Slashdot Mirror
Emergency Government Control of the Internet?
TheZid writes "A newly proposed bill would give Uncle Sam the power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a 'cyber security emergency.' As usual, our government is trying to take away our privacy by citing security. What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform? What counts as an emergency? Can political opponents be deemed a cyber-security emergency?"
Someone needs emergency control to disconnect Uncle Sam from the internet.
Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform? What counts as an emergency, can political opponents be deemed a cyber security emergency?"
Jesus christ man, leave something for the comments!
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies?
Perhaps he could have a big red button on his desk labelled "BAN", and could amuse himself by disconnecting people that make fun of him? The summary seems a little alarmist...
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.
I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single industry left that doesn't rely heavily on the Internet. Shutting down the Internet is the same as shutting down the economy.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
2. From the actual Bill:
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;
(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security"....
This meaning that basically any government related network such as national power grids, water plants. (Things that don't need to be accessible from the internet to begin with) will be under the control of the president during a time of an emergency.
This doesn't affect the (Internet) as a whole. The internet is not a central computer that sits in a government warehouse with an On/Off button. The internet is a protocol, not an object. Basically it is the collection of various servers and networking devices from all over the world.
You simple can't just "Turn it off" which is what many people are fearing.
So in short, if we the united states was under some kind of Cyber attack, the President could not turn off (Slashdot.org, digg.com, weather.com) but they could control the networks of those that are government related.
I still haven't read through the entire bill yet, but that seems to be the basic summary.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
not only of our basic freedoms that we FOUGHT and DIED for
Then how are you posting?
Look, there are a TON of legitimate complaints about this bill.
Abuse of government powers in violation of free speech for political gain, etc, shouldn't be included. Those issues have already been addressed... the federal government already has the ability to step in and limit free speech in private channels if there is clear and present danger. The potential for abuse is already there, and has been there all along. This bill in no way affects that.
Your ridiculous leading questions detract from the real issues, which are outlined in TFA (for people that oppose a bill like this).
IMO, instead of "ZOMGWTF Totalitarian State Abusing Government Powers for Political Gain!", the real issue here is that critical infrastructure is in the hands of private for-profit corporations. These companies have the ability to hamstring the US economically through unilateral action (or even by accident). Critical infrastructure should be nationalized, in my opinion, or at the very least very closely supervised to ensure it is secure.
But I imagine that my views are contrary to the majority of slashdotters, and I expect to be modded into oblivion. No one wants the goobermint in their internets, even when oversight is necessary to maintain the integrity of our economy (such as it is), especially in the face of a directed and concerted attack on that infrastructure.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I gotta go start chiseling naked women into rocks as a backup solution!
Monstar L
otherwise I might see some posts with wildly hysterical hypotheses of what is for sure gonna happen that have nothing to do with the actual bill in the article.
Judging from the appearance of some criminals, it doesn't seem likely that's always the camera's fault.
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
Yup... It won't be "the end" until the government stops abiding by the election results (or starts fixing the elections). After that point, there's really no going back sans violence.
I keep having this crazy idea that I should run for president in '12. It would be the "Kick the Politicians Out of Washington" campaign. I keep wondering if enough people are fed up enough with the establishment that a movement to kick them all out and replace them with "normal" people would actually work.
My agenda:
- Constitutional amendment: single-issue bills only. (reduce pork and make reps accountable for everything they vote on instead of being able to hide behind a "must pass" bill)
- Constitutional amendment: 10 year sunset clause on ALL federal laws. (create an upper bound on the number of laws that the federal gov't can maintain)
- Move elections to an instant-run-off system so voters don't feel they have to try to game the system
- Move election day to July 4th. More people vote because they're off work. Can celebrate *getting* freedom and *keeping* it.
That should get us some REAL change!
Q: Can the the province of Gaul secede from the Roman Empire?
A: No the Roman Senate and Emperor determined they cannot, but they did it anyway circa 460 A.D.
Q: Can the American colonies secede from the British Empire?
A: No the British Parliament determined they cannot, but they did it anyway.
Q: Can members states like the UK secede from the European Union?
A: The EU probably would say no, but the outcome depends if the UK has a bigger army or not.
POINT:
Secession is not a matter of law, but a matter of force. He who has the most force determines the outcome. If the Southern states had been better organized and won, the U.S. Supreme Court could have issued all the verdicts they wanted, but it would not have changed anything. I recall at one point the U.S. Supremes said it was illegal to deport the Indians living in Alabama to Oklahoma, due to existing U.S. treaties, but the sitting president said, "They made their ruling; now let's see them enforce it," and he did it anyway. In cases like this force rules, not men in robes.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall