much information is normally there, so not much help in the real world.

The internet is not one spiderweb, but many spiderwebs logically interconnected via 'backbones'. Breaking the backbone connection will shutdown most IP requests and slow down everything else. Government orders will also include termination of automatic IP reroutes. About 15 years ago a fire at the Chicago hub shut down all communications with the east coast.

Maps of the Internet Backbone Maps for the following are available at

MCIWorldcom 2000 (current pdf)

For an example, lets say that the government wanted to cut off information flow between the USA's east coast and west coast. If you compare the various provider maps along the center of the USA, you will see that Chicago, Kansas City/St.Louis, Dallas/Austin are major backbone hubs. Many of these are physically co-located in the same multistory building with a different hub switch (a large computer running telecom switching software with physical interconnects in and out) run by a different company on each floor.

One government IT tech, armed with a government order at these few sites, can walk into a backbone center at a coordinated time shut off internet within a few minutes.

Why would the government want to do this? For the conspiracy types, what if the government started rounding up patriot dissenters, they couldn't warn the others that the government was coming for them nor could a coordinated response be achieved.

Tech Info:
Internet backbones are a group of communications networks managed by several commercial companies that provide the major high-speed links across the country. ISPs are either connected directly to these backbones or to a larger regional ISP that is connected to one. The backbones themselves are interconnected at various access points called "NAPs." The major backbone providers include Qwest, Level 3 Communications, AT&T, Sprint/Nextel, SAVVIS and British Telecom.

The first public Internet exchange points (IXPs). Established by the National Science Foundation in the early 1990s, they were set up to provide a standard way to exchange packets for commercial backbones. When the Net went commercial in 1995, four official NAPs were created. Three were run by the telephone companies in San Francisco, Chicago and Pennsauken, NJ, and the fourth was run by Metropolitan Fiber Systems (MFS) in Washington, D.C., known as MAE-East (Metropolitan Area Exchange-East). Four more MAEs became de facto NAPs along with two federal exchanges and the Commercial Internet Exchange Association (see CIX).

Since the first NAPs, hundreds of public exchange points were created around the world, which serve to interconnect all the backbone networks and provide on-ramps to smaller ISPs

A public junction point on the Internet that provides an on-ramp to the Internet as well as a location for carriers to exchange traffic. As of 2007, there were approximately 300 IXPs around the world, with more than 75 in the U.S. For a current list of IXPs, visit

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by trollz
I'd personally very much like for the internet to be left alone and remain 100% free, but I can understand how certain people would believe it to be in the country's best interests to allow for control over private networks such as for power companies in case of some sort of cyber-terror attack or other situation. Cyber-terrorism is one area that could easily allow for malicious-minded people to do untold damage very quickly. The idea of someone for example messing with major power companies and disrupting electricity or something of the like definitely warrants government attention.
Basically, yes, this could allow for further government control of the internet, which I and most other people would probably disagree with, but under the circumstances considering the danger cyber-terrorism could pose, it is an understandable concern.

I respect your reasoning. However, I cannot bring myself to wholly agree with what you are saying. You see, "terrorism" is the issue.

The government, along with THE industry (AKA: The Military Industrial Complex), have already developed and deployed a stand-alone network. The Defense department was a key revenue source for contractors in this area. All they need to do now is isolate all the sensitive elements of our infrastructure.

The defense measures we are calling for do NOT merit the potential loss of the free communication which is uniquely suited to the 21st Century's human population. Silencing it would be like banning personal computers in the 20th century.

Why, I wonder, should we tolerate the presence of sensitive military or infrastructure systems on the web (which is akin to using us a human shields?) These 'targets' are exactly what we shouldn't be sharing the internet with. Let them use the net that our tax dollars pay for, and stay off the world-wide web. Caveat Emptor.

I say, let them create a gigantic super secure isolated system, and let the banks and other institutions live there... but TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT! Make 'em pay through the nose for the security that they want on our dime. Legislate its oversight, and if they get hacked or have a crisis, it will be THEIR crisis (after all it can only be attacked from within), not one of every citizen in the country.

I'm tired of this energy draining fear paradigm that drives good people to believe something that is either distorted for the benefit of the story-teller, or are compelled to accept to conform to cultural or social obligation.

This is about taking from us not only our wealth, but the establishment of an "Sword of Damocles" to hold over our heads, information embargo - a classic feature of the criminal oligarchy behind so many of the problems we are unnecessarily burdened with at the dawn of the 21st century.

We seem to have been kept frightened of one thing or another for the past century or so. Initiating this beast was easily enough achieved by simply keeping us frightened.

To finish it, they must execute an overhaul of the backbone of what we know as "the Internet." In order to achieve this effectively - we must let it happen, hence the political buffer between us and the government. In the twisted political world of power merchants and elitists, they call this the equivalent of us "ASKING" them to do it.

