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.

 

New bill strips president’s power to shut off Internet

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Raw Story (Please follow link to read full news article.)

WASHINGTON – A bipartisan trio of senators has introduced a new cybersecurity bill that eliminates the president's authority to switch off the Internet.

The "kill switch," as it's known, exists in the 1934 Telecommunications Act, which was amended in 1996. It gives the president powers to shut off all regulated telecommunications if he or she deems it vital to national security interests.

But that's not going to fly any more, say Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

The three senators on Thursday introduced The Cybersecurity Freedom Act of 2011, which would take away the president's power to shut off the Internet.


I did a search, but couldn't find this story posted.

Although this bill looks good, it may be shot down. I dont think the president should have the authority to shut down the internet ever! I believe a free flow of information should be available at all times, even in an event of an emergency. I really hope this bill gets bipartisan support!

Another snip.

The measure states that "neither the president, the director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, nor any other officer or employee of the federal government should have the authority to shut down the Internet."

Lieberman said part of the purpose was to clear up controversy surrounding cybersecurity legislation he introduced last year, which was mistakenly thought to have created a kill switch but merely limited the president's ability to use the feature.

"We want to clear the air once and for all," said Lieberman, the chairman of the Homeland Security committee. "...There is no so-called 'kill switch' in our legislation because the very notion is antithetical to our goal of providing precise and targeted authorities to the president."


Although this bill only limits the shutdown, it still allows people to access finances and emergency information. I am still opposed to this 'Kill switch' because it would be an attack on free speech regardless of the reason why it would be shut down.




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
We all know the only reason why they would use a kill switch is an event of an uprising here in the USA. This would be a move to prevent organization between groups of people. But the thing is the internet isnt the only way of communication between groups.

It is one of the simple ways of communication because not everyone has access to a HAM radio.

Its possible without the internet, plus if they cut off the internet one day all the computer addicts will step outside for the first time in a long time.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Exactly right. The Kill Switch has absolutely no positive effects for the people or the security of the nation. It would merely be a ploy to supress citizens from accessing information and communications.

Regardless of the national situation, I don't think it is ever relevant for one single man to have authority over the status of the internet. What possible good can come from that?

Great find, and thank you for sharing.


Note.........the internet in the US is not "regulated" so how does the 1934 telecommunications act affect current internet?
edit on 20-2-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 




Note.........the internet in the US is not "regulated" so how does the 1934 telecommunications act affect current internet?


Ah but it now does. The FCC, as everyone remembers, voted on the net neutrality issue a few months ago. link. What this did was stick the big fat federal regulation foot into the internet regulation issue. What the regulations actually do is up for debate but the simple fact remains that the decision was to regulate "land-line broadband providers" (for our own protection).

As such any legislation coming out of Washington should be considered suspect if it's longer than one page, something like "The internet and all access by any individual that purchases the connection shall not be interfered with by any private or public agency", which of course this bill does not do in any way shape or form. link



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by billxam
 


Thank you very much. I obviously was not aware of this.

Off to read link now.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
How many "National Security Letters" did President Bush mail to people to force them to shut off their websites? Anything dissident/hate/outspoke has already been turned off.

How many of those Letters has Obama mailed to Americans to force them off the net?

You'd be surprised at the numbers. Congress is just trying to look good with this bill which will never pass.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
The White House knows already that it alone cannot shut the web off as it is bigger then any single nation and way too much of the GDP relies on it.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Someone wanted the kill-switch here in the US,but decries the use of the killswitch in places like Egypt and Algeria. What madness. But as long as people don't challenge it, it will continue.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
How many "National Security Letters" did President Bush mail to people to force them to shut off their websites? Anything dissident/hate/outspoke has already been turned off.

How many of those Letters has Obama mailed to Americans to force them off the net?

You'd be surprised at the numbers. Congress is just trying to look good with this bill which will never pass.


Not to be real partisan about this, but ummm bunches of domains were shut down by this admin. You gotta get better informed. Oh yes, and many of them were conservative blogs.

Heres a link to the one where they shut down 73,000 blogs torrentfreak.com...
and heres an article dated Feb 17,2011 where the admin shut down 84,000 web sites, supposedly mistakenly
www.evilconservativeonline.com...

You might want to revise your thinking on your premise
edit on 21-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Does it matter either way. We have the tech to knockout the internet in a heartbeat and even though the prez wouldn't have the sole decision, if they/he wants to shut it down then they'll do it regardless. The whole proposition on either side is just more waste of tax dollars.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
anything that Joe Liberman (Zionist) is involved with
has an ulterior motive and this legislation is not different.
While many here may see this as a good thing,
it could have some bad complications for America.
Keeping the internet on even during a national
emergency allows foreign spies to communicate
outside the continental US. Thus allowing encrypted
messages and instructions to be sent to covert
Mossad Ops. Ole Joe Lieberman doesn't want
his Zionist spies cut off from communication
should the president get a wild hair to turn it off.

The only reason why Ole Joe is bringing this up
now is because Mossad spies were in the dark
with no orders when Egypt's Mubarek cut off
internet and cell phone service. Not all spies have
sat phones. Plus Sat phones are easier to trace
by intelligence services. It's safer to hide in plain
site with all the other cell phone traffic.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join