Kiss Your Internet Goodbye!

Dont give the Terrorists any Ideas!

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Too bad there ain't much teachin' goin' on in school these days.

Anyone interested in learning more about how the internet can be controlled should check out China and the way they deal with it. In order to understand, you must think as the criminal. If you can't do that, you'll never grasp the depths of their criminality.

HAHAHAHaha I'm sorry but that is just funny. I spent 2 years working in internet security for a tier 1 ISP. The majority of compromised servers beign used for network attacks traced back to Asia. Their idea of network security is locking the server in a room but leaving every port opened on the box.

As for Porn on the net.. well, sad to say but if it were not for porn the internet would not be NEARLY as prolific in it's technology and use as it is today. As unacceptable as the subject is, it is undenable that it brings in money. I have known ISP's whos customer base was 90% porn and those companies grew into major players in the Tier 1 market.

Some have commented on "The Internet" as if it were a single amorphious entity that can be turned on or shut off. This is not the case, it is a number of indepentantly run and owned networks from arround the world who have public and private peering connections with multible other networks. Routing tables are designed to automaticly reroute traffic should any given area fail or even be too congested. You can null 0 blocks of addresses but all they need to do is be multihomed with a secondary or tirshiary network and run BGP to keep their network reachable.

The government attempted to place Rapter boxes on our netwrk at one time when i worked for the private Tier 1 ... it did not fly and soon the traffic .. magicly was routed arround it... you know why? Becasue routing engineers manipulated the paths.

No single government is going to kill the internet, the people and the companies will not allow it because it would backlash to the need of limiting communications to the point of the pony express.

And to cap it off... as for biblical end of days... past 200 years? People have been preparing for the destrction of mankind by a wrathfull angry god ever since the conception of organized religion in one way or annother. It is not an orriginal idea, and the bible is probibly the least orriginal one of them all. But this is not a forum for theological debate.

Wraith

As I said before, you know the future as well as I or anyone else does. It does no good to deride the faith of millions because you happen not to believe it.

When the end draws nigh, your internet is the last thing you're gonna be thinkin about..

Regarding China.. they control what their people are allowed to view online. In that sense, its no good. Unless you enjoy swallowing government pablum (like a good many people here seem to).

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
As I said before, you know the future as well as I or anyone else does. It does no good to deride the faith of millions because you happen not to believe it.

When the end draws nigh, your internet is the last thing you're gonna be thinkin about..

Regarding China.. they control what their people are allowed to view online. In that sense, its no good. Unless you enjoy swallowing government pablum (like a good many people here seem to).

Controling the people and inforcing law to allow or deny one thing or annother is quite differant from removing what you are attempting to controle.

Case in point Proabition. Make it illegal and you will just have raise in internet speakeasys, a new breed of organized crime, and everything that comes with it.

Your right, I do know the future as well as anyone, but I pay a great deal of attention to the past and that allows me a bit more insight to the probible future than those who do not. I simply will not live my life in fear becasue I am told of what may be.

(now, if only I could spell as well as others .. but.. such is life... no?)

wraith

i just konw, the place i live in,many web sites i can't access .such as something about sex,it is violate the law to look through them.

Isnt it possible the goverment would use another approach to their problem.
I mean dont u think they have a whole armada of computer scientists/programmers etc. to design some special programs freaky viruses and stuff to be unleashed when neccesary and blame those things on terrorists.They could disable sites which they think are too near the truth etc.

We have to keep in mind that the resources of the secret/goverment are really advanced and flexible.While most people here on the site (and elswehere) expect it through obvious/known ways.
These guys are gonna be a few steps ahead of you with their information gathering/research and thinktanks.

This is one of the reasons i think that they simply have grown to powerfull to be stopped. And they are getting more powerfull every minute with only one goal in mind.Complete domination of the mass and the world.

Originally posted by xiaohu
i just konw, the place i live in,many web sites i can't access .such as something about sex,it is violate the law to look through them.

Where do you live, xiaohu?

Originally posted by motionknight


Isnt it possible the goverment would use another approach to their problem.
I mean dont u think they have a whole armada of computer scientists/programmers etc. to design some special programs freaky viruses and stuff to be unleashed when neccesary and blame those things on terrorists.They could disable sites which they think are too near the truth etc.