But they can't unless an "emergency" is declared. Half of this monstrosity is already in place.

I need a beer.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:05 PM
So the question is - will it be the gov. or will it be a make believe terrorist that shuts it down?

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:06 PM
It seems to me that the government actually already has the power to take over the "Internet" (or at least the servers in the US, which would cut us off from the Internet). They can always declare martial law and do it, AFAIK.

I guess this proposed law would let them seize the servers without having to declare a martial law situation. Not sure what their thinking is on that, however. I can't see how it would do anyone any good to take over the Internet, since our entire society (including our money) depends on the Internet. Lose that, and we lose most of our functioning.

I mean, I completely understand why a government would love to seize all communications - control information, control the people. But to the US, the Internet is like our lifeblood. I can't see how they could keep vital services going while shutting down communication or dissent or whatever.

I'm thinking that we're not getting the whole story here.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:29 PM
I support this,

we shouldn't be looking at porn when a nuke strikes America.

I also think that websites like ATS should be blocked because it's libel.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:30 PM

Originally posted by RRconservative
Someone big on ATS said "Screw the country, Obama must fail" to disparage people that oppose Obama.

This is just another example why Obama must fail, for the sake of the country.

if you read that thread, that was a quote from a lobbyist, or internest i believe, and that was what the republicans where saying about obama. so go read the thread.

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:40 PM
Everyone remember over this summer when AT&T shut down passage to the site because of "DOS attacks?" I really doubt the true issue was these attacks and instead an attempt of censoring media.

I kind-of wonder now if it was a trial to see if TPTB could get away with such a ploy...

A mad rush of hackers attack the internet and the President has no choice but to issue an overhaul to "protect us." (Even though the government employs many of the greatest hackers to work for them).

Didn't a President not too long ago invade 2 nations and in the process stir up ethnic hatred amongst its tribal peoples as well as create more animosity against the U.S. and increase soldier casualties in the process?

Oh wait. That was to protect us. So I guess the liberties lost in the process through the Patriot Act et al were for the greater good, huh?

I'm sure Big Brother more closely monitoring you and the liberties you will lose from that on the web is gonna protect you too...



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:46 PM
After seeing the different aspects of the bill, the only thing that comes into my mind is one thing:

We need more cyber security for this country.

After 9/11, President Bush focused the majority of his time and money on stopping physical attacks from happening.

Whether or not it did a good or bad thing, I won't garner a guess, but he didn't focus too much on cyber security.

Twice this year, our government's computer infrastructure has been attacked.

Did you guys know that the DOD is attacked over three million times a day through computers?


So, if we don't want this bill to come, we need more cyber security for this country.

Defense is the best offense.

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:28 AM
reply to post by Mak Manto

The DOD network infrastructure and it's "protection" has nothing to do with public sector internet.

You're trying to bypass all logic and become the standard bearer of fear, like you typically do in all other threads. I don't know who you are, or what your agenda is, but there are many posts in this thread that quickly deny the statements you just made with cold hard facts.

The DOD and private sectors, like banks and utilities can create their own infrastructure and police themselves.

We hold the key right now, we are the gatekeepers, they want us to "give it to them", they want us to "permit" them, otherwise they wouldn't ask. If security was the main goal, they would have policed the government/private sectors 5 years ago, without anyone knowing. Which they've already done.

I seriously don't understand how any American who lived in this country for the past 9 years can sit back and swallow this sh!t. Unbelievable.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by SyphonX]

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:32 AM

Originally posted by deadbang
reply to post by stumason

Point taken, were in agreement...and most big carriers use BGP in their core routing so there would be multiple routes to destination servers, as long as they were not US based they would still be accessible, although response times would be diminished.

Not to indulge in pedantry, but I'd go so far as to say all of the major IP carriers use BGP v4, as it is the fabric of route exchange on the public IPv4-centric Internet. I would say Wikipedia is not off base at all when it is described as such in the article on BGP:

The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the core routing protocol of the Internet.

Though one could effectively blackhole the root DNS servers which can't physically be controlled by your government and then poison the remaining available root servers which you do control to establish a kind of 'security by obscurity' firewall filtering undesired locales.

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:48 AM

Originally posted by kozmo

Now, I realize this must be hard for to you to swallow - as we Americans have a history of kicking our oppressor's asses and sending them packing -
I think you know what I'm talking about, don't you? - but this has nothing to do with race. See, here in America we don't take crap sitting down. We don't easily allow our politicans to set laws governing our "Wheelie bins"
, taking pictures in public, having CCTV on every corner - or even in our homes, disarming us, determining our medical care, selling out our sovereignty to a foreign entity like a continental "Union" and so on and so forth. Whereas I recognize that all of that may perhaps be a very "European" thing, we are NOT European, we are AMERICAN! And when our politicians start doing very "European" things, the general public will begin doing very "American" things - like taking our country back by force if necessary. Make sense, mate?

