Internet Controls To Be Put In Place During Pandemic (ATS SHUTDOWN?) , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 39 times

Topic started on 28-10-2009 @ 02:05 AM by AllSeeingI

Reuters: Internet Controls To Be Put In Place During Pandemic

Experts have for years pointed to the potential problem of Internet access during a severe pandemic, which would be a unique kind of emergency. It would be global, affecting many areas at once, and would last for weeks or months, unlike a disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake.

"An expectation of unlimited Internet access during a pandemic is not realistic."

H1N1 swine flu has been declared a pandemic but is considered a moderate one. Health experts say a worse one -- or a worsening of this one -- could result in 40 percent absentee rates at work and school at any given time and closed offices

"The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for ensuring that critical telecommunications infrastructure is protected."

BLOCKING WEBSITES: Private Internet providers might need government authorization to block popular websites, it said, or to reduce residential transmission speeds to make way for commerce.

While I believe maintaining internet capabilities is a legitimate problem, I am suspicious of this being used as a guise to restrict or control the Internet (more than it already is).

Limiting bandwidth? Who gets the bandwidth? When TSHTF (the stuff hits the fan) will it be the financially powerful maintaining bandwidth control and watching their weaker, unconnected competitors suffer by the lack of business capability.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT....
During a major pandemic ETC ETC, I imagine websites like ATS would be the first shut down... seen as UNNECESSARY internet traffic.

ATS shut down when we need it most. Everyday this threat hangs over us.

Who would get to make the choices about which NEWS sites to remain active?
Would it be all? None? Some? If some... which?
FoxNews Yes? Infowars No?

I say it is time to get the bandwidth capabilities in place so this is NOT an issue.

My gut tells me this really is NOT an issue and that technology and capabilities exist to safeguard from Internet failure... but is just being used to place more Draconian controls on the Internet.

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:21 AM by ghaleon12

"An expectation of unlimited Internet access during a pandemic is not realistic," he added.

Eh, what does he know, DHS isn't exactly the most authoritative when it comes to how the internet works. I say it is realistic.

I don't think this would be a problem to a large extent. Most activities use very little bandwidth, business related stuff should use very little. What uses a lot are obviously video, music, game demos, the "fun" stuff. ATS, I'd reckon, uses very very little bandwidth, same with mostly text based stuff.

Considering how obscure infowars and that sorta stuff is, it'd make no sense to limit access to those sites.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ghaleon12]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:23 AM by Kaytagg

Skeptic Overlord would flip his lid and sue the feds for being retards, if this happened.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:25 AM by iamsupermanv2

reply to post by AllSeeingI

the bandwith problem would be used as a guise as i see it, and if that happens, i think we all know what the real problem is. if a flu outbreak of any kind really happens...internets should be on the bottom of the list to take care of..so why shut it down? the logic used doesnt make sense to me. so if it is shut down,we know something more is up.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:27 AM by AllSeeingI

reply to post by ghaleon12

True.

However, and I am not a computer or internet expert, but if 40% of workers and students stayed home sick as is suggested in the article, would not that be enough increased home traffic to slow it down for everyone?

You said what takes up bandwidth is the videos. If everyone is at home watching YouTube and Hulu.... wont that slow things up?

Besides that... would not Internet News and communications SKY ROCKET during a extreme event like a pandemic. Similar to what happened during 9/11/01 with the system overload failure of cell phones. EVERYONE flooded the system seeking communication and information.

Given a worldwide pandemic, is it not logical to assume that the Internet would be affected dramatically?

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:31 AM by grantbeed

what a joke. What about Airport Controls or frickin Mcdonalds controls or huge shopping mall controls.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:32 AM by AllSeeingI

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Skeptic Overlord would flip his lid and sue the feds for being retards, if this happened.

I would expect nothing less from our Benevolent Overlord!

VIVA ATS! VIVA OVERLORD! VIVA!

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:39 AM by Dramey

so what

what are you or anyone going to do about it even if that is the case

let me tell ya

not a damn thing

if a real pandemic happens and anyone even needs to consider such a thing as internet controls, i assure you the world will already be in such a state of chaos that the internet wont even be a thought, food, shelter, medicine, supplies will be the thing on your mind, not worrying about whether or not you can get on ats

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:41 AM by ghaleon12

Hard to determine really since no one hardly is going to have adequate knowledge about internet infrastructure. Maybe it won't even slow, who knows. Even at late night hours with no one online, I never get anywhere near the 4 mbps that is advertised through cable. Load might go from 10% capacity to 30%, in which case not really a problem.