We have to keep in mind that the resources of the secret/goverment are really advanced and flexible.While most people here on the site (and elswehere) expect it through obvious/known ways.
These guys are gonna be a few steps ahead of you with their information gathering/research and thinktanks.

This is one of the reasons i think that they simply have grown to powerfull to be stopped. And they are getting more powerfull every minute with only one goal in mind.Complete domination of the mass and the world.

Exactly. I don't mean to be an A$$hole, but those folks who think the government CAN'T cripple our internet use, among other things, do not grasp the extent of our government/military's power and capabilities. Military research and technology is at least 20 years ahead of what the common masses are even aware of.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Exactly. I don't mean to be an A$$hole, but those folks who think the government CAN'T cripple our internet use, among other things, do not grasp the extent of our government/military's power and capabilities. Military research and technology is at least 20 years ahead of what the common masses are even aware of.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

In alot of things yes i would say thtat the government technology is more advanced that in the public. Aviation, armour, etc etc etc..

The internet was a result of the arpanet for government communications given.

Now.. if the government wanted to shut down a specific site.. yes there are ways, DDOS, null0, blackholes, hell if I wanted to drop half the east coast all I woudl have to do woudl be to broadcast a BGP statement claiming to have authority over 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 (remember that BGP announcements use wildcard not subnet masks) however this will only last long enough for the local ISP to see it and then null0 my connection and let the tables stabalize.

Thing is, I have worked with 14 year olds who can bounce sites, off servers from wisconson, up to Canada, off of a server in Russia. I can't tell you how man times I tried to have an illegal porn server shut down only to find out that it traces to a server housed in a country where it is not illegal. I have seen 16 year olds write virus and mutate existing virus code to make a monitor catch on fire, hard disks eat themselfs, and bunny worms that pop up a smily faces that bounce about your monitor and that spew insults every time you click your mouse.

If the governmet makes it illegal to go to site "X" becasue of whatever reason it does not mean that the site is shut down and thus I guarntee you that there is someone able to get arround any legal blocks that the governmet has placed.

The governmet can limit some use.. they can make it illegal... but nothing short of a massive world action or electromagnetic event will get rid of it.

How many people on the East coast had access to the internet last year during the big blackout?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
How many people on the East coast had access to the internet last year during the big blackout?

How many dead people logged onto yahoo last year and had meaningfull conversations?

How many people who were in the hospital in a coma took advantage of their favorite chats last year?

Are you possibly suggesting that the government will destroy itself just to keep people from accessing a few sites that it thinks is naughty? Is the government still planting mini transmiters in the blades of grass in your yard to keep tabs on you?

wraith

Wraith, broaden your mind a bit.. to the criminal-sociopathic scale, that is. I take it from your response I hit a nerve. Which is my point. No power. No internet. For most people anyway. Think the government won't pull the plug? Think one more big terror attack and the government won't target the net? Think again!

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Wraith, broaden your mind a bit.. to the criminal-sociopathic scale, that is. I take it from your response I hit a nerve. Which is my point. No power. No internet. For most people anyway. Think the government won't pull the plug? Think one more big terror attack and the government won't target the net? Think again!

My wife is a forensic psychologist.. trust me I hear about the criminal-sociopath all the time.

It's not that you hit a nerve, it's just that your example was unrealistic boardering on paranoid. No I don't think the government will pull the plug because it will result in greater chaos than can be managed. Annother Terror attack will obvious have an effect and likly further limit our cival liberties more than they already are, the common person will be watched and those in power will use these "protective" measures to enforce their will and quest for power, but I do not think that it will result in a removal of the internet as a whole. It will not result in total loss of power, it will not result in total thought policeing.

The terrorist can use the internet to disrupt commerce if done correctly however there are enough differant networks to keep trafic floods in check. you will lose some AOL, Yahoo, MSNBC, the major news players will be flooded and unusable but if you know how the smaller sites with mirrors and news boards will be accessable.

Internet and the passing of information may be manipulated.. may be managed.. but will not be removed is all I am saying.

Wraith

Originally posted by wraith30

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

It's not that you hit a nerve, it's just that your example was unrealistic boardering on paranoid. No I don't think the government will pull the plug because it will result in greater chaos than can be managed.

But Wraith.. Bordering on paranoid? Not at all. Assume, at that time, martial law is the law of the land. Remember, as Gen. Tommy Franks predicted (in Cigar Aficianado) we are one massive terror attack away from that awful societal control.