So when are you going to get started, the rest of the world is waiting ... and waiting ..... and waiting .... and ...

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:52 AM
Having read a little about this, and having read the excerpt: This is, in the final analysis, a foolhardy attempt by ignorant politicians to guarantee themselves extraordinary powers to deal with a perceived threat. I agree that it's a terrible idea. The thing about these sorts of issues is, the bill was probably not drafted by malevolent people. It was probably drafted by people acting stupidly. But such legislation could easily be used by malevolent people if it's made law, and that is a scary possibility. It's sort of like the government holding the legal right to tamper with the presses. They cannot practically control all of the printing presses and all of the people who might distribute what they print. They can, however, raise the bar a great deal, requiring unusual sophistication and resolve to gain free access to information. Not Good.

I don't think it's fair to make this an Obama thing, though. Lots of politicians have been proposing crazy power grabs for a long time and it's only gotten worse since 9/11. Neither Republicans nor Democrats hold a monopoly over this kind of ridiculousness. Furthermore, the Executive branch is not the legislate branch. Signing orders are more frightening and a better example of the intent of the Executive. You can't just blame everything Congress does on Obama, or Bush, or any of their predecessors. Sheesh.

Fortunately for us in the US, this sort of silliness usually meets it's well deserved early demise. I'd get vocal with your Congress critters should this appear to gain significant traction, however.

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by SyphonX

I'm telling you the truth.

The last time we were hit hard, and we believe it was North Korea that hit us, they knocked down a portion of government and commercial websites.

Cyber security, though, is a strong issue within this country.

Everything is connected through computers anymore. It's not like the days of old where the files were behind lock and key. If a rogue nation or terrorists are able to hack into our infrastructure and gain national secrets, we could be in deep trouble.

For example: what would happen if terrorists gained knowledge of a document that shows all of the locations of nuclear silos in the country?

Cyber security is the country's strongest need for national security.

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by warrenb

This is just the beginning stages. Next will be censorship, monitoring, regulation, taxes and more. This is a sick, sad day.

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by SyphonX

I'm telling you the truth.

The last time we were hit hard, and we believe it was North Korea that hit us, they knocked down a portion of government and commercial websites.

Cyber security, though, is a strong issue within this country.

Everything is connected through computers anymore. It's not like the days of old where the files were behind lock and key. If a rogue nation or terrorists are able to hack into our infrastructure and gain national secrets, we could be in deep trouble.

For example: what would happen if terrorists gained knowledge of a document that shows all of the locations of nuclear silos in the country?

Cyber security is the country's strongest need for national security.

I would have to assume that the more confidential files are stored offline on closed networks. I believe that security is a great threat but if you are going to fix it. Have the government fund private companies to create better security measures. Don't give the government control over the Internet and let them run rampant with everything that will follow. Pretty soon the Internet will be government owned like the roads in America.

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:19 AM
reply to post by intelinside451

Which is why I'm saying, let's focus more on cyber security so that the President doesn't need to have to worry about being attacked. If we have a good security defense for our cyber infrastructure, we can do well.

And as for the nuclear sites, actually, that's quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

The story is called: "U.S. Accidentally Releases List of Nuclear Sites"

While this is not an example of being hacked, I think a lot of this information is kept in areas that terrorists can get it.

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:23 AM
They are tightening the grip on us dudes !!!

Can you feel the squize ! ?

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:27 AM
Who needs the internet? We have a multitude of ways of communicating with eachother and always have.... They will have to cut out our tongues and skewer our hearts to silence the outspoken public. I could always drive around with an absurd amount of shoe polish on my car stating any certain fact , maybe even with an eye catching hand drawn picture.

Or if all else fails(technologically), i can eat free berries growing from the bushes and write a message with my poo on the walls. Someone will read it, and relay in their own interactive way with someone. Anyways you get the point.... Hmmmm poop grafitti... smells like an interesting idea

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by chuckk
The USA represents 80% of the worldwide traffic s

No, it doesn't. North America accounts for roughly 15% of global traffic. Asia has the largest share, at around 45%. I think you're doing yourself a disservice by claiming otherwise. Broadband penetration in the US is actually rather poor, outside the major metroploitan hubs, whereas in Asian countries such as Korea, it is the norm to have 100Mbs services.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by warrenb

It looks like we need an internet 2.0 with servers located
somewhere out of the reach of Washington DC. Israel maybe?
How about South Korea or India?
Internet 1.0 shut down by ObamaIronFist? Switch to internet 2.0.

I've said it 100 times before, but I'll say it again. Internet 2 isn't some magical new Internet, it is just a brand name for a private, corporate network providing high bandwidth services to academia and big business. It runs on the same technology and does the same things as our "internet", it's just a dedicated network for the boffins so us plebs don't clog it up with Porn and Movie downloads.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in