Obama internet "kill switch "bill approved

Obama internet "kill switch "bill approved

www.smh.com.au

The US senators pushing a controversial new bill that some fear would give President Barack Obama the powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet have rejected claims it would give Obama a net "kill switch".

The bill, titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, has been unanimously approved by the US Homeland Security committee and will be put to a vote on the Senate floor shortly.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This scares me S...less! I shudder to think what the rest of the world will do against America if this actually happens. The world depends on the internet for everything, it would be like plunging us back to 1984...hmmmm Orwell, I hear you laughing your arse off.
But seriously everywhere Government must be watching this one like you watch a particularly nasty bug, what do you do, flick it away or squash it?
To the member out there, what do you think is this really just about trying to control the world now we are addicted to the internet or is this some sort of misguided attempt at protecting your own?

www.smh.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is one of the many reasons that the rest of the world hates the United States. The people in power there think that they are leaders of the world. They don't own the internet, so what gives them the right to pass bills such as this one which enables them to shut it down completely?



[edit on 6-25-2010 by CPYKOmega]

reply to post by CPYKOmega


they seem to think that because much of the infrastructure for the net is in US it is theirs do with as they please.
at least thats my understanding of it

Interesting how the article headline seems to imply that this bill has passed. It hasn't. It was approved by a committee, and now goes to the Senate floor for a vote, eventually. Unless it's scuttled by procedural means.

Now, why would anyone want people to think this legislation is a fait accompli? Why, concerned citizens might think that further objections and activism were pointless!

To Americans and Freedom-loving peoples of the world:

We let them take, and take and continue to let them squeeze the life right out of us! We whine, we get in our little tea party picnics, we stand in out town halls shaking with rage fingers pointed, yelling that we have had enough. We threaten to vote them out, as if it really mattered. Have we regained any of our liberties that have been taken away?! Is the government in a position to fear the people?

We have nothing left!

If you think 'we the people' have any power, you must be wrong; because nothing 'we' have done from the aforementioned list has give the people any more power OVER government, or made us any free-er.

I am beginning to think that America is a lost cause. While I used to believe that, to quote Mr.Smith Goes to Washington, that lost causes "were the only causes worth fighting for," I can't say anything we have done has proven much of a fight for those who define the battle and control all the players.



[edit on 25-6-2010 by Wolf321]

This better not happen I work and do class work on the internet.

so what aspect of everyday life does this guy feel he is overstepping ?

he wants to control whether or not we work
how much we make
what we eat
what we do on line
how we vote
how much ENERGY we will be allotted
what kind of health care we receive
he wants to check our emails
he wants to monitor our bank accounts
but he won't defend our borders
he won't let us clean up the oil

FAIL

The bill would not give the President the authority to take over the entire internet, target specific websites or conduct electronic surveillance

Doesnt need to. Communications Act and Patriot Act already cover these.


First of all, didnt the internet actually get created and spawn by the US DOD (ARPANET) and then extend networking tests to colleges? So, yea. We made it, its ours.

Seriously though, this is a really tricky thing.
First, DHS classified anyone not drinking the hypocritical beaurocratic koolaid a potential terrorist (homegrown terrorists).
Just a couple of days ago our dictatorship just gave MPAA/RIAA huge boosts by severely criminalizing file sharing.
Now, they want to monitor the internet for terrorist activity.

So, by proxy, every person on ATS claiming to not be a sheeple and posting ire at the government and Obamanationals is a terrorist and must be dealt with. But first, lets push a few movie and song files to their computer via the 2 ghost ports that microsoft has built into every OS since 98SE so that we can give them the death sentence for file sharing and hating on "the man".

Way to go.

As to the rest of the world. Sorry. Yea, I know. We suck at standing up to these clowns. Hopefully we will grow a pair soon and legion against them and oust this hypocracy of democracy going on in our fair republic.