I do not think that it will result in a removal of the internet as a whole. It will not result in total loss of power, it will not result in total thought policeing.

Under those circumstances, I assure you, we will lose whatever the government sees fit to take. WACO and Ruby Ridge should instruct all in the pre-eminent and merciless power of the Federal government.

Internet and the passing of information may be manipulated.. may be managed.. but will not be removed is all I am saying.

If the unthinkable should befall this nation, whatever internet is left will be totally underground and very dangerous to use; or, it will be highly monitered and controlled.

Please excuse the length of the citation. It's notable in that someone here saw this coming.

news.com.com...

March 3, 2005, 4:00 AM PT
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and
online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk
the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's
Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing
list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election
Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a
controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.

In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. "The
commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated
communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's
purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the
Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get the three Democrats
to go along with them, what Smith describes as a "bizarre" regulatory
process now is under way.

CNET News.com spoke with Smith about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, and its forthcoming extrusion
onto the Internet.

Q: What rules will apply to the Internet that did not before?
A: The commission has generally been hands-off on the Internet. We've said,
"If you advertise on the Internet, that's an expenditure of money--much like
if you were advertising on television or the newspaper."

Do we give bloggers the press exemption? The real question is: Would a link
to a candidate's page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links
to their favorite politician, is that a contribution? This is a big deal, if
someone has already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're at the
disclosure threshold and additional expenditures have to be disclosed under
federal law.

Certainly a lot of bloggers are very much out front. Do we give bloggers the
press exemption? If we don't give bloggers the press exemption, we have the
question of, do we extend this to online-only journals like CNET?

How can the government place a value on a blog that praises some politician?
How do we measure that? Design fees, that sort of thing? The FEC did an
advisory opinion in the late 1990s (in the Leo Smith case) that I don't
think we'd hold to today, saying that if you owned a computer, you'd have to
calculate what percentage of the computer cost and electricity went to
political advocacy.

It seems absurd, but that's what the commission did. And that's the
direction Judge Kollar-Kotelly would have us move in. Line drawing is going
to be an inherently very difficult task. And then we'll be pushed to go
further. Why can this person do it, but not that person?

How about a hyperlink? Is it worth a penny, or a dollar, to a campaign?
I don't know. But I'll tell you this. One thing the commission has argued
over, debated, wrestled with, is how to value assistance to a campaign.

Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns. Suppose a corporation
devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out
letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we
value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent,
maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken
the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be
difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very
quickly.

Then what's the real impact of the judge's decision?
The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any
coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a
minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it
will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services.

They're exempt from regulation only because of the press exemption. But
people have been arguing that the Internet doesn't fit

Continued ...

1 | 2 | Next>>

(continued from previous page)

under the press exemption. It becomes a really complex issue that would
strike deep into the heart of the Internet and the bloggers who are writing
out there today. (Editor's note: federal law limits the press exemption to a
"broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical
publication." )


How do you see this playing out?
There's sensitivity in the commission on this. But remember the commission's
decision to exempt the Internet only passed by a 4-2 vote.

This time, we couldn't muster enough votes to appeal the judge's decision.
We appealed parts of her decision, but there were only three votes to appeal
the Internet part (and we needed four). There seem to be at least three
commissioners who like this.

Then this is a partisan issue?
Yes, it is at this time. But I always point out that partisan splits tend to
reflect ideology rather than party. I don't think the Democratic
commissioners are sitting around saying that the Internet is working to the
advantage of the Republicans.

One of the reasons it's a good time to (fix this) now is you don't know
who's benefiting. Both the Democrats and Republicans used the Internet very
effectively in the last campaign.

What would you like to see happen?
I'd like someone to say that unpaid activity over the Internet is not an
expenditure or contribution, or at least activity done by regular Internet
journals, to cover sites like CNET, Slate and Salon. Otherwise, it's very
likely that the Internet is going to be regulated, and the FEC and Congress
will be inundated with e-mails saying, "How dare you do this!"

What happens next?
It's going to be a battle, and if nobody in Congress is willing to stand up
and say, "Keep your hands off of this, and we'll change the statute to make
it clear," then I think grassroots Internet activity is in danger. The
impact would affect e-mail lists, especially if there's any sense that
they're done in coordination with the campaign. If I forward something from
the campaign to my personal list of several hundred people, which is a great
grassroots activity, that's what we're talking about having to look at.

Senators McCain and Feingold have argued that we have to regulate the
Internet, that we have to regulate e-mail. They sued us in court over this
and they won.

If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC
have to target?
We're talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a
political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass
e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet.

Again, blogging could also get us into issues about online journals and
non-online journals. Why should CNET get an exemption but not an informal
blog? Why should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should Nytimes.com and
Opinionjournal.com get an exemption but not online sites, just because the
newspapers have a print edition as well?

Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and online media?
Because the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's not clear
the Internet is either of those. Second, because there's no standard for
being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the
deregulated Internet that the judge objected to. Also I think some of my
colleagues on the commission would be uncomfortable with that kind of
blanket exemption.

So if you're using text that the campaign sends you, and you're reproducing
it on your blog or forwarding it to a mailing list, you could be in trouble?
Yes. In fact, the regulations are very specific that reproducing a
campaign's material is a reproduction for purpose of triggering the law.
That'll count as an expenditure that counts against campaign finance law.

This is an incredible thicket. If someone else doesn't take action, for
instance in Congress, we're running a real possibility of serious Internet
regulation. It's going to be bizarre.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
How many people on the East coast had access to the internet last year during the big blackout?

I did for about 4 hours after it started, it took Comcast about 30 mins to get there servers back up on Generators, but after about 4-5 hours the on the pole Amps started dieing off and we lost it again.

Another inportant thing to think about is that if the goberment shut down the internet, do you relize what that would do to unemployment? There are 100's of thouslands of internet people out there that would loose there jobs, IT, Mcse, CCNA, Java and Html programers, AntiVirus software, and the list go's on and on, not to mention that 100's of thouslands of people that work for Companys that make PC and internet hardware would be laying off left and right. And with out the demand for computers companys like MicroJoke, intel, and AMD would not have any large profits do to the fact that no one will want a computer(Geek's and nerds and hard Core Gammers excluded) so there would be no more great advancement in computer tec for a long time. This then flows right to the NYSE and if the Tec stocks take a Major Hit the rest of the market will fall with it also.

As for the small privet networks and people trying to rebuild the net after such an event would take place, don't you think the pone company would be more then a little suspisos(spelling?) if you called up a few days after the net went down and ordered 4 phone line's. As for wireless networks, i don't trust them at all. Granted i'm on my lap top on a wires less connection but i don't use it for any thing but web brousing. Granted there may be a few people in yer hood that have computers and you can hook up a small wired net work but you still would be limited to that small little net. As for satlite networks , you best belive they would defently encrypt the $h*t out of the feeds. It would take a wile for some one to break these feeds and then the FCC can find any one who is sending out satlite singles and put a stop to that perty quickly.

All in all if the internet goes down we have a much bigger problem to worry about then. But i'm not gonna go into details on that.

Please forgive my spelling it's 2:30 am here.

Originally posted by Noumenon
It's going to be bizarre.

indeed. as if it isn't bizarre enough, already, yeah? great post. nice to have some more actual brains here(as opposed to the parrots of the opposition).

I'm sure we've all seen the reports in recent days about folks becoming more and more disenchanted with mainstream media outlets and moving towards gathering their news off the web. This has got to be heavy on the minds of our media moguls. It wouldn't surprise me at all if in the not-so-distant future, at their behest, our government moved to enact some kind of legislation to control the flow of news content. Just a thot.

i hope they can hold off on dismantling (tiering) internet access for just a few more years- but the end is in sight definitely.

More liberties will be taken away in the name of the Scrub-loving 'publicans in the next 4 years- there are many ramifications of the 'Patriot act' that can be hornswaggled by Homeland Security.

For instance if you break a federal or state law- then you may lose your citizenship- (currently 1 in 32 are imprisoned or on parole in the US)

any information gathering i.e reporters could be seen as an act of terrorism- so just listen to the news (like you do now) and believe what the government tells ya'

Martha Stuart ain't nothing compared to the 3 nuns who broke into a MinutemanIII area and bled on the cover- and went to prison for 30 to 41 months. gzcenter.org It takes nuns to do the dirty work of dissenting effectively because the general public is just not willing to take the risk of arrest anymore- the real problem is apathy and fanatacism.(and lack of money for a license and short-wave radio 1000 watts)

Great stuff all the way up to and NOT including terroists.

Dallas