The amount of time people spend on the internet varies so much, so its hard to say what 40% at home would do. It's probably a greater chance that they'd use an "emergency" to put caps on bandwidth for individual users, and change extra for going over your limit. Comcast is already testing this in Texas and New York I think I read. Really a crappy and unpopular move, understated

To go through each and every website determining bandwidth is impractical, but limits for each person is doable.

And no, ATS wouldn't be shut down. This site isn't that important (unless you want to believe that the "TPTB" are monitoring this site extensively since its harming their sleep quality) the bandwidth this site uses is so low and not that many people come here compared to other media/news sites. But sure is exciting conjecture! lets hope it translates into a flurry of clicks.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by ghaleon12]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:49 AM by dgtempe

Is there no end in sight to the stupid irrational excuses issued in thie world???

What does the laboratory made pandemic have to do with the price of tea in China, or the Internet?????

THEY really do want to take us all as prisoners, dont they.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:49 AM by AllSeeingI

reply to post by Dramey

I dont know about you but I rely on the internet as my sole source of News information. I hate TV and news papers. Like any good journalist I require as many varied sources of information I can get my hands on. Ones of MY OWN choosing. Not what someone else wants me to see.

While I agree with you that ATS access does not overshadow my need for health, food, shelter, security, etc.... I feel ATS and the Internet as my connection to the world is invaluable.

If a major event is going down in some other town, the only way I will hear about it is on the Internet.

It is a critical tool for maintaining communications and informational freedom and should not be scoffed at as you have done.

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 02:53 AM by Unregistered

Pandemic = Bandwidth Limitation?

The Internet is the best way to inform others if there is a legitimate pandemic in a country so that they can steer clear from it.

Pandemic which equals to Internet regulation is utter nonsense.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 03:01 AM by honkusbobo

reply to post by Unregistered

Well, I think the theory is that, in such an event, all impediments to emergency communication ought to be seized, in a similar fashion to the Emergency Broadcast System for cable and aerial-based communications in the United States. We would see YouTube shut down, World of Warcraft, etc...news outlets would probably be allowed to remain up. All the stuff you need; none of the stuff you don't.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 03:05 AM by AllSeeingI

Originally posted by Unregistered
Pandemic = Bandwidth Limitation?
Pandemic which equals to Internet regulation is utter nonsense.

Exactly what I thought and what incited me into creating this thread.

The two should not be related.

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 03:10 AM by AllSeeingI

Originally posted by honkusbobo
reply to post by Unregistered

All the stuff you need; none of the stuff you don't.

Exactly! But who gets to decide WHAT we need? Who makes the determination between a news site and something like ATS.

I can see countless websites being unnecessarily shutdown under the blanket of being so-called: stuff YOU dont need... cause the Government says so.

These days YouTube is a major player in news. Everyday people becoming citizen journalists. Many important discoveries and footage have been shared via YouTube. I would be disappointed to see any site shut down.

Because once they start, where does it end?

[edit on (10/28/09) by AllSeeingI]

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 03:11 AM by DataWraith

'Unneccesary' traffic?

More like its time to close down their communiciations so we can't organise a cohesive response to martial law when it is initiated. The best way to beat an army is to stiffle their communications, the phone lines will be jammed with people, look at 9/11 when everyone was on the fones or on their mobiles, look at the backlog and trouble connecting.
Take the net down and theres a block to our freedom of speech.
Unneccesary yeah right, more like 'dangerous' free speech, must be blocked.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 03:12 AM by honkusbobo

reply to post by AllSeeingI

Why not? I think it would be unlikely that the Internet would have bandwidth problems that would prevent emergency messages from getting across but it certainly could happen. Thank God we're just dealing with theoreticals, though.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 03:41 AM by AllSeeingI

Originally posted by DataWraith
'Unneccesary' traffic?

More like its time to close down their communiciations so we can't organise a cohesive response to martial law when it is initiated. The best way to beat an army is to stiffle their communications, the phone lines will be jammed with people, look at 9/11 when everyone was on the fones or on their mobiles, look at the backlog and trouble connecting.
Take the net down and theres a block to our freedom of speech.
Unneccesary yeah right, more like 'dangerous' free speech, must be blocked.

You said it all right there.

To the Elite... ATS must be a communications HUB of dangerous free speech.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:23 AM by Lavey2

the creators of ATS need to cover their ass, they have no idea whats coming in our direction. The last time this happened in 1918 there was a media blackout and it was illegal to report on the epidemic.

reply posted on 28-10-2009 @ 04:28 AM by JJay55

Originally posted by Lavey2
the creators of ATS need to cover their ass, they have no idea whats coming in our direction. The last time this happened in 1918 there was a media blackout and it was illegal to report on the epidemic.

So if the internet shuts down people will stop talking?
The measure is just a part of emergency management.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^