I wonder if this terrorist actions to the cyberspace has anything to do with this IRAN THING OVER THERE. When the internet gets shut down, you will know that iran is getting bombed. They give OBAMA the kill switch to keep things quiet on here and so terrorist do not mess with the internet. I wonder how long this will last. Also, i wonder what parts of the internet get shut down. Will the whole thing get shut down?

HEY, what about all those people who make a living on the net? I mean think about it, thats alot of jobs lost. NO KIDDING. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SPACE ON A.T.S FOR ME TO COVER THAT.

He can't use it...ever.

I know we all like to say America will never go to war with the world blah blah...but if he killed the internet. The economy in every other country would crumble...do you really think they would allow it?

Every nuke across the world would be pointed in Americas direction and Obama would be forced to undo it. Never mind the fact cutting off the internet is also a death sentence to his own economy.

Even cutting it for a few hours in a terrorist attack would cost countries billions...it just wouldn't be deemed acceptable. And by more rogue nations could be considered an act of cyber terrorism by the government and therefore a declaration of war.


Facing all that...would YOU dare to flick that switch.

reply to post by nite owl


no ebay and Amazon will be open for business and Bing will be redirecting your searches to shopping sites as per usual

I'm guessing stock trading sites will work too

It's ridiculous that he would ever be able to do it. Many people do all their school work online, Athabasca University in Northern Alberta is online only, for one, and costs thousands of dollars per semester. All the people that work online. All the stock trading. Data storage. Banking for rural communities, all online.

Eh. It will just make every single small internet company move to england or somewhere.

If Obama wants to lose businessmen, he can go ahead. Watch how fast those approval ratings fall as all them computer hackers and tech savviests who voted for him ditch their support. If i'd have voted, I'd be in that group.

OK, lets say he does flip the switch. What happens when he flips it back ON? The Internet is too big and wide spread, it has a life of its own. It would take days or even weeks to shut it down right. If it had a HARD SHUT DOWN that would be bad. It could take weeks or months to reboot. Just ask any one here what happens to their computer when it has a HARD SHUT DOWN? It takes a long time to restart sometimes. I have seen desktops take 20 minutes or longer to reboot after a power outage.
Now lets think about how the Internet is used be each of us every day. No Internet and no ATM or credit cards. Power companies could shut down. The list goes on and on. Anyone thinking of shutting now the net had better be really careful how they shut it down and what parts they shut down. The world today have became a slave to the Internet in ways they do not even know of. The Internet is one of those things that maybe should have never been invented but since it has the world has became hooked on it for its very life. I hope some one has done there home work on this before flipping that switch or we all may be sorry.

The president is only helping to destroy his support,and country by passing all these ridiculous laws without our approval. The economy will suffer even greater. I'm starting to think he may be a paranoid schizophrenic. Is this what we need right now?

Sounds to me like their creating an online/aol recession* or depression, take your pic. IM jsut syaing, imagine if obama does click the turn of aol knob....millions would instantly become un imformed, businesses would near or totlay collapse, students woundt be able to continue thier online education, ebay and all online stores would be in terrible shape!
Im thinking,t his bill is in case thier is a serious terrorist threat, adn since they couldnt find a way to shut down aol legally, this is kinda like tv going off the air after a catastrophe..only online.

I heard about this on the MSM news the other night. This is seriously ridiculous! There is no way that he will use it- not unless it's the only option he has.
But
Im not tech-savy enough to understand how this is even possible. Isn't there any easier less infringing way of going about stopping internet 'terrorist' attacks then by giving the Government more power? Can someone explain this to me?

As Ive said, I am not jumping to any conclusions, but as we all do here on ATS, I wonder how, why, and for what purpose? Look how full this administrations' plate is- Why are they pushing every single freedom loving Americans' strictly 'off limits' buttons? And all at once!!!

Originally posted by k0mbination
To the member out there, what do you think is this really just about trying to control the world now we are addicted to the internet or is this some sort of misguided attempt at protecting your own?

Either the article about the bill is disinfo, or the "Myth vs. reality" document about the bill is disinfo. Which is it?

I will have to read the bill to decide. Has anyone read the bill?

hsgac.senate.gov...

Myth v. Reality
The Facts About S. 3480,
“Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010”

WASHINGTON – Ahead of the Thursday, June 24, mark-up of this critical cybersecurity bill, Senators Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Susan Collins, R-Me., its Ranking Member, have issued the following fact sheet describing the intent and impact of their bipartisan legislation. This document also addresses some misconceptions about the bill:
FACTS:
The threat of a catastrophic cyber attack is real. It is not a matter of “if” an attack will happen; rather it is a matter of “when.” Just this March, the Senate’s Sergeant at Arms reported that the computer systems of the Executive Branch agencies and the Congress are now under cyber attack an average of 1.8 BILLION times per month.
Additionally, cyber crime costs our national economy billions of dollars annually. And, as intelligence officials have warned, malicious cyber activity occurs on a daily basis, on an unprecedented scale, and with extraordinary sophistication. As the former Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell testified in
February, “If we went to war today, in a cyber war, we would lose.”

MYTH #1:
S. 3480 authorizes a “kill switch” that would allow the President to shut down the Internet.

REALITY:
Rather than granting a “kill switch,” S. 3480 would make it far less likely for a President to use the broad authority he already has in current law to take over communications networks.
Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to“cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” and “authorize the use of control of any such facility or station” by the Federal government. Exercise of the authority requires no advance notification to Congress and can be authorized if the President proclaims that “a state or threat of war” exists. The authority can be exercised for up to six months after the “state or threat of war” has expired.
The Department of Homeland Security, in testimony before the Committee on June 15, 2010, indicated that Section 706 is one of the authorities the President would rely on if the nation were under a cyber attack.
S. 3480 would bring Presidential authority to respond to a major cyber attack into the 21st century by providing a precise, targeted, and focused way for the President to defend our most sensitive infrastructure.
 The authority in S. 3480 would be limited to 30-day increments and may be extended beyond 120 total days only with Congressional approval.
 The President must use the “least disruptive means feasible” to respond to the threat.
 The authority does not authorize the government to “take over” critical infrastructure.
 It does not authorize any new surveillance authorities.
 The President would be required to provide advance notice to Congress of the intent to declare a national cyber emergency or as soon as possible after a declaration, with reasons why advance notice
was not possible.
 Owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure would be allowed to propose alternative security measures to respond to the national cyber emergency. Once approved by the Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), these security measures could be implemented instead of those previously required to respond to the cyber threat.
 Owner/operators that implement these emergency measures receive limited, civil liability protectionsfor their actions.

MYTH #2:
S. 3480 would give the President the authority to take over the entire Internet.

REALITY:
S. 3480 would direct the President to set risk-based security performance requirements and, in a national cyber emergency, order emergency measures for our nation’s most critical infrastructure - those systems and assets that are most critical to our telecommunications networks, electric grid, financial system, and other components of critical infrastructure.
The bill authorizes only the identification of particular systems or assets – not whole companies, and certainly not the entire Internet. Only specific systems or assets whose disruption would cause a national or regional catastrophe would be subject to the bill’s mandatory security requirements.
To qualify as a national or regional catastrophe, the disruption of the system or asset would have to cause:
 mass casualties with an extraordinary number of fatalities;
 severe economic consequences;
 mass evacuations of prolonged duration; or
 severe degradation of national security capabilities, including intelligence and defense functions.
The bill expressly prohibits the Secretary from identifying systems or assets as covered critical infrastructure “based solely on activities protected by the first amendment of the United States Constitution.” This prohibition would also prevent the identification of specific websites for censorship.The owners/operators of covered critical infrastructure identified by the Secretary could appeal the inclusion of the particular system or asset on the list through administrative procedures.The list of covered critical infrastructure would be developed collaboratively, working with the private
sector.

MYTH #3:
S. 3480 would give the President the authority to conduct electronic surveillance and monitor private networks.

REALITY:.........

I'm not going to copy and paste the whole thing, just the parts most relevant to this thread, you can read the rest yourself if interested.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]